edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Mooney Joseph; Utikere TangiJOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you Madam Chair. I'll just congratulate the member Tangi Utikere for this bill and doing a great job in bringing this before the House. Look I'm just interested in the comments the member made earlier about the distinction between appointed members and elected members and the member indicated that he may return to address that more fully later. He said it was a matter considered by the Governance and Administration Committee so I'd be interested in the member just explaining why there was a decision to make a distinction between appointed members and elected members in terms of the pecuniary register. TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Thank you Madam Chair. Yes very briefly in response to Mr Mooney it's because the focus on this is on publicly elected officials and bringing it into line with local boards community boards regional councils and other local territorial authorities. There are already processes in place for appointed members. Members who are appointed to roles have to go through a process and as I've said earlier the due diligence and expectations that councils as part of that appointment process would undertake or adopt mitigates that concern. So this is about capturing those who are effectively elected by the public.
SpeechHon EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Thank you Madam Chair. I acknowledge the work Tangi Utikere has done on this bill and also the work of the Governance and Administration Committee. The Green Party will be supporting the Supplementary Order Paper in Tangi Utikere's name; it's a quite sensible clarification.But just on that point about the role of the registrar I wonder if I could ask the member—and it is something I've raised in previous speeches on the bill. Given that Parliament has an independent registrar but my understanding about the way this bill will work is that the chief executive of each council would simply designate someone in the council to act in that role of registrar just whether he sees the opportunity for any registrar to operate nationally or for councils to come together to provide an independent person of standing in the same way that the registrar for pecuniary interests operates at Parliament to have more capacity to provide advice to members—specifically new members—just because the work of collating the material around members' declarations can take some time. The interplay that the registrar of pecuniary interests has at Parliament with MPs checking with MPs that that is accurate before it's published—there is still work in that. So whether the member thinks that there is potentially in future some opportunity for this to be done in a more collective way nationally.
Salesa Jenny; Utikere TangiLOCAL GOVERNMENT (PECUNIARY INTERESTS REGISTER) AMENDMENT BILLIn CommitteePart 1 Register of members' pecuniary interestsCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members we come now to the consideration in committee of the Local Government (Pecuniary Interests Register) Amendment Bill. Part 1 of this debate is on clause 4 Register of members' pecuniary interests". The question is that Part 1 stand part.TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Point of order Madam Chair. I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one question.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The motion to discuss this as one has been put forward. All those in favour? We will take it as one.Parts 1 and 2 and clauses 1 to 3"
Webb DuncanDr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Kia ora Madam Chair. I just want to speak briefly to Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 142—it's Chlöe Swarbrick's SOP—and just explain why I think it's a little problematic. Now again this was an issue that was addressed in committee and this is relating to body corporate managers being compulsory members of industry organisations. I guess there's always a reluctance to make people belong to an organisation. Obviously it's important in some areas and a professional organisation and professional body can be a really important part of the regulatory framework. There's essentially two reasons I think. Firstly you've got to show a real need and no feasible alternative and that was addressed in the bill by imposing a compulsory code of conduct in the bill and I think that does go a long way. The other problem was that whilst there are industry organisations out there there's always a risk of essentially endorsing one industry organisation or one or two industry organisations over others. The industry organisations that are out there really weren't seen to be quite capable—whilst they're advocacy organisations they weren't quite up to scratch if you like for stepping up to becoming what was effectively a regulatory body. Of course this SOP requires members of an industry organisation to abide by a code of conduct and that also would become duplicative because we now have a code of conduct in the Act as well. Of course if you've got multiple organisations you'd then have multiple codes of conduct—two three four—and whilst they might have some similarities we don't see that as a useful step. So whilst the kind of professionalisation of body corporate managers may be something that happens down the road—and it may be that a kind of professional regulatory body that sits outside of Government but is endorsed by it does happen—we didn't think we were there yet so that's why this SOP won't be supported.
