edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Hipkins Chris; Carter DavidPOINTS OF ORDERBusiness Statement—Appropriation (2017/18 Supplementary Estimates) BillCHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have just received the emailed version of the business statement that the Leader of the House read earlier on in which he indicates that the Government will look to make progress on the Appropriation (2017/18 Supplementary Estimates) Bill when the House resumes. As that bill will not be introduced until Budget day next year I wonder whether he could indicate exactly what the progress is that the Government intends to make on it when the House resumes. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! If the member had had issue with the business statement I would have hoped he would make it at that time. It is not a point of order.Question time resumed.
Turei Metiria; Carter DavidForest & Bird—Supreme Court DecisionMETIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek leave to move a motion without notice or debate congratulating Forest & Bird on its successful defence of the Ruahine Forest Park in the Supreme Court. [Interruption] Mr SPEAKER: Order! The motion has been described. Leave is now sought to move that motion also without notice and without debate. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Points of Order — Forest & Bird—Supreme Court Decision
Points of Order — Foster Parents—Recognition of Commitment
Mark RonFoster Carers—Recognition of CommitmentRON MARK (Deputy Leader—NZ First): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek leave to move a motion without debate for foster families' contribution.Mr SPEAKER: I assume that is a motion without notice.RON MARK: Correct.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to move that particular motion. Could the member explain again exactly what it is? RON MARK: It is a motion without notice and without debate to recognise the huge commitment that foster parents make. Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to move that motion without notice and without debate. Is there objection? There is objection.
Points of Order — Nuclear Disarmament—Nuclear Weapons Prohibition Treaty Negotiations
Graham Kennedy; Carter DavidPOINTS OF ORDERNuclear Disarmament—Nuclear Weapons Prohibition Treaty NegotiationsDr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek leave to move a motion without notice or debate on the negotiations under way for a nuclear weapons prohibition treaty in New York. Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to move a motion without notice and without debate. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Woodhouse MichaelTHURSDAY 6 JULY 2017Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.BUSINESS STATEMENTHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Deputy Leader of the House): When the House resumes on Tuesday 25 July the Government will look to make progress on the Appropriation (2017/18 Supplementary Estimates) Bill the Commerce (Cartels and Other Matters) Amendment Bill and a number of other bills on the Order Paper. Wednesday 26 July will be a members' day.
Wednesday 5 July 2017 (continued on Thursday 6 July 2017) - Volume 723
Ngāti Tamaoho Claims Settlement Bill — First Reading
Bayly AndrewANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): It is a pleasure to be speaking on this bill the Ngāti Tamaoho Claims Settlement Bill. I am not a member of the Māori Affairs Committee but I am the local MP covering much of the area that is within the rohe of Ngāti Tamaoho—particularly the area that surrounds the Manukau Harbour Āwhitu Franklin and the Hunua Ranges—so I do feel a certain affinity to this bill what is going on and what it is seeking to achieve.I also want to acknowledge as other speakers have before me the recent passing of Dame Ngāneko Minhinnick who was a proud and lovely woman from Ngāti Te Ata. As rangatira whaea she was a wonderful leader of that iwi and one of the passionate people in terms of strong advocacy in seeking redress particularly in the Waiuku Āwhitu and Manukau areas.This bill represents the 84th settlement that has taken place with iwi but I always find it rather devastating reading the history of what has gone on with the iwi settlements. I think as Louisa Wall just quite rightly stated one of the things about these settlements is the great understanding of what has gone on in the past and the ability to understand that and the need to acknowledge that. The financial settlement is a small component of it but I think the ability to move forward is very important.I also want to acknowledge the negotiation team and particularly my friend Dennis Kirkwood who in fact lives just down the road from me. Part of the settlement and financial redress actually includes his school Te Hihi School which is at the end of my road and is where three of my boys went to. So I am particularly glad to hear that this bill is proceeding. I strongly support it and I look forward to seeing it come to fruition. Thank you.
