edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
McAnulty KieranHon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you very much Mr Speaker. I've tabled an amendment to the motion to delay the report back to the House by one month to 14 April. The reason is that it is a proposal to the Government from the Opposition to meet us halfway here. Obviously if there was an instruction to the committee to report back within a certain period of time it's not a debatable motion because it's broadly accepted in the Standing Orders that that is a reasonable amount of time at select committee. One month as has been heard from the contributions from my colleagues is considered on this side of the House to be too short. I will give the Minister credit: at least he is giving us the opportunity to have a debate at select committee; that is not what we have seen often from this Government so far. So credit where it's due. But one month is too short. When the House considers the reason why this was banned in the first place there are genuine and reasonable concerns about what is being proposed. The Labour Party is willing to support the bill to select committee; we just want the select committee to be long enough to ensure that this House gets the opportunity to hear the views pro and against so that we can make an informed decision at the second reading.Surely the Minister and the Government parties would want to take the opportunity to have as broad a consensus as possible across this House. We've already had the vote at the first reading and only one political party voted against it—as is their right. That actually doesn't happen that often. So we have an opportunity to ensure that the best possible chance to have the broadest level of support for this bill—and all we're proposing is we delay the referral date as proposed by the Minister in his motion by one month. It's still roughly four months shorter than what a normal select committee length of time would be anyway. So it's not like we're asking for much.I get it—I really do. This is the Minister's big thing at the moment and he wants it in place by winter. I get that. It's popular. He'll be the king of the chemist. Great. Good on him. But let's be realistic. He himself has conceded that the official advice says that it probably actually won't be in place till next year anyway. So what is the point in rushing too much? It's a month.One month is what we're proposing formally on the Table—that we amend the motion and that the House and our colleagues get the best possible opportunity to give everyone—not just those who are experts in the field but everyone who has an interest in this debate—the opportunity to be able to contribute at select committee. It might be that everyone's in favour of it. Great. But how will we know for sure if really in practice there's probably only one or two weeks as my colleague Dr Ayesha Verrall has mentioned to get a submission in.So I would encourage the House to consider this amendment. It's put down in good faith. We want to do what we can to support the Minister's bill. It would be a shame I think if that opportunity was dismissed.
Ngarewa-Packer DebbieDEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori): Ā tēnā koe. We'd like to speak to the referral as well and support our esteemed colleagues and refer to the fact that a month is going to be way too short. We respect the view that there does need to be consideration to the weather but what we are concerned about is the scale of the communities who are affected by meth the ability to mobilise and be able—and I am referring from stats and if we look at it from the Māori community's perspective they do need to be able to have a good ability to talk to be able to come and submit and to be able to make sure that they take the most of this opportunity for the Minister and the Government to hear their concerns.Again I reiterate I understand the concerns about keeping people well during the cold season winter season but there is no imminent solution to address the outstanding problem that we have in our communities with meth. We do require that there is a longer period of time for the select committee to receive this and ensure that the public particularly Māori communities get the valuable time that they need to be able to prepare the information and to prepare the stats—also the medical fraternity those pharmacists who are concerned with this as we've seen and we've all been lobbied for. So we don't support the Minister's referral to select committee. We would implore that there's a longer period of time for select committee. Kia ora.
Verrall AyeshaHon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour): I thank the Minister for that contribution and I hope it's clear to the Minister through our earlier contributions on the bill that the Labour Party respects the effort that is being made here to improve access to a health treatment and the initiatives that the Minister has taken. However it is our view that only four weeks at select committee is too short. There have been very valid concerns raised about the impact of pseudoephedrine as a potential source of meth on the community by some of my colleagues here in the preceding debate and also that was obviously a concern to some of the members of the Government in the past.That does matter and it is a matter such that we should approach that judiciously and deliberate on that properly. Four weeks only leaves people who are expert in this who work in communities who work in pharmacy—it only leaves them a week or two to put in their submission if that. I put it to you that that is too short.I think it is incorrect to say it is a matter of debating a couple of pages on a bill for one month—that is not what the committee will be doing. The Health Committee is a very busy committee with a big annual review of Te Whatu Ora kicking off tomorrow but the issue is that the community will not have time to make the submissions they need to make.I noted the Minister's point about winter. That is a very valid concern and as it happens my first contribution as a Minister in this House was the retrospective amendment to the Medicines Act required to approve the COVID vaccine where we had to enable legislation to enable the COVID vaccine roll-out. We did that under urgency. I believe the justification for that was appropriate because we had an illness that would kill potentially thousands of people. We know the vaccination programme saved tens of thousands of lives. We had an imminent threat with COVID circulating all around the world.In this situation the measure that's being proposed is to prevent a sniffle. These are vastly different in terms of the justification for using expedited processes. You cannot compare the need for vaccine access passed under urgency to something which is a treatment for a mild symptom. We respect what is trying to be done here but there are serious consequences from changing this law and we think the public deserve a right to have their say.
