edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Ghahraman GolrizGOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN (Green): Thank you Mr Speaker. I rise in support of these bills. As others have said they may not be super-fun bills to debate but it is exciting I think for us all as lawmakers and for me as a once-practising lawyer to know that Parliament is keeping an eye on how accessible and knowable the law is for the general population.It might be surprising for members of the public to know that we haven't thus far had a consistent coherent definition of what is secondary legislation. Secondary legislation—being effectively regulations that affect our lives at that level where we live where higher-level legislation may not reach—hasn't until now been well defined. It has been defined across different pieces of legislation. It has as the Law Commission has pointed out included disallowable pieces of secondary legislation that make it harder for the public to know their rights to know the mechanisms by which their lives are being regulated and standards that have been set.This is an exciting piece of law. It consolidates the definition of secondary legislation and the way by which it can be interpreted. It makes that body of law that is actually really significant in affecting people's everyday lives more accessible by requiring that it be also published online. Again I think it's surprising to note that that wasn't already being done. We do have a really good accessible online archive of primary legislation but of course primary legislation sits sort of above everything and its interpretation is done by the courts. It's not often clear enough the way that it actually affects our everyday lives without that access to secondary legislation which is allowed to be made pursuant to the primary legislation. Making regulations both in definition knowable and in content and substance knowable to members of the public is really really important especially in the current context of our sort of information highway. Making these laws actually accessible online where people do also essentially live without having to go and access them in some lofty building elsewhere—and how would people even know? The fact that our law is becoming clearer it's being modernised and it's becoming far more accessible to members of the public is exciting and it means that we are closer to providing a rule of law system that is truly democratic as well. I commend the bills to the House.
Smith NickHon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): These legislative bills are just another example of the strong practical reforms that the former National Government developed that is now progressing through its legislative changes. I want to particularly acknowledge Chris Finlayson. Not only was Chris a superb lawyer but he had a very practical sense of the importance of making sure that our laws and regulations were as accessible and as understandable to the public as possible.All the time we are passing laws and regulations almost like a factory and it is so useful to have a systematic approach to making sure that we're not just piling laws upon laws but we actually are continuously tidying up the law books and making it as accessible as possible. I'm particularly delighted by the provisions in these bills that are going to enable the full set of not just Acts of Parliament—the primary legislation—but actually the regulations that have the greatest effect on everyday New Zealanders to be made so much more accessible and it's also really important for our role as legislators to see that full book of law to inform our process of reform.If there is a fair and valid criticism of this Parliament it is that we spend heaps of time passing new laws without actually looking at the old laws old regulations that need to be repealed. The provisions in these bills that provide for a far more systematic approach to managing the overall law book of both primary legislation and secondary regulations is not the sort of law that's going to make the front page of the newspaper. It's not going to get constituents super-excited but it is about the practical improvements to our lawmaking system that is good for New Zealanders and actually equally important for New Zealand businesses.I commend the legislation to the House. It's a good bit of work. It's about making our legal system more accessible for the average member of the public and it is going to result in a whole lot of practical elements that make our system of law work better for this country.
Ball DarrochDARROCH BALL (NZ First): Thank you Mr Speaker. It's a pleasure to rise on behalf of New Zealand First in support of the Legislation Bill and the Legislation (Repeals and Amendments) Bill. As has been mentioned these are quite technical bills and they are somewhat dry but it's has been my experience in this House that the more technical and dry bills are often the most important. They are often the most important. However I don't intend to traverse all of the changes in these bills because they are quite numerous although they are important. They have been detailed by the Minister and other speakers in this House and it's obviously a bipartisan piece of legislation which is always good to see but not always as fun to debate in the House. None the less I'd just like to thank the Minister for bringing this bill to the House and also the hard-working select committee that had to traverse through the details of this bill and make any of the recommendations that they did and bring them to the House which we are debating at the moment.First of all just in brief what this legislation does is it brings together law relating to legislation to ensure New Zealand's laws are easy to find which is obviously one of the most important aspects of this legislation. There is no logic in having the law there for the public of New Zealand if it's hard for them to find first of all but also hard for them to understand. It's to ensure that the legislation itself is of high quality so it brings it up to speed and fixes up any issues in that regard.It rewrites and replaces the Legislation Act 2012 and re-enacts the Interpretation Act 1999 combining the two into one Act. So as has been mentioned for the first time New Zealand law identifies clearly what secondary legislation is and therefore what this House has oversight over. It provides for improved access of legislation and absorbs the Interpretation Act 1999 with a small number of technical improvements.The reforms of the framework for secondary legislation in these bills will deliver three broad benefits. The first is establishing for the first time a clear category of instruments that are secondary legislation; secondly stating explicitly in law for the first time the category of instruments over which this House has oversight; and third laying the foundation for gradually improving access to the whole body of secondary legislation.As I said in my opening comments it's important in a robust democracy to ensure that the legislation that the people of this country have access to is up to date is easy to use and is easy to access. Although these are technical bills and dry bills and perhaps not the most fun to debate they are very important and that's why New Zealand First will be commending these bills to the House. Thank you Mr Speaker.
Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you Mr Speaker for this opportunity to speak on the Legislation Bill a law about the law. We've got an exercise in front of us of improving access to the law seeking to make it more open and transparent. Admittedly the phrase open and transparent" has lost a lot of "Curran C"—that much is "Clare". However we can nevertheless observe that it's a worthwhile endeavour to ensure that those who are subject to the law have an opportunity to find it and understand it. So that much is a worthy aim and it's no surprise to the House therefore that we on this side have been supporting it as my colleague the Hon Mark Mitchell has already made very clear. Accessibility to the law is a key aspect of the rule of law. This has been traversed somewhat at length already at previous stages and readings of the legislation so I don't intend to go back there in much detail except to note that enabling compliance with the law facilitates its enforcement. The obvious corollary of members of the public being able to know how the law applies to them means that we can say that they must obey it or else suffer the consequences as set out in that law. Another worthy aim of this piece of legislation is that it folds into its arms the Interpretation Act. Given that finding the law and understanding it are effectively two acts of the same play it is worth doing those two different things together in the same space and that is exactly what we are doing here today. Also I'd just note as I prepare to draw to a close that the website legislation.govt.nz is an excellent resource. We are in the pursuit of making it even more excellent even more worthy and even more worthwhile indeed. So I bring to a close my contribution by just acknowledging all those involved across a couple of Governments: Christopher Finlayson QC among others previously and now the current Government's had the good sense and taste to pick up that work and continue with it such that now—through the Justice Committee and with the Regulations Review Committee also having had a look at it and now the whole House—we move towards passing it. So it's a pleasure to join with others on this side of the House in doing exactly that."
Smith Nick; Reti ShaneHon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member who just spoke made a quite offensive remark accusing myself of racial profiling something that I find deeply offensive. The issue at stake is with respect to an incident that occurred in the Justice Committee. I seek the leave of the House to table the minutes of the Justice Committee in respect of the controversial decision that was made to block the submission that was sought by Anne-Marie Brady from the University of Canterbury. So I'm seeking leave to table the minutes of the Justice Committee on the issue to which Mr Huo was referring.TEMPORARY SPEAKER (Dr Shane Reti): We'll deal with two matters here: first of all the allegation that a member may have brought the House into disrepute. I have discussed it with the Clerk and I agree. I will ask the member Raymond Huo to stand withdraw and apologise for the allegations he made coming from select committee. The member will withdraw and apologise. Raymond Huo: I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is not allegation. It's been fully recorded and it's been debated publicly. TEMPORARY SPEAKER (Dr Shane Reti): Thank you. I have made a decision. Raymond Huo: Yes. TEMPORARY SPEAKER (Dr Shane Reti): You've withdrawn and apologised. That matter is finished. To draw to the second matter you wish to table the minutes? Hon Dr Nick Smith: I seek the leave of the House to table the minutes of the Justice Committee in respect of the decision of the committee to decline the opportunity for the Canterbury University academic to be able to make a submission to the electoral law inquiry which subsequently led to the resignation of the Justice Committee chair. TEMPORARY SPEAKER (Dr Shane Reti): Thank you. I'll take advice from the Clerk. The advice is that the minutes may still be confidential but we're happy to put the leave to the House and leave it to the House. Leave is sought for the minutes of the select committee to be tabled in the House. Is there any objection? There is an objection. Leave is not given. Thank you. We'll continue.