Ngāti Pūkenga Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading
Hayes JoJOANNE HAYES (National): I stand to support the second reading of the Ngāti Pūkenga Claims Settlement Bill. I just want to acknowledge the korero that has gone on in the House today about where this settlement bill has got to. I want to acknowledge that the commercial redress is $7 million and there is right of first refusal (RFR) in relation to RFR lands for this iwi as well as the cultural redress of half a million dollars for cultural revitalisation and $180000 for marae revitalisation as part and parcel of this particular settlement.I just want to take a short time to acknowledge the members of Te Tāwharau o Ngāti Pūkenga Trust. You had an amazing task to do and I think that you have come through admirably for Ngāti Pūkenga whānau. I just want to acknowledge the members June Pitman and her alternate Hori Parata; Jocelyn Mikaere from Manaia and her alternate Dawn Wihongi; Hoturoa Kerr from Tauranga and his alternate Donna Tukariri—the members of Te Tāwharau.I also want to take this time to acknowledge the negotiation team led by Rāhera Ōhia: the negotiator Shane Ashby; the late Awanui Black of whom we have heard tributes here in the House today; Harry Haerengārangi Mīkaere; the manager Āreta Gray; and the legal counsel Dominic Wilson. These are the people who have worked very hard for Ngāti Pūkenga to get the bill to the second reading.I along with my colleagues in the House look forward to the Committee of the whole House and the third reading after which this bill gains the Royal assent. Without any further ado I commend the bill to the House. Thank you.
Reti ShaneDr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): Tēnā koe. It is a pleasure to speak to this the second reading of the Ngāti Pūkenga Claims Settlement Bill. This bill talks to the settlement for Ngāti Pūkenga who are part of two collectives: the Tauranga Moana Iwi Collective and the Hauraki Collective.The bill as has been discussed received one submission from Te Tāwharau o Ngāti Pūkenga Trust and a lot of focus has been on clause 103 the right of first refusal (RFR). I would like to briefly crystallise those arguments. First if we can be clear what the right of first refusal in this deed of settlement is actually talking to: it is talking to two properties in Tauranga. The first is Tauranga Intermediate School currently in the hands of the Ministry of Education and the second is the army centre currently in the hands of the New Zealand Defence Force.The arguments that Te Tāwharau put up for why the exemption should not be included were threefold. First of all it said that it is actually easy to ascertain whether RFR properties were originally gifted to the Crown and should therefore be subject to this clause. It gave the example that Ngāti Pūkenga has undertaken historical searches on the two RFR properties it is receiving and ascertained that neither were actually gifted. The second point it makes is that where there is no blanket RFR other Crown-owned land continues to be available for charitable purposes should that be required. The third point of the argument was that it was the antithesis of good-faith obligations on the part of the Crown to on the one hand offer redress and then on the other not to give them opportunity to take advantage of that redress.The response from officials was twofold. We were told that certainly there is precedence through all of the existing settlements. Secondly we were also told that the purpose for the RFR in the first place is that it is there on the basis to allow the owners to carry out their duties to deliver programmes and initiatives" in the interests of all New Zealanders." That notwithstanding as you heard the chair my good friend Nuk Korako say the Māori Affairs Committee pondered on this and thought that really we needed to make some comment.Precedence reflects a view of a certain point in time and if we were to "contemporanialise" if you like or make this current thinking contemporary the select committee was of a view that the RFR may no longer have point and purpose for what it was intended. And so you see the recommendation that we review this for future settlements going forward.This is just a very brief and short call. I just wanted to crystallise those arguments totally support this bill and continue to commend it to the House. Thank you."
Rangitāne Tū Mai Rā (Wairarapa Tāmaki nui-ā-Rua) Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading
Karakia
Korako NukWEDNESDAY 5 JULY 2017(continued on Thursday 6 July 2017)KARAKIANUK KORAKO (National): Tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā. I would ask that we would be able to beginning our proceedings this morning with a karakia.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Yes that is acceptable.NUK KORAKO: Kia ora. Ā tēnā rā koutou ngā pūāwaitaka o tō tātau matua tipuna. Ko tēnei karakia tīmataka he huihui takata kia īnoi tātau. Kei mua Koe i a mātau mahi katoa e Ihowa hei tohutohu i ā mātau mahi katoa. Ko Koe anō hoki hei whakakaha i a mātau mahi katoa. He mea tīmata he mea mahi he mea whakaoti i roto i a Koe kia whiwhi ai hoki mātau i te ora tonu i te mea e atawhaitia nei e Koe. Ko Ihu Karaiti nei hoki tō tātau Ariki āmine kia ora.[Thank you. Salutations to you the descendants of our eponymous ancestor. This commencement prayer brings people together; let us pray. You are before us in all our work oh Jehovah to guide us in all that we do and You make us stronger in all our work. It begins within You it is done within You and it is completed within You in order that we receive eternal life because of your benevolence. Jesus Christ is indeed our Lord amen thank you.]