Hamilton RyanRYAN HAMILTON (National—Hamilton East): Thank you Mr Speaker. It's good to see that this is going through select committee. But I guess a point of interest from the Hon Ayesha Verrall is where she talked about how it would be good to see what pharmacists think. I had the opportunity to talk to a pharmacist just today saying Potentially you're going to have the opportunity to sell more pseudoephedrine-based products next year." and she said "Finally something that works." So that was an interesting point of phrase. I don't know about you Mr Speaker but when I think about something that I want to decongest nasal congestion I often think "Gosh I wish I had a non-prescription pseudoephedrine-based vasoconstrictive bronchodilator." and potentially with this good legislation this will flow through so I look forward to seeing that. Of course this is about choice for New Zealanders. Some New Zealanders when they're cold and stuffy they want a greater option than just Tixylix. So I recommend this bill to the House."
Meager JamesJAMES MEAGER (National—Rangitata): Last week was a great day for New Zealanders. Today's a great day for sniffly New Zealanders because what this bill does is it allows for the sale of effective cold medicines across the counter at pharmacies who choose to provide it across the country. We used to be able to get pseudoephedrine across the counter. It was prohibited back in 2011 to slow the meth trade. It didn't work and so we're going back to where we've come from. I'll be interested actually in the views of the member Greg O'Connor who knows a lot about this sector and has experience in this part of the world as well. So I'll be very interested in his views. Now members made some comments around crime. We did have the Commissioner of Police before the Justice Committee earlier—last week—and I'll have to check the transcription but my recollection was that he said there'd be very little impact on the crime trade. Most of the precursor comes through the border and so the prime issues are not actually what they may seem. I commend the bill to the House and look forward to its passage.
Cheung CarlosDr CARLOS CHEUNG (National—Mt Roskill): I rise to support the introduction of this bill to this House. This Government is committed to ensuring New Zealanders can access quality healthcare in this case to access some of the most effective over-the-counter cold and flu medication without the need of a prescription. This bill strikes the balance between enabling New Zealanders to swiftly recover from cold and flu and limiting public use of pseudoephedrine for the production of methamphetamine. Therefore I support the bill. Thank you.
Costello CaseyHon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Health): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak in support of this bill and applaud the Minister for taking initiative to improve the lives of New Zealanders. As a family who suffers significantly from respiratory illnesses having something that will alleviate this congestion in winter time will be excellent. Unfortunately the environment under which we currently live has changed significantly from when pseudoephedrine was re-classified. Unfortunately there is a massive import of completed methamphetamine products into New Zealand a rising crime trend that we need to combat. The pseudoephedrine is no longer the threat that it was at the time that it was re-classified. Therefore I think it highly appropriate that we put New Zealanders and the conditions that New Zealanders face during winter at the forefront of our decision making. I support the bill.
Uffindell SamSAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga): Thank you Mr Speaker. I rise to support this bill. We know that prescriptions are currently required to access products containing pseudoephedrine but manufacturers have allowed their product approvals to lapse so there's currently no pseudoephedrine products available in New Zealand. These tighter controls have not affected the overall supply of methamphetamine in New Zealand. So this bill reclassifies pseudoephedrine from a class B to a class C controlled drug which allows for the sale of pseudoephedrine-based products for cold and flu without a prescription. It is an effective medicine and allowing this will enable people who have a cold and a flu to improve their health and wellbeing. I support this bill.
Seymour David; Brownlee GerrySITTINGS OF THE HOUSEHon DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Mr Speaker point of order. I seek leave for the House to adjourn three minutes early before the dinner break.SPEAKER: There is provision for that. Leave is sought. Is there any objection to that course? There appears to be none. The House is adjourned until 7.30 p.m.Sitting suspended from 5.57 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.