Edmonds Barbara; Willis NicolaBARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): Thank you to the member again for answering a number of those questions. So just to clarify the lists that we have within that schedule that was provided again is that a reflection of what was in the previous regulations? Is that just an uplift and then a put in?Again I thank the member for—my concerns are around just the compliance costs for the pre-disclosure. But if the member can confirm from officials that in fact it has been just uplifted from the previous Act and put back into this bill that would be good to know because obviously with the Unit Titles Act being about a decade old the industry as well as bodies corporate will be quite used to what was done before. So therefore we're just taking it back to the status quo. So if the member could just clarify if that's the case. Thank you.NICOLA WILLIS (National): I thank the member for her questions. So to be crystal clear: that part of the bill is new. The reason it is there is because one of the things the bill sets out to do is to be much clearer and more deliberate about pre-disclosure requirements and that's why that new section has been put in rather than being picked up from existing legislation.The second question that the member asked previously was around the definition of a suitably qualified building professional". I just want to acknowledge that that phrase is also used in other parts of the bill particularly the long-term plan part of the bill and to acknowledge that that is quite a wide phrase and that is intentional. Because the balance we're trying to strike here is to acknowledge that there are a broad range of potential professionals who could put forward remediation reports or professional opinions on building quality: engineers architects seismic specialists. There are a range of professions and what we didn't want to do was to create a definition so narrow that it would therefore exclude input from professionals who were suited to that task."
Willis NicolaNICOLA WILLIS (National): Thank you Madam Chair. I'm going to turn to those questions from the member shortly. I just want to first do something which I didn't do earlier which is really important and that is to acknowledge Nikki Kaye. She was the member for Auckland Central who brought this legislation into being and I am really the adopting mother of it and I want to acknowledge her. Look the member has asked two or three questions the first in relation to the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) about remediation reports. Look can I just be clear that what a remediation report is is a report that has been delivered by a building professional to a unit title building that has investigated defects within that development and that then is the report on what they've found about those defects and potentially what remediation would be required to address them. Now reading the bill as it currently stands and as the SOP put forward by the Minister would have it some will read that to say well that should include remediation reports that would be included in the definition. But there is some ambiguity there and I have been persuaded by the submissions of those involved with bodies corporate who have said Let's just make it crystal clear that if a remediation report has been furnished in any way that would as of right be included in the pre-disclosure requirements." So that is why that is there. Look the other questions that the member has asked about how the section of the bill put together on what should be there for pre-disclosure purposes—the balance that has been attempted to strike there is to be prescriptive so as not to require bodies corporate to go on extensive document collection exercises. I was quite convinced as I'm sure other members were at the select committee by those who came and said "Look you can't make this such a cover-all that the effect is that the record keeping required for bodies corporate becomes incredibly onerous and that also down the track they could face litigation because page 4 of a submission wasn't included." So by providing some specificity in the bill what we allow for is for bodies corporate to have clear direction about the sort of documents that should be provided in the pre-disclosure process and that is the way that that section of the bill has been put together."
White HelenHELEN WHITE (Labour): Thank you for this opportunity to speak. I wanted to contribute something that was a little bit different from what has been raised before just to clarify and settle people about the issue over proxies and over some of those concerns that I think are addressed by the explicit focus that has been had in this this bill on conflict of interest issues so that there's a much clearer position.The stories that I heard from constituents were often about people who—in terms of proxy farming—actually had a role in the building and were a dominant personality. What they would do often was they would use that position to bring in someone like their partner to do the maintenance in the building and they would actually be getting an income from this work while they would suppress information from people because it suited them—so suppress maintenance of leaky-building issues that needed to happen. Those all now fit well within this legislation in terms of the code of conduct and the conflicts sections and it's very very clearly set out.That really settled me down about this because that's actually the mischief that we are really concerned with—people exploiting those positions people in conflict people making money out of these things and dominating others. I really do genuinely believe that there will be a change of culture out there with regard to this. I think this is a very key part—I actually think that conflict of interest is something that throughout our careers as legislators we look much more carefully at in lots of areas; it's a developed area now. And this is the kind of thing that I think stands out in the legislation as a real plus. So with that I'll finish my contribution. Thank you.