Tuesday 11 April 2017 - Volume 721
VoteSchedule 2The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): We have Adrian Rurawhe's consequential amendments to schedule 2 changing the name of FENZ which are out of order as contingent on an amendment already negatived.A party vote was called for on the question That schedule 2 be agreed to.Ayes 109New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 12New Zealand First 12.Schedule 2 agreed to.
VoteSchedule 1The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 262 in the name of the Hon Peter Dunne to schedule 1 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 109New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 12New Zealand First 12.Amendments agreed to.Schedule 1 as amended agreed to.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That Part 4 as amended be agreed to.Ayes 109New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 12New Zealand First 12.Part 4 as amended agreed to.
VoteThe question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 262 in the name of the Hon Peter Dunne to Part 4 and the following amendment in his name to clause 151 be agreed to:New clause 151(5)After clause 151(4) (page 109 after line 19) insert:(5)FENZ may require a person who has applied for a permit to supply further relevant information before determining whether or not to grant the permit."A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 109New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 12New Zealand First 12.Amendments agreed to.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): We move to Adrian Rurawhe's consequential amendments to Part 4 inserting "Services" and changing the name of FENZ to FESNZ. They are out of order as contingent on an amendment already negatived."
VoteThe question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 262 in the name of the Hon Peter Dunne and the following amendment in his name to Part 3 be agreed to:in clause 84(1) after entered" insert "into".A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 109New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 12New Zealand First 12.Amendments agreed to.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): We move to Adrian Rurawhe's consequential amendments to Part 3 inserting "Services" and changing the name "FENZ" to "FESENZ". These are out of order as they are contingent on an amendment already negatived. The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 265 in the name of Clayton Mitchell to clause 70 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 26Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.Noes 95New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 32; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendment not agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That Part 3 as amended be agreed to.Ayes 109New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 12New Zealand First 12.Part 3 as amended agreed to."
VoteThe question was put that the amendments recommended by the Education and Science Committee by majority be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the question be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 58New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.Question agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the Education (Update) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.Ayes 63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 58New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.Bill read a second time.
Education (Update) Amendment Bill — Second Reading
10. Veterans—Repatriation of RemainsMAUREEN PUGH (National) to the Minister of Veterans' AffairsVeterans—Repatriation of Remains10. MAUREEN PUGH (National) to the Minister of Veterans' Affairs: What announcements has he made regarding repatriation of military personnel remains?Hon DAVID BENNETT (Minister of Veterans' Affairs): The New Zealand Government has announced that it is giving the families of military personnel and their dependants the opportunity to repatriate the remains of their loved ones buried in Malaysia and Singapore between 1955 and 1971. This decision comes as a result of recommendations of the Veterans' Advisory Board and the advocacy of the Royal New Zealand Returned and Services' Association and affected families. I would like to especially acknowledge the petition of the families of the forgotten fallen who presented to this Parliament last year. It is about making an unfair situation fair.Maureen Pugh: How many veterans would potentially be included in this announcement?Hon DAVID BENNETT: Between 1955 and 1971 there was inconsistency in how repatriation occurred. Prior to 1955 there was no expectation of repatriation. After 1971 all bodies were repatriated. Between 1955 and 1971 some families had repatriation where they paid towards the costs. Others were not informed or were discouraged from repatriation. Meanwhile civil servants were repatriated. There are 36 families that will be given the opportunity to repatriate from cemeteries in Singapore and Malaysia. This covers the Malaya- and Vietnam-conflict military personnel. The New Zealand Defence Force will consider extending the process to a further 13 families who have loved ones buried in other locations around the world from the same period of time. The Government is rectifying the inconsistencies of the past in repatriation for affected families.Maureen Pugh: What are the options for the families for repatriation?Hon DAVID BENNETT: The initial step in the process is for families to contact the New Zealand Defence Force. The families will have the choice as to whether or not to repatriate from the overseas cemeteries. We understand that this is a sensitive issue for many families especially those with particular cultural considerations. For those who choose to have their loved ones brought back to New Zealand it is now a process that will be worked through with the New Zealand Defence Force. The Government is determined to right the wrongs of the past and give repatriation to those families who wish to do so. It is time to bring them home.