Mitchell MarkMARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): Thank you Mr Speaker. It's a pleasure to stand and take a call on this Legislation Bill and the Legislation (Repeals and Amendments) Bill. Can I acknowledge the Minister and thank her for talking with such great passion to bills that are highly technical. But of course it is a piece of National Party legislation and could I also acknowledge her in the comments that she made around the Hon Chris Finlayson because as we all know he has a huge legal mind and brain and I personally miss his wit and humour in the House; so can I acknowledge him. This is another piece of—like I said another very good piece of National Party legislation. I'm just wondering and with bated breath every day and every sitting week I wait for the Hon Willie Jackson to bring some of his legislation into the House. So you know I don't know if that'll happen before the end of the year. We'll have to wait and see. Hon Willie Jackson: I need a promotion. Hon MARK MITCHELL: Can I just say—what was that? Needs a promotion? Well it was a front-bench speech I have to say. His earlier speech was a front-bench speech without a doubt. This is a bill that will make it easier to find and access secondary legislation by requiring it to be published on the New Zealand Legislation website alongside Acts of Parliament creating a single official public source for New Zealand legislation. This is a very good bill. The bill actually concludes the Government's implementation of the recommendations made by the Law Commission in 2008 regarding the Presentation of New Zealand Statute Law. It does make it easier. I'm very happy to stand and take a call in support of these bills. Thank you.
Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you Mr Speaker for this opportunity to speak on the third and final reading of the Corrections Amendment Bill. It's probably worth acknowledging for the sake of the record that there is some positive work reflected in this bill and as such we can support a certain amount of it but other colleagues on this side of the House have outlined—as I intend also to outline at least briefly—some other aspects of the bill which we feel unable to support and therefore will not be supporting the bill as a whole in that third and final reading.On that note it's worth perhaps giving an example of something that I regard as a positive move: the regime to triage prisoners which of course already does take place has been amended to include an assessment of the risk of self-harm of a prisoner and I think that's something that I think I'm right in saying that at select committee and at all other stages there's been little or no debate as to the merits of that on either side of the House. So it's worth noting for the record that there is a positive aspect in that regard.As for the letter writing provisions that's obviously a topic of some current political interest given particular cases that we don't need to necessarily traverse again and I don't feel moved to do so in the context of this bill. So we'll move on except to say that providing clarity in relation to the rules under which correspondence can be sent out of prison is a helpful thing to be done so that the department can administer those rules effectively. And of course the onus will be on them to do that administration properly but at the very least as a legislative body we can provide those rules to the best of our ability.What's in and what's not in the bill is of course of an interest. Much has been said already about the rehabilitation plan. On this side of the House we've said that we would have preferred a faster and better evolution of the move towards rehabilitative practices—Hon Clare Curran: It's already in the bill.CHRIS PENK: —but I won't rehash that any more for fear of failing to live up to the Hon Clare Curran's high expectations in terms of debate.I will just close by noting in relation to police cells that we do believe that it's possible that these may be needed in the future. Of course it would be better if that were not so and in the context overall of justice sector reform that's been somewhat lacking. What we actually need is faster processing times so that those who are accused of crimes are determined to be innocent or guilty more quickly and therefore there is less demand for remand so to speak. So on that note I'll conclude my remarks and with that I think from this side of the House noting overall that for the reason we've all outlined we are unable to support the bill at this the third and final reading.Greg O'Connor: Mr Speaker?TEMPORARY SPEAKER (Dr Shane Reti): Greg O'Connor.
Bakshi Kanwaljit SinghKANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): Thank you Mr Speaker. I would first of all like to clarify that National is opposing this bill in the third reading. The previous speaker the Hon Willie Jackson was really passionate about rehabilitation. But this bill does nothing. I would like to acknowledge the Hon Louise Upston our very strong woman leader from Waikato who had that passion. She wanted to make sure that this bill included rehabilitation. The rehabilitation part is very important because when people in prison have completed their time they should be integrated in the society. This bill had it not regulated but legislated that rehabilitation path would have been really good. The Minister spoke very passionately but this bill does nothing. It's very weak on that front. So I oppose this bill in the third reading.
Motions — Women Winning the Right to Stand for Parliament—Centenary
Ministerial Statements — Fire and Emergency Services—Skycity Auckland Fire
Speaker's Rulings — Parliament TV—Use of Official Footage for Political Advertising
Kaye NikkiHon NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central): Look just on behalf of the Opposition to acknowledge all of the workers on site their families but also all of the firefighters that have been battling the blaze. I know that many members of this House will be concerned for those people and obviously have extraordinary respect for our firefighters across New Zealand. Some of us are getting updates as they come to hand. At the moment as I understand it they have got people off site but we will wait to have further information. This is devastating and our thoughts are with everybody affected by this.