SpeechANNA LORCK (Labour—Tukituki): Thank you Mr Chair. I stand as a member of the Finance and Expenditure Committee and also as the local member of Parliament for Tukituki. A lot of what has been talked about on bodies corporate has been for those dwellings several stories high where they're mainly in the cities. But as we look to the regions we see that there is a lot of challenge around housing and where to build—not out but up—in our regions particularly those regions where like in Hastings we have productive plains land. Because of that we don't want to see our productive plains land being built on and so we need to look at ways that we can ensure that we are building a lot more condensed housing within our city structures. It's also important when talking about the unit titles bill to recognise those submitters who did contribute from the regions like the Frimley Lifestyle Village complex. The Frimley Lifestyle Village complex wanted to make sure that they still had choices when it came to whether they needed to employ a professional to run their body corporate. Now I think this was a very important change that we made to this bill where we strongly encourage bodies corporate especially large bodies corporate to employ a body corporate manager. However we believe this change would also allow flexibility for bodies corporate to manage their own affairs as they see fit. And it's those things that can make a big difference when you have people living together running the bodies corporate together. I just wanted to talk about the ability to be able to Zoom into meetings. Just because you're not in the room as we have learnt through this pandemic you can Zoom and you can be seen in the room and we have screens these days just like Zooming in to the House. I would say that bodies corporate in managing the affairs the important affairs that they have are now able—through this change that we're making through this Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) the Minister's recommended changes they can now vote electronically. I think that enables people even if they can't be in the room to be able to vote to be able to have their say. And that again is something that shows how together we've worked to make sure we have a better bill better legislation.Now we don't need in legislation that you can meet via Zoom. I'm pretty sure that you should be able to organise that yourselves in a body corporate. And that's why I thought when reading the SOP from the Green Party member that I have to agree with my colleague Duncan Webb. I absolutely have to agree with you Duncan that we don't need to be able to—we have the way to vote electronically. And so that's simple it's effective and don't forget about Zoom Chlöe. That way people can see in the room and out of the room.Anyway apart from that we've had a very good contribution from every select committee member in the Finance and Expenditure Committee. I've absolutely enjoyed working with everybody and I thank everyone's contributions. And again I thank the Frimley Lifestyle Village for their submission from Hastings in the heart of the Tukituki electorate.
Webb DuncanDr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you Mr Chair. I just really want to speak to some of these Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) and in particular the proxy voting SOPs. To be honest I'm perplexed as to why the members have these SOPs around proxies. The first point I would make is that it undermines the right of a body corporate owner to participate in decision making because they may well be absentee or for any other reason not be able to participate in the voting process in the way they'd normally like to. But to say you can't give your proxy to a person you choose and trust is to deny them a vote. So I'm really perplexed by that. I'm also perplexed that notwithstanding a very very robust select committee process and good advice that we got from officials they insist that there is a problem. Now I'll tell you that there may be a problem in that some people don't like the outcome of a body corporate if they're imposing levies or remediation or whatever and certainly I've seen that firsthand. But that is at the very heart of how a body corporate works—that the collective can decide the direction and not be thwarted by a minority unless there's a pressure. All of that is already set out in the Unit Titles Act. So I'm really actually confused and I'm concerned that there's been pressure brought to bear on these members by small groups of disgruntled unit title holders and they've cast aside the careful consideration of select committees in favour of what are essentially lobbyists. The other thing is that all of the arguments—and I'm really surprised by our not-boomer Green MP saying Zoom and audiovisual or electronic voting doesn't work because this Parliament's shown that it's a very effective way to participate. What we have now in the amendment is a much updated and upgraded way in which people can vote by being present in person or by audio link or audiovisual link or other remote access facility or by proxy or by voting electronically—that is to say by email—at the meeting or in advance of the meeting. So there is absolutely no reason to suggest there's going to be this proxy farming out there. The evidence for it is anecdotal at best. The advice of officials is that it's not a significant problem. Yet what we get is the ability of some people to block the decision making of the widest and broadest number of unit title holders. Look there is another SOP I'll speak to—I want to focus on that as well. But I would invite both members—the drafting of Chlöe Swarbrick's SOP is missing an and" or an "or" but other than that I still don't understand exactly the thinking behind it given the excellent amendments there. Kia ora."
Willis NicolaUNIT TITLES (STRENGTHENING BODY CORPORATE GOVERNANCE AND OTHER MATTERS) AMENDMENT BILLIn CommitteeParts 1 and 2 Schedules 1 to 3 and clauses 1 and 2CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): Members we now come to the Unit Titles (Strengthening Body Corporate Governance and Other Matters) Amendment Bill Part 1. This is the debate on clauses 3 to 23 and Schedule 1 amendment to Unit Titles Act 2010. The question is that Part 1 stand part.NICOLA WILLIS (Deputy Leader—National): I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one question.CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): Leave has been requested for all provisions to be taken as one provision. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
Human Rights (Disability Assist Dogs Non-Discrimination) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Clause 5
SpeechClause 5 Section 21 amended (Prohibited grounds of discrimination)CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): We now move to the debate on clause 5. This is the debate on clause 5 the amendment to section 21 Prohibited grounds of discrimination". The question is the clause 5 stand part.Clause 5 agreed to.Bill to be reported without amendment."