7. Schools—Communities of LearningDr JIAN YANG (National) to the Minister of EducationSchools—Communities of Learning7. Dr JIAN YANG (National) to the Minister of Education: What recent announcements has she made regarding Communities of Learning?Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): This morning I was pleased to announce that a further 17 communities of learning have been established bringing the total to almost 200. There are now 184 early learning services 1630 schools and four tertiary providers covering more than half a million young people in kāhui ako across the country. I am particularly pleased to see that the number of early learning services joining communities of learning has doubled in just 4 months with 20 percent of kāhui ako now having the full nought to 18 learning pathway represented. Finally in amongst all this good news I was pleased to announce that more than 1100 teachers and principals have been appointed to new roles. It is fantastic to see so many talented individuals in the sector taking up these new roles. Dr Jian Yang: How do communities of learning support achievement for our young people?Hon HEKIA PARATA: In so many ways. Communities of learning are about end-to-end education pathways with children and young people at the very centre. The achievement challenges that a kāhui ako sets using its shared data are about raising the achievement of all participating students. Communities of learning are designed to ensure all children and young people can benefit from the expertise and experience of the most skilled teachers and education leaders in their communities.Mēnā ka whakarongo ēnā mema Pāremata ka ako rātou me pēhea te haere o Te Kāhui Ako.[If those members of Parliament listen they will learn how communities of learning operate.]Kāhui ako are intended to raise the quality of teaching and leadership across a whole community through sharing expertise and resources. I thank the member from New Zealand First for enjoying that answer so much.Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister can resume her seat.
4. Family/Whānau Violence—Family Violence Information Disclosure SchemeDr PARMJEET PARMAR (National) to the Minister of PoliceFamily/Whānau Violence—Family Violence Information Disclosure Scheme4. Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National) to the Minister of Police: What updates has she received about the effectiveness of the Government's scheme to allow people to find out whether their partner has a history of domestic violence?Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister of Police): In December 2015 we introduced a scheme that allows people to ask police whether their partner has a violent past. Sadly there have been too many cases where people have been unable to find out whether their partner or the partner of someone close to them has a history of violence. The scheme has been used 158 times since it began and 74 percent of requests for information have been approved by police. When police are able to provide people with information about their partner's history of violence people can then make more informed choices about their relationships.Dr Parmjeet Parmar: How does this scheme work?Hon PAULA BENNETT: A disclosure request can be made to police by the partner of the potentially violent person or by a concerned third party such as a family member. Police can also proactively release information if they believe someone is at risk of violence from their partner. The police have made 117 proactive requests; 41 have been by a third party. Preventing family violence is a priority for Police and this Government.Dr Parmjeet Parmar: What examples does she have of how the scheme has helped people to leave potentially violent relationships?Hon PAULA BENNETT: Police have told me about a disclosure they made to a young woman who was in a relationship with a man whom they knew to have had multiple relationships with very young women where he began to manipulate and use emotional abuse and they saw that increasing. Police believed the woman was at risk as his behaviour was escalating towards becoming violent. When police approached her to make the voluntary disclosure she said she had seen the man's behaviour deteriorating and as a result she left the relationship and moved back in with family.
Rurawhe AdrianClauses 1 and 2ADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour—Te Tai Hauāuru): I am proud to stand on behalf of the Labour Party to say that we support this bill. I think it is important that we recognise the Government Administration Committee and the role that it played in this bill and I want to thank the chair and all of the members of the select committee for the good work that was done on this. I think the process means that we have got a better bill. Of course I am disappointed that we did not get the name of the organisation changed to include the word Service" but we accept that. Just to reiterate the point I think it was very clear that the people who are going to be working for the new organisation see that as part of who they are and their brand. So without further ado I think we should pass this bill and I commend it to the House. Kia ora."
Foster-Bell PaulPAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): I move That the question be now put.
Henare PeeniPEENI HENARE (Labour—Tāmaki Makaurau): I want to follow along some of the contributions with regard to tikanga. I accept the response given by Minister Dunne about the capabilities of the Fire Service and I know some of the iwi liaison officers—for want of a better term—work very closely with their particular communities. In this particular clause 133 it talks about the power to enter homes and I understand that and I take on board the comment made by the Minister but I wonder whether in the Minister's experience—or certainly in his communications with the Fire Service—they have talked about what happens post the actual event.I think that is an important thing because in my experience where there has been an emergency on a marae and the Fire Service has come in and done a great job quite often there is a very very clear ceremony that I guess—in the true respect of the proverb: Ka mate kāinga tahi ka ora kāinga rua"—one house burns down or dies and another one rises—goes with that. In my experience with that particular incident in Whakapara in the Far North the marae at Whakapara—recently actually when that fire took place—the communications from the Fire Service were excellent from the outset. It was a sad and tragic occasion and they did the best that they could do at that particular point in time.But post—post is where I am getting to in regard to my question on tikanga—the particular incident I wonder can the Minister give us any assurances or certainly make a commitment to make sure that that post process of an emergency event like the one that happened in Whakapara and out in Mōkau out in Ngātiwai as well takes place; to make sure that no matter where those particular incidents take place there is the follow-up and things are not just focused on the actual event itself."