Brownlee GerryINTRODUCTION OF BILLSSPEAKER: I understand it's the intention of the Government to introduce three bills.CLERK: Misuse of Drugs (Pseudoephedrine) Amendment Bill introductionLegal Services Amendment Bill introductionLand Transport Management (Repeal of Regional Fuel Tax) Amendment Bill introduction.SPEAKER: The Legal Services Amendment Bill and the Land Transport Management (Repeal of Regional Fuel Tax) Amendment Bill are set down for first reading presently. The Misuse of Drugs (Pseudoephedrine) Amendment Bill is set down for first reading immediately.
Seymour DavidURGENCYHon DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I move That urgency be accorded the introduction and first reading of the Misuse of Drugs (Pseudoephedrine) Amendment Bill the introduction and the first and second readings of the Legal Services Amendment Bill and the introduction and passing through all stages of the Land Transport Management (Repeal of Regional Fuel Tax) Amendment Bill.The purpose of moving urgency this evening is to further necessary actions within the coalition Government's 100-day plan. These include the legislation beginning the sale of pseudoephedrine the removal of funding for section 27 reports and the repeal of the Auckland regional fuel tax.
Social Workers Registration Legislation Amendment Bill — Third Reading
Mooney JosephJOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you very much Mr Speaker. I rise to make a very short contribution on the Social Workers Registration Legislation Amendment Bill at its third reading which will soon become law. Since 2021 the Social Workers Registration Act has required all social workers to register with the board and to be eligible for registration applicants must have a qualification recognised by that board. However there is an exception in section 13 which allows an alternative pathway for people with extensive practical experience but without a prescribed qualification to become social workers.This bill addresses a concern that we have on two hands. One is that we have serious shortage of social workers and we have heard this afternoon from many contributions to this House the huge value that the country and that this House has with our social workers who provide a very important function in our communities often dealing with the most vulnerable people dealing with some of the most difficult moments in their lives. They help those people and that's something that we wish them to do but we wish to make sure that people have the relevant experience and/or qualifications to do so.Presently we are wanting to ensure the public trust and confidence in the social work profession is there which is the aim of that legislation I mentioned at the beginning which is the purpose of having a change to mandatory qualifications. However recognising that we are 700 social workers short as we speak at least—that's the understanding—we're changing this to give a two-year buffer for this experience pathway to exist as it currently does to balance that need to account for the current shortage of workers while promoting a timely transition to mandatory qualifications to enhance that public trust and confidence in the social work profession. Also that two years will provide time for entry pathways into the social work sector to be considered and potentially broadened.So this is a good amendment that takes into account the practical realities of our present time. I would before I finally commend this to the House just once again thank all those who work in this profession throughout the country. They really do contribute a huge amount to our communities and I thank them on behalf of my community and our communities.
SpeechRt Hon ADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour): Tēnā koe e te Māngai otirā ki a tātou katoa i whiriwhiri i ngā kōrero mō tēnei pire i tēnei wā. Nō reira tēnā rā tātou.[Thank you to the Speaker indeed to all of us who have discussed the statements about this bill at this time. And so greetings to all of us.]I'd like to join with colleagues around the House first of all to acknowledge the importance of social workers in our everyday lives in Aotearoa. In particular I think back on not even the last decade but even further and quite often social workers have been used sometimes within politics to often batter them around what's happening in places like Oranga Tamariki and in other organisations. I think this Chamber should always take care not to do that. My thoughts around it picking up on what a number of MPs—I think every single member that has spoken on this bill about the lived experiences of some social workers to be registered that do not have academic qualifications to do so but they have a whole lot of lived experiences and a whole lot of skills that ought to be valued.I suppose my big question about this is trying to understand what the country gains by only having a two-year period as opposed to a four-year period and what we potentially lose. We're probably not going to know that until two years from now in 2026 whether those 700 places have been filled and whether or not they could have been filled by people who are currently practising but who have not got the relevant qualifications to be able to be registered on any other pathway. So that's my basis for wanting to talk about this.I was involved in Maatua Whāngai in the 1990s. I don't even know if Maatua Whāngai still operates around the country but they were certainly still operating in the 1990s. The organisations that I worked with were all either volunteers or they were paid employees that did not have academic qualifications. The interesting thing for me is that these people were quite often very well regarded within their communities. Of course Maatua Whāngai they were all Māori. I remember those young adults that were training to be social workers a number of those institutes would send their students to those Maatua Whāngai to learn how to be a social worker and more importantly to learn how to work with Māori because we all know—and we've all seen the statistics—that within that field of work there are many many shortcomings for social workers who work in mainstream who did not have the skills to be able to help Māori whānau.Therefore that's the main thing that I want to say. An additional two years could well have made a big difference. We won't know that until two years from now. Nō reira tēnā rā tātou katoa.