Swarbrick ChlöeCHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green—Auckland Central): I move That the question be now put.Motion agreed to.
SpeechANGELA ROBERTS (Labour): I want to continue on with some interrogation of the Supplementary Order Paper and seek clarification of what it adds besides a few words. When you look at the Department of Internal Affairs advice about what you need to do to become one of the organisations on the list it is rigorous—and it is rigorous for a very good reason. These organisations not only have to prove that they can train these dogs but that they can continue to support the clients the people whose lives are enriched and enabled by having these well-trained dogs these workers in their lives.When you look at the Department of Internal Affairs they talk about making sure that the legal management and governance structures are there and that rigor is there so that there is accountability and an opportunity for ongoing support because this is a very important role that these dogs play. We've been told that this is about improving access to these wonderful working dogs and I understand the intent but we're talking about ensuring rigor quality and ongoing support and that has been recognised in the procedures that the Department of Internal Affairs requires and the very high standards they set to allay the concerns that have already been mentioned about what happens if?" or "what happens when?" and as we have more of these working dogs in broader parts of our community.I'm really curious to hear how allowing I guess the fraying at the edges of this very disciplined regime is going to assist ongoing access to quality working dogs. The people that they assist deserve no less. Others in the Chamber today have acknowledged the work of these organisations and the dogs that they train to help people in our community live full lives with dignity. So that is the question for whoever answers it from the other side: how is this Supplementary Order Paper really going to improve things."
Willis NicolaDr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei): I am concerned about this Supplementary Order Paper (SOP). Respect to the member who has brought it to us but there was a lot of work done on this during committee. We heard from a lot of organisations and you've already yourself mentioned the Human Rights Commission's point of view which is that any extension of that required further extension of the work done.My concern to the member who is actually bringing this wonderful little bit of legislation is it's too late and too little. But also I really do want to hear from the member who's brought the SOP as to her answer to the concerns that we've got: that this is going to end up creating a bit of a Wild West situation with the training of dogs. We don't want that. This is so important. It would devalue the work to not have a proper regulatory regime and particularly there's one available by Order in Council if we need to extend.I particularly want to ask the member who's brought the SOP why she said in the House—and I may be wrong but my memory is she said this—that this would enable owners to train their own dogs. It does create the possibility of a poorly regulated accreditation regime which will devalue the importance of disability dogs. That's the question I'd like answered by the member who brought the SOP.NICOLA WILLIS (Deputy Leader—National): I move That the question be now put.
SpeechANAHILA KANONGATA'A-SUISUIKI (Labour): I want to take this opportunity—and in my two previous contributions I forgot to acknowledge those who are in this sector who train dogs. I could never never understand what it is to be blind. We can talk about the value of having a guide dog or a disability assist dog but we as people with sight will never understand that. So I just want to acknowledge everyone who is providing a much-valued and needed service and I just want to honour the services of those people. It's important—members across from the other side have said that we're trivialising this but it's important that we talk about Supplementary Order Paper 145 because I've asked the member for a definition. I want to talk about paragraph (b) in her proposed amendment to the definition of disability assist dog" in section 2(1) where Penny Simmonds' Supplementary Order Paper talks about the organisations listed in Schedule 5. I would like the member just for the record to name those organisations and in the same breath I want to acknowledge that my nephew—he has a dog. She's a black bitch and her name is Swain. I just want to acknowledge that everyone has a dog but a disability assist dog is a different type of dog and organisations who are going to recognise these private trainers actually need to be named in the House. So I'd like to ask the member to name those organisations in Schedule 5 of the Dog Control Act 1996. Thank you."
Pugh MaureenMAUREEN PUGH (National): Thank you Mr Chair. Well I've got to say this is an embarrassing display of filibustering on such a trivial—not trivial bill but a trivial part of the process when we should be actually assisting the disability assist dogs to get through this House without slowing it down in such a pathetic way. I'm so embarrassed by this at the moment.I want to speak to Penny Simmonds' Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 145. Now this is a woman who has extensive experience in the disability sector someone with a lot of credibility and a lot of empathy and knowledge about how the disability sector works but also what the challenges are for people actually inflicted with some form of disability that need a disability assist dog. So in terms of the contribution made by the member who just resumed her seat there can be huge wait-lists for people waiting on dogs to be trained. In the schedule there is an extensive list of those organisations that provide that training. What Penny Simmonds' Supplementary Order Paper simply does is add another opportunity for another form of training and I'll quote from the SOP: by a private trainer recognised by one of the organisations listed in Schedule 5 of the Dog Control Act 1996". It is a complementary addition to the existing schedule and it will simply allow for the same competencies to be administered in the training of the dog the same outcomes to be resolved and actually maybe just give further opportunity for further training of these dogs so that they can become part of the system and go out to the people that need them. I think this is a very simple practical addition to the bill and I urge the member in charge of the bill to give it serious consideration and support this amendment and this SOP. Thank you Mr Chair."