Rurawhe AdrianADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour—Te Tai Hauāuru): I too want to speak to Part 4 of the Fire and Emergency New Zealand Bill. I endorse the words that my colleague Kris Faafoi has said—I sort of jumped up earlier. But one of the issues around that is not having a proper interpretation of what kawa is because it can mean different things in different places and I just wanted to note that.I wanted to speak around the inspectors in investigations. One of the issues that was raised by submitters was that Fire and Emergency New Zealand (FENZ) would not seemingly have independent or its own investigators. That seemed to be something that was lacking within the FENZ structure. So I just wanted to ask Minister Dunne to comment on that and ask whether he thought that that was something that diminished the role of FENZ or gave it some weakness around its potential operations around carrying out investigations.
Dunne PeterHon PETER DUNNE (Minister of Internal Affairs): In the absence of any other speaker I am happy to give the member Kris Faafoi that assurance. This does dovetail with the earlier legislation that he referred to. I can also assure him that the Fire and Emergency New Zealand transition team which is quite comprehensive is well in tune with these sorts of nuances and relationships and is working quite closely to ensure that we get the message out to the people on the ground about what the provisions of the bill say and how we expect them to be honoured in practice. I think there has been quite a level of cooperation and agreement between marae and iwi interests and the transition team in terms of that process. I am happy to give the member that assurance.
Tisch Lindsay; Faafoi KrisPart 4 Miscellaneous and enforcement provisionsThe CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Members we now move to Part 4 and this is debate on clauses 107 to 161 and schedule 2.KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana): Can I thank hopefully—in anticipation of Minister Peter Dunne answering a question around clauses 132 and 133 in Part 4 of the bill. I think these go to questions around times where Fire and Emergency New Zealand (FENZ) inspectors can enter properties. In a previous piece of legislation before the House—I think it was the Intelligence and Security Bill which was passed recently—marae were singled out and for a very good reason. But I just think that question again needs to be put on the record to clarify that for the same reason under clause 133 marae are singled out as separate from any old dwelling as to consent from occupiers to under a warrant enter that land or building. Clause 133(4) also goes to that so that when a warrant is exercised on a marae so far as practicable" the fire and emergency service staff must take into account the kawa or protocol of a particular marae. So my first question is: is this being singled out because we designate them as special as it was in the Intelligence and Security Bill? The second question is I guess an assurance that communication will be sent to FENZ officers that the protocol of the marae must be adhered to in reasonable circumstances because I think that is a very important part of the legislation—to make sure that we get that right.I am assuming these clauses are for a good reason and that we are respectful of what happens on marae and of the protocols around the marae. This was just a very short call to the Minister to put on the record that we are singling them out for a positive reason and not a negative one."
Foster-Bell PaulPAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): I move That the question be now put.Motion agreed to.