Martin Tracey; Mallard Trevor; Brownlee GerryMINISTERIAL STATEMENTSFire and Emergency Services—SkyCity Auckland FireHon TRACEY MARTIN (Minister of Internal Affairs): I seek leave of the House to move a motion without notice and without debate to acknowledge the efforts of fire and emergency workers in Auckland at SkyCity. [Interruption]SPEAKER: No the member has a right to make a ministerial statement. She has chosen to seek leave to move a motion without notice and debate. Is there any objection to that?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): Hang on a minute. Can we please—I think it's quite reasonable that we know a little bit more about this. Is this a ministerial statement or not?SPEAKER: Can the member give a brief explanation because some of us are maybe not quite as up with the news as the Minister is.Hon TRACEY MARTIN (Minister of Internal Affairs): Sorry Mr Speaker. I apologise. At the moment there is a large fire at SkyCity in Auckland. There are 23 trucks on site an aerial appliance on site and they are fighting high winds as well as major fire.SPEAKER: OK I am going to interrupt and suggest that we not put leave but the Minister do what is her right and that is to make a ministerial statement. I think it will have the same effect. It will have the possibility of an ability of other parties to respond but I think in this circumstance they should have the right to respond if they so wish. The Hon Tracey Martin—ministerial statement.Hon Paula Bennett: This is a new rule.Hon TRACEY MARTIN (Minister of Internal Affairs): Thank you Mr Speaker—SPEAKER: Order! Can I just say that having an ongoing commentary from the Hon Paula Bennett on my decisions when I've just made a significant decision which advantages her party's ability to respond is just not good enough.Hon TRACEY MARTIN: Thank you Mr Speaker. I don't want to take up too much time of the House but I do want to acknowledge the incredible efforts going on at the moment in Auckland by the fire and emergency services: 23 trucks an aerial appliance—they are fighting winds of up to 70 kilometres an hour. People have been asked to stay away from the central business district of Auckland while the firefighters go in and seek to contain this blaze. I wanted to make sure that the House was able to acknowledge their efforts. Kia ora.
SpeechTUESDAY 22 OCTOBER 2019The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.SPEAKER'S RULINGSParliament TV—Use of Official Footage for Political AdvertisingSPEAKER: Members last Tuesday I made a ruling in relation to supplementary questions available to the Leader of the Opposition. I want to thank the staff of the leader's office for their intensive work ensuring takedowns occurred so Standing Orders were complied with. In light of substantial compliance with my ruling by 5 p.m. last Friday and subsequent full compliance I have decided to rescind the limitations which were to apply this week.
Wednesday 25 September 2019 - Volume 741
End of Life Choice Bill — In Committee—Part 4
12. Question No. 12—JusticeHon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) to the Minister of JusticeQuestion No. 12—Justice12. Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) to the Minister of Justice: What specific parts if any of the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee's submission on the Referendums Framework Bill are absurd"? Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): I'm thankful for the second draft of the member's question and I invite him to recall my answer to his first supplementary question yesterday in which I said that the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee's perceived differences between referendums held at a general election and held through a postal vote was an absurd point to make in the context.Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does he concur with the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee view that New Zealand needs to learn from the Brexit referendum and with the UK Supreme Court decision yesterday reinforcing the sovereignty of Parliament respect their advice that Parliament should retain the right of setting referenda at general elections?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The general purport of the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee's advice in their submission was that they thought that the Referendums Framework Bill in relation to clause 8 could do with some better safeguards. That is a matter for the select committee. That member is on that select committee and he might want to play a constructive role in ensuring the legislation is the best that it possibly could be—although I acknowledge that would be a novel departure from his conduct of the last two years.Hon Dr Nick Smith: Supplementary.SPEAKER: No no that concludes oral questions.Hon Gerry Brownlee: So the final comment was all right—a personal reflection? Unbelievable.SPEAKER: I mean the idea that a member can't say that another member should behave better—that would be a novel ruling."