SpeechJAMIE STRANGE (Labour—Hamilton East): Point of order Mr Chair. There was a ruling in the previous Parliament about having party boxes on top. I see the member's just removed his box.CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): Order! The person in the Chair is in charge and if you're going to take frivolous points of order we'll move on very quickly.
SpeechDr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei): Kia ora Mr Chair. I want to ask the member on this really excellent bill—I just wanted to follow up on my colleague Dr Webb's comment about the Supplementary Order Paper. I'm concerned about the fact that this has come late when actually it's quite complicated and you'll remember the discussions we had with the various organisations talking about the need for these dogs to really be properly accredited. And I was concerned when I heard member Penny Simmonds' comment that owners might accredit themselves and their own dogs loosely under some arrangement with one of the accredited organisations. That is concerning when you consider the safety issues.I am a massive fan of disability assist dogs but what bothers me is as you say the lack of consultation the need for wider consultation if we were to do something like this and isn't it a complete answer that actually a new organisation that's springing up to train a different sort of dog could actually be accredited by Order in Council or am I incorrect?
Menéndez March RicardoANAHILA KANONGATA'A-SUISUIKI (Labour): Thank you thank you thank you for the opportunity. I'd like to say it again; I'd like to ask the member to give us a clarification in terms of the changes to the Human Rights Act—if you could actually inform us of that thank you.RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): I thank the member for her question but also with all due respect the member was with us throughout the committee stages and so I—whether this is a point of clarification or for herself it's in question because it works better to know which bits of the Act we're amending.So basically just to clarify on section 2 what we're inserting is the language around disability assist dog" has the same meaning as in section 2 of the Dog Control Act 1996. I already spoke to that in earlier speeches where basically we are drawing that link with what is in the Dog Control Act into the Human Rights Act to basically stop grounds of discrimination. So hopefully that answers your question but I mean she has sat through the committee; if she wishes to do a bit of a speech to further raise awareness—or whether this is a bit of a gotcha question—I would welcome a further discussion.ANAHILA KANONGATA'A-SUISUIKI (Labour): Thank you for the opportunity yes. Thank you Mr Chair. It's a Thursday and it's brilliant that we're here today talking about the Human Rights (Disability Assist Dogs Non-Discrimination) Amendment Bill in the member's name Ricardo Menéndez March.So my question really is about clarification so that members of the public are aware of what—the Human Rights Act is important so that's why I asked the question in terms of exactly what the changes are. So the disability assist dog—I want to really if the member can please explain to me I haven't had a dog since I was in my late 30s. But I'd just like the member—his name was Goodie and he got stolen. So anyway—I used to call him Goodsy-Woodsy-Woo.Anyway I'd just like to ask the member please if he could explain to us the definition of "disability assist dog." Thank you."
SpeechClause 4 Section 2 amended (Interpretation)CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): We move now to clause 4. This is the debate on clause 4 amendment to section 2 which is the interpretation. The question is that clause 4 stand part.
SpeechANAHILA KANONGATA'A-SUISUIKI (Labour): Thank you Mr Chair. The member Ricardo Menéndez March—I didn't quite understand what he just explained. If the member can please—sorry I'll take this off—[Removes mask]—let us know which parts of the Human Rights Act this amends. I know that the general policy statement talks about—CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): Order! I think that we need to keep these issues for the next section.ANAHILA KANONGATA'A-SUISUIKI: I thought we were doing clause 3.CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): We're only on the Human Rights Act changes—clause 3.ANAHILA KANONGATA'A-SUISUIKI: Sorry Mr Chair. I'm asking the member to clarify the changes to the Human Rights Act.CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): And those changes are in clause 4.ANAHILA KANONGATA'A-SUISUIKI: OK. It says This Act amends the Human Rights Act". I'm talking about that.CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): Well the bill does amend the Human Rights Act but I think the changes you're talking about are in the next clause.ANAHILA KANONGATA'A-SUISUIKI: OK. All right. Well perhaps I'll take a seat and let another member take the opportunity to ask a question.Clause 3 agreed to."