Rurawhe AdrianADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour—Te Tai Hauāuru): In Part 3 about the levy I thought I would start off by just commenting on some of the other contributions if I can. It is my understanding that we have got to the point of having a system of levies because Cabinet made a decision around what I understand was advice that it should come out of general taxation funding and that that was not an option. So they landed on having a system of levies.I want to refer to the submission made by the Insurance Council of New Zealand. It had a number of concerns. In particular it had concerns around the complexities of collecting this levy. It had issues around the compliance costs to the insurer. The council had issues around the fact that in its view Fire and Emergency New Zealand lacked independence and is potentially conflicted because it is responsible for the collection of the levy and then it is spending the levy. It would be like a Government department collecting its own taxation so it can spend it directly. Of course we do not allow that to happen. I felt the issues that the insurance companies and the Insurance Council of New Zealand raised on behalf of its members were valid arguments. So I think it is important for me to express in this debate what their point of view was.I also reflect upon the many submissions that were made by museums in particular and my colleagues have already expressed that. I wanted to draw that further and include also a group that we did not get submissions from and that is marae. A lot of marae have within them valuable taonga and they have valuable carvings—irreplaceable carvings. So if a museum had to pay a levy based on the value of its collection a marae in the same way would have to pay a levy based on the valuation of its contents. I would also bring in Churches as well. I think there are a number of areas that we probably did not explore widely enough through the select committee process.I give credit to museums that throughout the country put forward their point of view around the impact high levies would have on their ability to provide the service that they provide. They made some I thought compelling arguments saying things like: Well it costs the same amount of money to put out a painting that is on fire that has a multimillion-dollar value as it does for one that is of lesser value." How do you reconcile that? So we were pleased that there is within the bill a regime of exemptions. I think that there will be some nervousness out there around whether those particular museums and others like them as I have already stated—"
Hudson BrettBRETT HUDSON (National): It is an absolute pleasure to rise in support of the Education (Update) Amendment Bill. I am astounded actually that a previous speaker in this debate does not seem to know the difference between a system that is fit for purpose and the idea of a person who is fit for purpose. The reason we want a system that is fit for purpose is that I actually believe that all members around the House want the very best education outcomes for our children. We know that education is the bedrock of their future success. The world changes around us and it is a good thing it does and the best thing we can do not only as legislators but for many of us as parents is to help our children to prepare for the world that they will grow into and will work in. This bill is all about doing just that. It is about ensuring that the education system—the curriculum the content the things that our children will experience in the education system—and the things they will learn are preparing them for the workforce that they will enter. I commend this bill to the House.
Huo RaymondRAYMOND HUO (Labour): Colleagues who spoke before me have outlined the major points of objection to this bill. There are two main concerns I feel very strongly about which are first of all the low-trust compliance-based mentality that is doing so much damage to the current education system and secondly that it appears that the current Government has taken the attitude that the only learning that matters is the learning that can be easily measured or rated. That reminds me of the everlasting debate among Chinese scholars Chinese parents and most importantly Chinese teachers that asks rather cruelly whether the Chinese education system is a poison or remedy.I am not sure when it got started but it seems that is an accepted norm in China now that the most efficient way to manage the delivery of education or as a matter of fact the management of school children in China is by testing measuring categorising and grading them. As a result the Chinese education system is becoming essentially a test-based elite education system. Students who excel in school are awarded with praise and encouragements but struggling students are eventually abandoned because everyone is struggling for measuring and grading. Creativity and critical thinking have been gradually ignored. The Chinese education system has become one that produces millions of test-taking experts. What would otherwise be happy schooling has been replaced with a daily routine that puts students to tests and fits them with the so-called correct answers whereas schools compete against each other for higher ratings and so on and so forth.Do we need that in New Zealand? Many Chinese parents have no choice but to send their kids to be educated in New Zealand but in New Zealand which direction should we take in terms of how to manage the delivery of education for the 21st century? Do we want to abandon extracurricular activities in order to devote more time to tests exams and all sorts of different kinds of measurements? What this bill will do is make that kind of measurement a new normal. If that becomes a reality New Zealand schools will certainly follow what is happening in China—default to testing as a reliable indicator of competence.I am not against testing or measurements per se. What we are concerned about is that this National Government is narrowing the focus of the education system focusing on a small set of measurable targets to the exclusion of a broad and balanced curriculum. That is not working. New Zealand's international rankings are going backwards under this National Government. New Zealand's Programme for International Student Assessment results for reading maths and science have all declined in recent years. Thank you.
Muller Todd; Borrows ChesterTODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): It gives me great pleasure to rise and take a short call on the Education (Update) Amendment Bill. If there is one thing that I can agree with Tracey Martin it is that what she has done in the last 10 minutes is given voice to the clear gulf of perspectives that has existed around this bill from the moment that it has been introduced into the House and into the select committee.Where we on this side see the opportunity through this legislation to modernise the sector members in Opposition see change to be resisted at every turn. When we argue as I think we have very coherently through this entire bill that we put children at the centre of our thinking and of our approach in education they see it in terms of us having an obsession in testing and achievement data—as if somehow that is something to be avoided. The world is changing fast. We put forward the communities of online learning as part of this bill; they see it as somehow forcing schools to go down a path. They have never appreciated that there is flexibility implicit in this piece of legislation. When we talk about national education learning priorities objectives they somehow think this is going to morph into aggressive targets.At the core of this legislation is a philosophical belief on this side that if you put children at the centre of your legislative framework if you bake into the system the ability to breathe and be flexible—because the reality is we are part of a world that is changing very dynamically and we have to ensure that our children are fit for purpose and we need a framework that can breathe that is not caught in an historical lens. All we have heard over the last half an hour—and no doubt we will hear in the next half an hour—is more echoing of the same tired lost-in-the-past rhetoric. I look forward to the Committee of the whole House debate where we can debate those philosophical positions as I am sure we will. Thank you very much.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Gareth Hughes—a 5-minute call on behalf of the Green Party.