11. Question No. 11—VeteransMARK PATTERSON (NZ First) to the Minister for VeteransQuestion No. 11—Veterans11. MARK PATTERSON (NZ First) to the Minister for Veterans: What recent events have been held to commemorate New Zealand's veterans? Hon RON MARK (Minister for Veterans): Last week I travelled to Timor-Leste to attend the 20th anniversary of the international force for East Timor. As everyone in the House will know Timor-Leste fought hard for independence and following a referendum in 1999 the militia forces began to terrorise and attack the population. The Timor-Leste Government expressed to me how thankful they are for New Zealand's contribution to their independence. Seven New Zealanders lost their lives during Timor-Leste's struggle for independence and the ensuing stabilisation operation which New Zealand participated in so it was an honour to unveil a memorial plaque commemorating them in Dili. I'd like to take a moment to acknowledge those who died: journalist Gary Cunningham killed in Balibo in 1975 Kamal Bamadhaj who was killed in the Santa Cruz massacre in 1991 and soldiers Warrant Officer Class 2 Tony Walser Staff Sergeant Billy White Private Leonard Manning Private Boyd Atkins and Private Dean Johnston. All of these soldiers lost their lives so that Timor-Leste could be free. Lest we forget. Mark Patterson: What recent commemorations have there been for World War II veterans? Hon RON MARK: Today in Christchurch I attended the birthday celebration for New Zealand's oldest veteran Mr Ron Hermanns. Mr Hermanns turned 108 today. In 1937 Ron joined the Wellington Territorial Squadron as an aircraft rigger and worked on the squadron's Blackburn Baffins. In 1939 he was made liable for continuous service and joined the RNZAF. Ron deployed overseas in 1943 to No. 4 Repair Depot in Espiritu Santo in the New Hebrides which is known as Vanuatu these days where he spent 12 months working with the Americans in servicing the Royal New Zealand Air Force Kittyhawks. He also served in Guadalcanal the Solomons Jacquinot Bay in Papua New Guinea and in Hobsonville after the war servicing the Royal New Zealand Air Force's Lockheed Venturas the Corsairs and the Sunderlands. I wished on behalf of the Government and Parliament as a whole to Ron a very happy birthday and thanked him for his service this morning. Mark Patterson: What recent commemorations have taken place at Pukeahu National War Memorial Park? Hon RON MARK: This month the Government has also held commemorations for our Malayan veterans and veterans of the merchant navy. I think it's not that widely known that in the Malayan confrontation and the Malayan Emergency—conflicts which lasted over 12 years—New Zealand deployed 4000 servicemen and women. Fifteen died in Malaysia with three killed in action. In the case of the merchant navy over 140 New Zealand sailors died falling victim to enemy attacks from the air from the navies of our enemies and from Hitler's most feared U-boats. Ka maumahara tonu tātou ki a rātou.[We will remember them.]
8. Question No. 8—EducationGINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) to the Minister of EducationQuestion No. 8—Education8. GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) to the Minister of Education: What action is the Government taking to plan for enough classrooms to meet growth in the Wellington region?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Good news: last week I announced the final part of the National Education Growth Plan—the bit that covers the Wellington region. The Wellington growth plan forecasts that there will be around 2500 additional student spaces that may be needed in this region by 2030. The Government is planning for this growth by mapping the areas where we're under pressure and where we may need to deliver more classrooms. We've now released the entire nationwide growth plan which is the first of its kind which shows how we're going to deal with areas of high student population growth.Ginny Andersen: What investment has the Government announced to start delivering on its property growth plan for the Wellington region?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The Government has already announced $27 million to build up to 40 new classrooms at 11 schools across the Wellington region. The roll growth funding is part of the $1.2 billion funding allocated in this year's Budget to expand schools in areas of high growth across the country over the next 10 years. This is the largest investment in school property by a New Zealand Government and gives us a great head start to meeting the growth required by 2030.Paul Eagle: How many additional students does the $27 million investment in the Wellington region provide for?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The $27 million provides funding for an additional 700 student spaces across 11 schools in the Wellington region. As well as this $14 million for two kura will be used to replace four classrooms at Whakatupuranga and to completely rebuild Ngā Mokopuna in Seatoun. At Paraparaumu College where the announcement was made they alone will receive an additional 10 classrooms for 220 students. This Government is serious about responsibly planning for growth in our classrooms and we're putting the money behind that commitment.Greg O'Connor: How many classrooms has the Government announced this year alone to meet growth across the country as part of the National Education Growth Plan?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Very good news: the Government has announced 492 new classrooms for around 12500 additional students as part of the National Education Growth Plan. That's a total investment of nearly $400 million out of the $1.2 billion that the Government has set aside to fund the plan. We're giving certainty to the communities to the construction sector and to schools so that they can plan for the future.