Ngarewa-Packer Debbie; O'Connor GregDEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori): Point of order please Mr Speaker. I'd like to please implore to the Speaker that there's effort and correction of pronunciation of our MPs' names. We have experienced it for the last few months. I know that it can be difficult as a second language - learner but there is a very different meaning from the name that Takutai was referred to as and I do think that we need to implore that the House—and the Speaker specifically—get these correct.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): Yeah well certainly that's an effort we will make. I did correct my initial pronunciation but I'll take that on board.
Kemp Takutai TarshTAKUTAI TARSH KEMP (Te Pāti Māori—Tāmaki Makaurau): Tēnā koe e te Pīka. Tēnā tātou e te Whare anō. I'm taking this call for the third reading on behalf of Te Pāti Māori. Te Pāti Māori acknowledge the mana of social workers and tautoko this bill. What we don't support is the shortened time frame from four years to two years. We get it—there's a workforce issue. There's simply not enough registered social workers to meet the vacancy needs in our community—believe me I know. As a CEO of Manurewa Marae we were faced with this issue all the time. And it continues—it's not a new issue.The bill supports our mana ōrite policy acknowledging pay equity for Māori social workers—pai tēnā. Protecting our whakapapa is everything to the survival of our culture our tikanga and our mokopuna.I want to share with the members of this House my experience in my role as the CEO of Manurewa Marae in which I faced firsthand the issues in front of us: (1) not able to recruit social workers due to the lack of workforce; (2) not being able to recruit Māori social workers—social workers who reflected our community. Government departments were paying $30000 more and Māori partners could never compete with the pay equity. As an employer I could never afford to employ or recruit qualified registered social workers. So wherever this bill lands Te Pāti Māori want culturally competent safe practitioners.I hear other members on this side of the House reiterating the word safe". Safety is key to the wellbeing and healing of our people. But not just any culturally competent safe practitioners; we want practitioners that align to our mātauranga Māori frameworks and values. We have a way. I heard a member talk about an approach—we have an approach and a way. It's in our Māori way. Whānau ora is the way which incorporates our own values and tikanga to build hope and belief in the healing and trauma within our whānau. Practitioners who are Tiriti - centric mana-enhancing and make mokopuna decisions for our people. That's what we're looking for: culturally competent safe practitioners. Our homes are tapu. Our whānau need a workforce who will believe in them who will support whānau with their healing but mostly our whānau want trusted safe practitioners. We want a workforce that breaks cycles—breaks the intergenerational trauma our whānau have suffered. Whānau ora is our way of healing and I've been fortunate enough to have seen the healing occur.Yes we want to support this bill. We want this Government to stop being taringa mārō to the solutions that will improve the healing of our whānau and Te Pāti Māori's role is to hold this Government to account. Kia ora."
Edmonds BarbaraHon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): Thank you Madam Speaker for the opportunity to speak on what is a very sad day for this House with a bill that is going to be taking from the poorest New Zealanders to pay for tax cuts. That is morally reprehensible. Let me try and rephrase that: taking from the poorest New Zealanders to pay for tax cuts is morally reprehensible.I've heard members on the other side of the House try to justify why they believe that changing this back means that people will be better off. I've just heard it with the other side saying They'll get money." The problem is that with this bill they're actually going to get less money in the long run. When the Children's Commissioner says that this is the one thing that we could do to help child poverty it is time for our Parliament to listen to it. I have been brought up in a benefit-dependent household. It wasn't my father's fault that my mother got cancer at the age of 35 and that he was a widower at the age of 40 with four children under the age of 11. We were brought up on the unemployment benefit because of reasons totally outside of our control. Children brought up in poverty need support. Children brought up in poverty need to know that they are going to have food in their tummies. Children brought up in poverty need to be able to have a safe home.These are the poorest New Zealanders—the poorest. And yet that side of the House absolutely finds it I believe heartless and applauds this. Find some other way to pay for those large tax cuts and those promises that you've made. Find some other way. Find them through other mechanisms of revenue raising but instead you want to take the money which may help our poorest New Zealanders. Listen to yourselves. This is what our country is coming to where money is going to be taken from children who are already living in poverty in a cost of living crisis in order to pay for tax cuts. Find another way. Because you know what? These children that are going to bed tonight—the child that I was at four who lost her mother to cancer—deserve better. We deserve support. We deserve a chance to make it better in our lives not for a Government to come and take away the crumbs the absolute smallest things that can make a difference to our lives. So I implore that Government: find another way; if not absolutely heartless. I do not commend this bill to the House."