Human Rights (Disability Assist Dogs Non-Discrimination) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Clause 3
Pugh Maureen; Menéndez March RicardoANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Thank you Mr Chair. To the member in the chair because I'm mindful that this is your first time in the chair I'm just going to ask a series of questions and then take a seat and let you respond—you don't have to respond immediately to me. Sorry Mr Chair just explaining that. I'm particularly interested in the interpretation section of the Human Rights Act and I wanted you to I guess draw out some more information in regards to that. So in the interpretation section the meaning provides for disability assist dog"—that we're changing under the Dog Control Act. I wanted you to just talk to the committee in regards to why it's important that this aspect is discussed—thank you—and why you've landed on this.CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): Order! Can I just remind the member that this is clause 3; the piece you were talking about is in clause 4.ANGIE WARREN-CLARK: Oh thank you.MAUREEN PUGH (National): Thank you Mr Chair. I've just got a small question for the member regarding the Human Rights Act and whether he thinks that there could be some conflict between other humans in terms of—I'll use the scenario that someone perhaps with an allergy to dogs is in a restaurant say or a cafe and someone with a disability assist dog comes in. Do you consider that there is a conflict there and which person or which animal would have precedence in that scenario?RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): I thank the member for the question. On that hypothetical I think part of why having discrimination on the grounds of having a disability assist dog is important is that it could allow for example if there was to be a grievance in such a hypothetical situation for say if the disabled person may have to be excluded from a cafe because somebody else had an allergy they could take that process with the Human Rights Commission. I think that's why this is important because then they can decide as the mediators whether that would be a ground to take it further or to explore how that occurred.So I think this is the important thing that we currently don't have right? If there was to be exclusion because of whatever reason because you had a disability assist dog currently it would be pretty much impossible to take a complaint to the Human Rights Commission and have that mediation happen. I mean I don't want to dwell too much on the specifics of that hypothetical but I do want to speak as to why having this in the Act allows those processes and that mediation to take place and I think that is a really important component to that.I think we're all clear—and submitters were really clear—that while this is a really important amendment there will be other steps such as an information campaign built on things that were discussed as well as ensuring that people know the processes that they can take regarding the Human Rights Commission when these grievances occur."
Menéndez March RicardoClause 3 Principal ActANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Thank you. First of all I'd like to acknowledge the member who is in the chair Ricardo Menéndez March. I'm guessing it is a very difficult—well it's quite an exciting opportunity for you.I would like the member to please have an explanation for us in regards to how he came to this legislation and I would be also particularly interested in the definition of disability assist dog" and why he believes that this is the most appropriate term. Thank you.RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you to the member Angie Warren-Clark for the question. So in terms of the whakapapa of the bill it all came about last decade when members of the Deaf and disabled community raised the issue of the struggles to access adequate housing due to discrimination that they were facing because they had a disability assist dog. They were working with Mojo Mathers and the late Murray Whittington who raised the issue of the discrimination that he was facing. Back in 2015 Mojo drafted this bill and now I've had the privilege to carry it through the House.Why we're using the language of "disability assist dog" is that it's defined in the Dog Control Act and what is really clear is that there is rigorous training that occurs in order for these dogs to be certified. I think as submitters have said—and many of us actually have spoken about—these dogs are not pets; they do mahi and this is why we are linking the definition and sort of drawing on the relationship with what's in the Dog Control Act.Submitters have also raised previously—which I agree with—issues around the need to ensure that these dogs can behave with the discipline required to enter these public spaces. But it is really clear as well that we have measures in the Human Rights Act that prevent discrimination towards disability assist dogs because to discriminate against a disability assist dog is to prevent certain people from participating in their communities."
Human Rights (Disability Assist Dogs Non-Discrimination) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Clauses 1 and 2
SpeechHUMAN RIGHTS (DISABILITY ASSIST DOGS NON-DISCRIMINATION) AMENDMENT BILLIn CommitteeClause 1 TitleCHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): We come first to the Human Rights (Disability Assist Dogs Non-Discrimination) Amendment Bill and the debate on clause 1. This is the debate on the title. The question is that clause 1 stand part. Clause 1 agreed to.Clause 2 CommencementCHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): We move now to clause 2. This is the debate on clause 2 the commencement. The question is that clause 2 stand part. Clause 2 agreed to.