7. Question No. 7—HealthDr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei) to the Associate Minister of HealthQuestion No. 7—Health7. Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei) to the Associate Minister of Health: Does she stand by all her statements policies and actions regarding vaccination and the measles outbreak? Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Associate Minister of Health): Tēnā koe Mr Speaker. Yes in the context they were given.Dr Shane Reti: If as she has stated in answers to written questions an epidemic concerns quarantinable diseases will she move to declare the multiple measles outbreaks an epidemic given people are now being quarantined for the disease?Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: I'm informed by the Director of Public Health that measles is not a quarantinable disease according to the Health Act 1956.Dr Shane Reti: Can she confirm there are now at least three high school outbreaks of measles including Rangitoto College Wellington High School and Huanui College in Whangarei? Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: I can't confirm exactly those details but I'm sure if the member puts that in writing I can answer that question.SPEAKER: And I apologise for allowing the question which didn't flow from the substantive question. Dr Shane Reti: What quarantine period are officials recommending for unimmunised students in schools with an outbreak?Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: I'm sure that information is publicly available from the local medical officer of health who is responsible for giving those indications. Dr Shane Reti: How will the measles quarantine policy apply for unimmunised students in schools with an outbreak who cannot get vaccines but need to sit NCEA exams in the coming weeks?Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: We've been very clear that no child who has not had their immunisations should be turned away. Fifty thousand vaccines arrived in the country in the last week another 100000 are going to be arriving presently and it's my expectation that every child that needs a vaccination will receive one.
5. Question No. 5—FinanceDr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) to the Minister of FinanceQuestion No. 5—Finance5. Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): More good news. Yesterday Moody's released its latest credit opinion for New Zealand reaffirming our Aaa stable rating. Moody's said its rating reflects New Zealand's very strong institutions and policy effectiveness and a strong fiscal position compared to international peers.Hon Simon Bridges: They clearly didn't visit; they clearly did that from New York. Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: This stable outlook is anchored by Moody's expectation that even in the face of shocks New Zealand will maintain economic and financial stability and credit metrics consistent with a Aaa rating. And yes Mr Bridges they did meet with the Government and despite also meeting with Mr Paul Goldsmith or his predecessor they still managed to come up with that. Dr Duncan Webb: What did Moody's say about New Zealand's fiscal strength? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Moody's assessed New Zealand's fiscal strength as very high" and that our fiscal position remains stronger than many Aaa-rated sovereigns. Moody's said that Budget 2019 shows high fiscal flexibility as demonstrated by forecasts for continued budget surpluses and debt reduction. Hon Simon Bridges: This is explaining as losing if ever I've seen it. Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: They don't like it do they? They don't like good news about the New Zealand economy because Moody's went on to say that the focus on budget surpluses and debt reduction at the same time is increasing investment in our priorities such as mental health and child poverty reduction demonstrating just how strong that Budget was. Dr Duncan Webb: What did the Moody's report say about New Zealand's economic outlook compared to other countries? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Moody's assessed New Zealand's economic strength as very high with expectations of economic growth of around 2.5 to 3 percent in the next few years. It also said that over the longer term our potential GDP growth is higher than many of the other Aaa-rated countries highlighting our rank as number one in the world for ease of doing business. It is refreshing to see international reports like this that cut through the political noise and actually recognise the strong underlying economic fundamentals that New Zealand has.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Minister of Finance whether he intends to send that report and last week's very positive IMF report down to the boardroom?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I would very much like to do that. I also might send a copy of it over to the Opposition but with pictures to help them.SPEAKER: I think that was not helpful and I will warn the Minister of Finance to stop using donkey drops for that purpose."
3. Question No. 3—FinanceHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of FinanceQuestion No. 3—Finance3. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of Finance: What did he discuss during his meeting with representatives from Fletcher Building last Friday regarding their land at Ihumātao? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): The meeting was held at the request of Fletcher's and was part of the Government playing a constructive role to help support a resolution. We discussed a broad range of options for the site but I'm not prepared to go into the details of those options at this time as it is not in the interests of any of the parties involved.Hon Paul Goldsmith: Why is it not in the interests of the parties involved to discuss the details?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Because I respect Fletcher's role and their commercial interests.Hon Paul Goldsmith: Is it not in the public interest to at least understand whether the Crown is involved in commercial negotiations with Fletcher Building over this land?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I played a part in trying to find a constructive solution here. I believe that's what the public would expect of a Government.Hon Paul Goldsmith: Can he rule out using taxpayer money in any way—either through direct purchase or for example a loan—to help another party buy the land off Fletcher Building at Ihumātao?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The member is getting well ahead of himself here. We are supporting Fletcher's the mana whenua—Hon Dr Nick Smith: Will you rule it out?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: —and all those who have interests in the site in—Hon Shane Jones: Making it up.Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: —finding a constructive solution.SPEAKER: Order! The Hon Shane Jones will withdraw and apologise. That is an out-of-order interjection and has been ruled that way many times.Hon Shane Jones: Which interjection sir?SPEAKER: The one that the member made twice right now.Hon Shane Jones: It's in response to Nick Smith. I withdraw and apologise.SPEAKER: Now the member will just stand withdraw and apologise if he wants to stay in the House.Hon Shane Jones: I withdraw and apologise.SPEAKER: Thank you.Hon Paul Goldsmith: Before attending the meeting did he receive any advice from Treasury on the precedent risks to the Crown and the economy if the land occupation is successful?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No the meeting was held at Fletcher's request. I spoke with them as I said in my primary answer about potential options for the site and remain committed to finding a constructive solution.Hon Paul Goldsmith: Why wouldn't he expect to be holding similar meetings with landowners all around the country if the land occupation is successful?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: This was a meeting at Fletcher's request. I was happy to meet with them and support them and other interested parties in finding a resolution to this matter. I do understand why the member opposite really struggles to recognise a Government acting constructively in bringing people together given that he was part of one that sought to divide people.