Barclay ToddTODD BARCLAY (National—Clutha-Southland): It is a pleasure to rise in support of this bill. I think we need to not lose sight of the fact that New Zealand has a world-performing top-class education system. We are among the top performers in the OECD and what this bill sets out to achieve is to make us even better and even more futureproofed.This is the biggest update in nearly 30 years. The Education and Science Committee ran a robust process and I had the privilege of joining it about halfway through. Before that process was run by the committee where there were hundreds of people who came in to provide submissions right from the unions to sector professionals and to other interested parties the Ministry of Education did a phenomenal job of collating all of the submissions and providing advice and feedback to our committee on them not to mention the amount of work that the Minister of Education has put in through the Ministerial Cross-Sector Forum on Raising Achievement and her individual engagements working across schools and with other sector representatives across a large number of years. So for the Labour Party to suggest that this is some form of rushed job that has been ill-thought-out that could not be further from the truth.I want to acknowledge the Minister for all the work that she has put in over the last 6 years in the role. I am pleased that we can be debating this bill in her final months as Minister of Education.Schools are complex and at times challenging environments but they are also unique and innovative environments. They are also largely driven on success that is born out of strong relationships. I think a fundamental flaw—and it was not a flaw at the time it was written in 1989 but it is certainly a flaw that we are noticing now in the 21st century—was that the Education Act 1989 was largely written in a prescriptive manner targeted around how schools are administered and how they are run whereas they need to be much more nimble and much more accommodating to the individual requests of the 2529 schools across New Zealand and the unique nuances of how they operate and the unique nuances of how their staff and parent community operates within the school as well—the individual attributes that the parent community and the community associated with these schools want to see brought forward through its school.That is one of the things that this Government is focused on. We are focused on ensuring that every kid gets the best possible opportunities in our education system. The needs of every child and young person are very much at the centre of that—not the needs of how a system is run but the needs of the individual children. That is why it is a pleasure to be able to support this bill and I look forward to progressing the debate.
Yang JianDr JIAN YANG (National): The world has changed dramatically in the past 30 years. Accordingly we have made numerous legal changes relating to various parts of the Government business society etc. But in terms of New Zealand education we have not made substantial updates or changes in the past 30 years. It is against this background that we are now considering the Education (Update) Amendment Bill. This is the most significant and substantial bill that will have a fundamental impact on our education system.The 1989 Education Act focuses on how we run schools and this bill will enable schools and early childhood education centres to provide a more flexible 21st century education that focuses on the achievement of every young New Zealander. The Minister of Education the Hon Hekia Parata just announced that we now have 197 communities of learning covering well over half a million young people and that is great news. It is recognised that teaching and learning would benefit from the collaboration of education providers. Such collaboration would benefit the students would help students to transition and would also be good for their well-being. Teaching will also benefit from such collaboration because teachers will be able to share good ideas good practice professional development and even resources. This bill will provide for new statutory mechanisms relating to communities of learning. In that sense this bill will enhance collaboration between education providers.One major challenge to today's education is the advance of technology. These days people can learn anywhere at any time through a wide range of delivery modes that specifically meet their education needs. It is now very common for schools to provide some kind of online learning and that is common in traditional face-to-face schools. The 1989 Education Act is outdated because it did not expect the growth of online learning. This bill aims to address some restrictions in that 1989 Education Act that might well limit the potential of best and new innovative practices. This bill will try to set up a future-focused regulatory system.One concern that was often raised in the hearings was the quality control of the communities of online learning or COOLs. That concern is understandable. However we have a very robust accreditation system or process also there will be ongoing monitoring from the Ministry of Education and all COOLs will be reviewed by the Education Review Office. The National-led Government is committed to modernising our education system into one that will meet the challenges of the 21st century.