SpeechHOUSE IN COMMITTEECHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): Members the House is in committee on the Human Rights (Disability Assist Dogs Non-Discrimination) Amendment Bill the Unit Titles (Strengthening Body Corporate Governance and Other Matters) Amendment Bill and the Local Government (Pecuniary Interests Register) Amendment Bill. I remind members that are able to participate remotely that if they are on Zoom and want to take a call please type call" into the chat. You should also use the chat if you want to raise a point of order. If we receive new tabled amendments I will advise member so that they can request the House page to see the new amendment. Finally it would be helpful for members to ask multiple questions if they have them of the member in charge of the bill during their call. We come first to the Human Rights (Disability Assist Dogs Non-Discrimination) Amendment Bill and the debate on clause 1."
Rurawhe AdrianWEDNESDAY 13 APRIL 2022(continued on 14 April 2022)DEPUTY SPEAKER: I declare the House in committee for consideration of those bills.
SpeechREPORT OF COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE HOUSECHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): Madam Speaker the committee has considered the Appropriation (2020/21 Confirmation and Validation) Bill and reports progress. The committee has also considered the COVID-19 Response (Courts Safety) Legislation Bill and reports it without amendment. I move That the report be adopted.
SpeechHon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Justice): In terms of relevance to the bill and the provisions that the member Chris Penk asked about in terms of court security officers: this is just a continuation of the existing provisions. I can assure the member that security officers are trained to ensure that they operate within the constraints of the provisions.
Mooney JosephJOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you Mr Chair. I thank the Minister for his engagement with the debate this evening. I want to refer to clause 2 in the new Schedule being inserted in the Courts Security Act by clause 3 in Schedule 1 of the bill which is the power to ask for identification and information. It says that (1) A court security officer may ask any person who wants to enter or is in a court to provide the officer with—(a) the person's name and address; and (b) evidence of the person's name and address; and (c) the person's reason for either wanting to enter the court or being in it if the officer has reasonable grounds for asking for the information; and (d) evidence of the person's compliance with a direction given or requirement imposed under clause 1(1)."Now I'll just ask if the Minister has spent any time in any of the courts around New Zealand and appreciates the difficulty that in particular paragraph (b) could impose which is evidence of a person's name and address. I ask that question Minister because I have spent a lot of time in courts from near the top of the North Island to the bottom of the South Island and very often we are dealing with people who live very complex challenged lives and simply do not have any documentation apart from maybe their court summons if we're lucky.So my question here is: has the Minister turned his mind to the problems that this could impose on persons who are required to attend court but do not have evidence of their name do not have evidence of their address and are being required by a court security officer to supply either one or both to enter the court?Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Justice): Can I thank the member for his question. Look my understanding is that most of the issues that are in the clause that the member refers to embeds the current situation in terms of what security officers can ask for other than the issue that the member is asking himself. I think there could be some relatively simple ways in order to make sure that we can have evidence of people identifying themselves if they are definitely there for a specific reason. If they have been summonsed then they will have a summons themselves with their names—Joseph Mooney: Not always.Hon KRIS FAAFOI: Not always but I think if they've managed to get there then they know they have to be there at a particular time and at a particular place usually because they've been sent a letter with their name and their address on it."
Mooney JosephJOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you Mr Chair. I want to ask the Minister about this section and the schedules of this Act being repealed on the date on which the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020 is repealed. I want to ask the Minister just on the question of what will happen and what will his response be if the date that this Act comes into force happens just after the date on which the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020 is repealed. I want to ask would the Minister be a little bit embarrassed if that were to happen: when you get to the point two years down the track after the pandemic began and the Act is scheduled to come into force and then the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020 is repealed? I ask this question because matters are moving rather quickly. Today is the day that Australians can return into New Zealand. It's been an exciting day fantastic for our tourism industry fantastic for families who haven't connected with their Australian cousins for a long time. We're excited as New Zealanders to welcome Australians back to New Zealand. It's fantastic. However I also note that today is also the day that the Government has announced that as at midnight tonight all of New Zealand will be moving to the orange setting so restrictions will be reducing and yet we have this bill here which will be carrying on as if the pandemic has only just begun. This would have been a bill that would have been very helpful two years ago or even a year ago or even six months ago but today we have Australians coming back to New Zealand we have the whole country moving to the orange setting at midnight tonight and yet we are talking about bringing in a temporary Act which will come into force the day after the Royal assent and it could come in potentially just on or just after the date on which the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020 is repealed. What would be the Minister's response if that were to happen?Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Justice): Can I thank Mr Mooney for his hypothetical question. As he will know the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act will expire at the end of June of this year. So the sooner this bill is passed the more effect it will have. I very much doubt that this piece of legislation will be passing after 30 June 2022.