Andersen GinnyGINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): I move That the question be now put.
Tolley AnneCHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I call Harete Hipango. I don't think the member was in the Chamber when we began and I made it clear that the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) in your name SOP 383 relating to duties in relation to the Treaty of Waitangi was out of order and therefore there will be no debate on those SOPs.
Garcia PauloPAULO GARCIA (National): Thank you Madam Chair. I stand to speak in favour of my Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 377 in my name. Specifically it relates to clause 26 of SOP 259 penned by the member David Seymour. The specific topic that clause 26 addresses is immunity from criminal liability. I speak in support of my SOP on the basis that the reason for the SOP which requests the amendment of deleting clause 26(3) is that—the reason well it is quite simple. The basis that I ask for the deletion of the clause is quite simple but it shows up a misappreciation of what a right actually is. So the basis for the SOP is that the clause is redundant. It is my proposal to the members that it is unnecessary to state that an offence is not committed by a person who seeks assisted dying. The clause implies that requesting assisted dying is an offence under another enactment. But it is not an offence anywhere in New Zealand law to request one's own death nor to attempt suicide. So there is no good reason to believe that seeking assisted dying could be an offence as well. If a person under the current law approaches a medical practitioner or any other person to request a lethal dose of medication to assist that person to die the person who made such a request would not have committed any offence or crime. However under current law if the doctor who receives such a request would accede to it and administer a lethal dose with the intention of ending the person's life then the doctor would be committing an offence. Such a doctor could be charged with culpable homicide. I also take issue with the notion that requesting euthanasia is a right. There is no such thing as a right to request that one's life be ended—not in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act nor in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It may be more appropriate for this bill that an eligible person be allowed" to request assisted dying but it would not be appropriate to state in the bill that such a request is actually a right. A good analogy about this to demonstrate the difference between what is allowable and what is a right: in New Zealand a person is allowed to own a cat. Owning a cat is not against the law; however owning a cat is not a right. If it were a right it would mean that if a person didn't own a cat then it would be the duty of the State or someone to ensure that the person gets one. One person's right is another person's duty. If an eligible person were to have a right to request assisted dying it follows that other parties would have the duty to ensure an eligible person is adequately informed of this right and informed about how to exercise it. An eligible person may perceive such a communication then as pressure to request that as an expectation to at least consider ending one's own life. Such information may trigger a person who is already suffering from depression or mental illness to make that decision to ask for assisted dying. Thank you Madam Chair."