Macindoe TimTIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): I was not expecting to take a call on the Family and Whānau Violence Legislation Bill but I am very pleased to do so not only because it is a subject that is dear to my heart but actually because I think it is a subject that is dear to the heart of every member of this House. It has been encouraging to hear such intelligent and sensitive contributions from members across the House and I do thank them for that.I am very mindful of the fact that the galleries are filling and I would flatter myself to think that they are here for me but I know that they are not. Nevertheless given the fact that the main act appears not to be quite present at this moment—Iain Lees-Galloway: Keep talking.TIM MACINDOE: —ha ha!—I shall oblige the Opposition on this occasion by assisting them out of their little predicament while my very good friend the senior Opposition whip sees whether he can rectify the minor problem that exists at this moment.In all seriousness this is a very important bill and I endorse the comments of Louisa Wall the member who spoke before me. In particular as she did I want to acknowledge the tremendous work that women's refuges do around the country and to sincerely thank them because what incredible challenges—what heartbreaking cases—they sometimes have to deal with. In my own electorate in Hamilton West I want to acknowledge the fine work that our women's refuge does. We cannot do enough to try to get on top of this problem because it is an astonishing blight on our society that such a terrible situation exists in a country of such wonderful opportunity where we have so much going for ourselves and where there are so many wonderful things happening.I am delighted to be able to say now that the other reason why the galleries are so full has emerged. I therefore have great pleasure in commending this bill to the House.Bill read a first time. Bill referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee.
Family and Whānau Violence Legislation Bill — First Reading
Pugh MaureenMAUREEN PUGH (National): I too stand in support of the Family and Whānau Violence Legislation Bill in the name of the Hon Amy Adams. This bill is the biggest overhaul of our family violence laws in 20 years. The new principles within the bill will guide decisions in protecting victims from all forms of violence and minimise disruption to their lives. It will guide practitioners to work together to protect families and victims. Another aspect of this bill is the improvement to access for victims to protection orders. Those orders will be better tailored to the vulnerable victims. They will have an easier application. Those more vulnerable victims I speak of are our older people and people with disabilities. This bill provides a new foundation in tackling the unacceptable level of domestic violence in New Zealand and I have great pleasure in commending it to the House.
Mathers Mojo; Tisch LindsayMOJO MATHERS (Green): I rise to speak to the Family and Whānau Violence Legislation Bill. I commend the Minister for bringing this bill to the House. Other speakers have addressed the bill and spoken about why it is needed and they have the concern that it does not go far enough. What I want to do is talk about a very specific clause that has very deep personal significance to me which is that the bill in new section 3B in clause 9 updates the definition of family violence to include harm and ill-treatment to pets as part of that definition and it recognises that as psychological abuse. There is no doubt that that change is needed.In 2012 there was a ground-breaking report by the SPCA and Women's Refuge called Pets as Pawns: The Co-existence of Animal Cruelty and Family Violence which brought to public light the prevalence of cruelty and harm to family pets as a means of controlling partners and children in violent family situations. More than half of the respondents had partners who had threatened or actually harmed a family pet more than a third had had a family pet killed at some point and the report described the psychological impacts of that both on partners and children. It described how there are some women who could not leave their partner for fear that their loved family pet would be killed.This is something that is close to my heart because I know personally the harm that that causes. When I was 9 years old my grandmother gave me a kitten. It was a beautiful tabby kitten with white paws and a pink nose. I can see that kitten now in front of my eyes. Of course like all 9-year-old children I loved that kitten and I played with it whenever I came home from school. I named that kitten Mittens which is not very original I know. But one day I came home from school and Mittens was not there because during a family argument with my mother a member of the family had taken a piece of wood and bashed my kitten on the head to show how angry they were and it killed my kitten. Of course I was devastated. I was 9 years old and I was as upset as you can imagine any 9-year-old child could be.But the consequences of that are more than the tears that I shed on the day because they become the deep and abiding fear of what people will do of what members of your own family who are meant to keep you safe will do when they are angry and want to control other members of the family. That an innocent animal a pet should be harmed in this way is just outrageous. So it is well overdue for this to be recognised in the definition of family violence to recognise that this is psychological abuse and that it needs to be recognised in the court in applications for protection orders and so on—that actually it is an incredibly controlling mechanism.So I am very pleased to see this in the bill and I applaud the Minister for making these changes. It will be very interesting to see what other stories come out at the select committee around family violence and around the many multifaceted aspects of it in New Zealand.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I call Stuart Nash—5 minutes.