SpeechClause 3 Temporary amendments to enactmentsCHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): We now move to clause 3. This is the debate on clause 3—and schedules 1 to 3—Temporary amendments to enactments" and I'd remind members this is a debate if you haven't already exhausted yourselves where you can get on with it."
SpeechClause 2 CommencementCHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): Members we now come to clause 2. This is the debate on clause 2 Commencement" and I'd remind members and the Minister that this is a debate on clause 2 and it's a very tight debate.Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Justice): Clause 2 says that the Act comes into force on the day after Royal assent and a number of members have made comment on the time frame which this piece of legislation is tracking on. Mr Penk also made a contribution about making sure that our court system is efficient. I can guarantee you one thing and that is if we pass this legislation as soon as possible we'll give the judiciary and the Ministry of Justice the ability to ensure there is efficiency and safety in our courts. So that is why we're making sure that this piece of legislation is available to them and the faster that it is passed the quicker that will give certainty to those arms of Government to make sure that the efficiency that we're after and the safety that we're after comes into force as soon as possible."
Goldsmith PaulHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Well if that's the case I feel the need to just respond to the Minister of Justice's answer—the previous answer—where he chose to question the numbers around the courts and their audiovisual facilities and this is in relation to a bill called the COVID-19 Response (Courts Safety) Legislation Bill. He said that my figures were wrong. They're based obviously on his answer to a written question and he said that there's only 12 courts that don't have the video equipment. Maybe he could just listen and tally up and maybe his maths will be good. So Dargaville doesn't have one—that's one—Kaitāia doesn't have one—that's two. Papakura doesn't have one. Pukekohe: no. Huntly a satellite court: no. Morrinsville: no. Te Awamutu: no. Te Kūiti a satellite: no. Ōpōtiki: no. Thames: no. Waihi: no. Taumarunui—I think we're up to 12 already—Tokoroa Hastings Ruatōria—there's none there so you've got to get on your horse and come down from Hicks Bay if you want to go to the court there. Waipukurau is not there. Wairoa Hawera—not there. Marton's not there. There's nothing in Taihape. There's nothing in Dannevirke. There's nothing on the Chatham Islands of course—which would be useful if it was. Nothing in Wellington's Employment Court. Nothing in Wellington's Māori Land Court. There's nothing in the Wellington tribunals. Nothing in Kaikōura. Nothing in Westport. Nothing in Ōāmaru. Nothing in Alexandra. Nothing in Gore. Nothing in Queenstown. I think that list adds up to more than 12 and so if the Minister wants to come into the House and—none of them have the full video. So after two years when the rest of the world has discovered something called Zoom and the other half of the world has discovered something called Teams the court system still carries on as if nothing has happened nothing has changed. I know Madam Chair Madam Speaker Mr Speaker or whoever you are—Mr McKelvie—that you might be wanting to narrow this debate but the point is just in response to the Minister's question that what we're trying to get to with this piece of legislation is what we've got here. They've brought in a piece of legislation which is not doing very much. It will arrive too late given the fact that the restrictions have been withdrawn and yet meantime the things that actually would have made a difference in terms of improving New Zealanders' access to justice swift justice so that they can move on with their lives—such as the implementation of audiovisual facilities. They haven't done the—well I think the better title would have been the COVID-19 Non-response Bill" and then we might have got somewhere. But that's not what was delivered at all so far."
Prime Willow-JeanCOVID-19 RESPONSE (COURTS SAFETY) LEGISLATION BILLIn CommitteeClause 1 TitleCHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): Members we now come to the COVID-19 Response (Courts Safety) Legislation Bill. This is the debate on clause 1 Title". The question is that clause 1 stand part.WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Assistant Whip—Labour): I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one question.CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): Leave has been requested for all provisions to be—leave is denied. The question is that clause 1 stand part. all those in favour say Aye—sorry. Sorry I'm getting ahead of myself. I call the Hon Paul Goldsmith."