Loheni AgnesAGNES LOHENI (National): Thank you very much Madam Chair. I'm delighted to rise and speak on Part 4 of this committee stage of the End of Life Choice Bill and in particular Madam Chair I'm going to speak to Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 372 in my name. That's an amendment to SOP 259 by David Seymour. This SOP proposes to insert the words gesture or" in clause 24A(3) in order to allow a person to communicate not only by written or spoken words but also by gestures in the event that they wish to rescind their request for a lethal dose. In order to qualify as an eligible person under this Act a person needs to have been diagnosed with a terminal illness that is expected to end their life within six months. However an eligible person is also required to be in an advanced state of irreversible decline in physical capability. The phrase "decline in physical capability" is another way of saying "a physical disability". So if we look at that in terms of that decline in physical capability that also may be something that reflects or is in fact to do with an impairment of their speech inability for that person to clearly articulate their intentions orally. So that person may be at an advanced state of irreversible decline in the physical capability to speak. So in this process of a person making their wishes known around this bill there may be several months between the period where this person has been deemed approved for this process and the actual date for the event to take place and that could be months—that period between the eligibility assessment and the administration and in that period it is feasible that a person may have an impairment or may even lose the ability to speak or to clearly articulate orally what their intentions are. So the gestures may be the only way the person can communicate. It may be the only way that they can respond to the medical practitioner or to the nurse petitioner when that practitioner questions them as in clause 16 whether they still wish to receive the lethal dose at that specific time. By requiring just speech or writing this bill discriminates against people who for any reason are unable to speak or unable to communicate using oral language and so the SOP is to insert that the words in clause 24A(3) include "gesture or". I'd also like in my remaining time to speak to another SOP in my name SOP 379—in clause 27(2) to delete " without lawful excuse". This SOP really again goes to the heart of making sure we are accountable and giving integrity to the process. Surely we as legislators will not give a free pass to anyone who completes an approved form for another person without their consent; likewise for altering or destroying the approved form for another person without their consent. Maybe the member in the chair David Seymour may like to explain for what scenario we would have a lawful excuse for those particular instances that I have described. Again we are here to make this bill as safe as possible and I would ask members in the Chamber to please consider the SOPs that I've highlighted tonight 372 and 379 in my name. Thank you Madam Chair."
Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Amendment Bill — First Reading
Parmar ParmjeetDr PARMJEET PARMAR (National): Thank you Mr Speaker. I won't take long. This is a very simple and short bill but a significant bill for the nine amenities that are going to be affected once this bill has gone through because it will make their lives easier. Their paperwork will be reduced and that's really important.I want to acknowledge the amenities board for raising this issue with us and helping us fix this issue. I am sure David Houldsworth and his team will be very happy to see this bill progressing through the House. I want to acknowledge all sides for their support. Finally I want to say that it's actually a real pleasure to sponsor this bill being based in Mount Roskill as David Houldsworth served as the chief executive of one of the amenities that is based in Mount Roskill. So I look forward to working with the Governance and Administration Committee on this bill. Thank you Mr Speaker.Bill read a first time. Bill referred to the Governance and Administration Committee.
Radhakrishnan PriyancaPRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): Thank you Mr Speaker. I rise to make a very short call to say that we support the intent of the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Amendment Bill and therefore support it to go to select committee. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.
Brown SimeonSIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you Mr Speaker for the opportunity to speak to this private bill the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Amendment Bill. I just want to make a few brief comments on behalf of everyone in the Pakuranga electorate but firstly I'd like to acknowledge Parmjeet Parmar for bringing this bill to Parliament. It's an important bill for Auckland and it's an important bill because it affects some of our important organisations which play a critical role in our community. This bill in particular will assist the coastguard who have a big presence in Howick in my electorate. They are one of the amenities which will benefit from this. I just want to say that it's important that we make things as easy as possible for charitable trusts incorporated societies and organisations like these who are generally run by volunteers—run by people who have a passion for their community and want to make a real difference in their community—so that the red tape the duplication of processes and all of those elements are reduced. That's exactly what this bill will mean particularly for the coastguard. I acknowledge again their presence in my electorate. What this bill essentially does will mean that they will no longer have to put forward two sets of financial accounts under the New Zealand International Financial Reporting Standards and the generally accepted accounting practice. That will simplify their processes and save them money which will essentially mean that that money can be put towards the good work that they do in the community. It will mean that they can put more resource towards the coastguard in Howick and less resource towards having to pay accountants to prepare financial accounts which won't be necessary any longer under this piece of legislation. So I'm looking forward to more lives being saved at sea and less accounting documents being prepared. That's something which will benefit my electorate. I support this bill. Thank you Mr Speaker.
Seymour DavidDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I want to congratulate Parmjeet Parmar for doing the real hard work of an MP in bringing a local bill to this Parliament. I know as—SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member should read the bill. DAVID SEYMOUR: Well it's a local bill—is it? Hon Member: Private. SPEAKER: It's not a local bill. DAVID SEYMOUR: No? It's a private bill and I want to congratulate her for that too because I know as the MP for Epsom that many of the organisations—some of which are the opera based in Parnell and others such as the Auckland Philharmonia Orchestra which is heavily frequented by Epsom electorate residents—will appreciate this additional convenience in regard to the tax obligations and accounting applied to those organisations. So I commend this bill to the House. Thank you Mr Speaker.