Mooney Joseph; Pugh MaureenJOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you very much Madam Speaker. I rise to speak this afternoon on the Social Security (Benefits Adjustment) and Income Tax (Minimum Family Tax Credit) Amendment Bill for its third reading and it will soon become law. I'm going to make a short contribution because this is really fairly short in terms of the important points that are made here.Part 1 of this bill reverses changes made by Labour to index benefits to wage growth and replace it with a standard practice—a standard practice—followed by successive Governments. In fact for 31 of the last 35 years this practice has been used to index benefits to CPI inflation changes. This is at a time of high inflation.I have been hearing some interesting speeches from the opposite side of the House this afternoon accusing the coalition Government of all sorts of things; ignoring the fact that past left-wing Governments have done exactly the same thing over the last 31 years. So if they are to say this is a reflection on the coalition Government it's a reflection on their own practice of the last 31 years.Look the reality is that we're at a time of high inflation. This is to index benefits to CPI—so that is to inflation. This is a fairer mechanism we think for those lower-income people. I heard the speech before that said lower-income people are more affected by inflation—absolutely—based on the vast amount of goods and services that they purchase. So that's absolutely correct. We're at a time of higher inflation therefore those goods and services—particularly food electricity etc.—that people need this inflation affects lower-income people more. So this is indexing these benefits to the CPI—to inflation. So this is going to assist rather than what the Opposition is claiming.The other part of this bill that I need to speak to is that it's a relatively minor change but it increases the prescribed amount from $34216 to $35204. So that's an increase and that is used in the formula that determines the minimum family tax credit that a person is entitled to. So the minimum family tax credit provides a financial incentive to ensure low-income working families remain better off financially in full-time work than they would be on a main benefit and that's important. We want to ensure that families who are working hard trying to get ahead to provide for their families—and provide I think the mana that comes from work as well for those who are able to do that. It does increase that sense of personal mana for those who are able to do it and that's something we want to encourage and also it's something they can show to their children who follow after them a pathway forward rather than being stuck on benefit dependency.Look benefits are there for those who need it. We totally support that but we also want to make sure that people who can work are able to work and we incentivise them to do that. So that is the ultimate way they could provide best for themselves and their families. With that I commend this bill to the House.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The Hon Barbara Edmonds. This is a split call.
Garcia PauloPAULO GARCIA (National—New Lynn): The debate that we have this afternoon is not really a debate about people who have worked hard and done well it's not about people who may have had their forefathers work hard and do well; it is about people who are not doing too well right now. And what the Government wants to do is to make the main benefit more predictable more transparent more easily administered. It is to produce a long-term aim of a proper safety net for all New Zealanders regardless of who you are or what your circumstances are—that the benefit will come at pace with the increase in cost of living and the cost of goods and services. So with the increase in costs and services that we are experiencing at the moment it is clearly a good idea to index the main benefit to inflation which is what we are doing.The bill has two objectives. It is really to provide Government with more control over its spending which unfortunately we have seen over the past years that spending in a manner that is not sustainable over time—it's not good for everybody. Secondly we are also wanting to ensure that beneficiaries are able to see their way forward by understanding and counting on a predictable main benefit that they will be receiving.We support the family tax credit also in such a way that low-income working families remain better off financially in full-time work than they would be if they were on the main benefit. It is a tried and tested very known fact that when young people are trying to get ahead instead of being provided everything that they might want at that point in time or might need at that point in time it is good for them to be able to aspire and push themselves harder and get ahead. So that is what this side of the House wishes to do with this bill: to push people to achieve more and not have that balance of receiving a main benefit that is such that it disincentivises them from trying harder and getting up and putting their shoes on and getting out there and working harder.Also the members opposite raise that the benefits will eventually have the effect of dropping by 2028 four years later and then the picture is painted about when that happens but we would like for others to understand especially the ones who watch this debate that that would mean if the main benefit is indexed on cost of living then the cost of living would have also gone down. I commend this bill to this House.
Kemp Takutai TarshTAKUTAI TARSH KEMP (Te Pāti Māori—Tāmaki Makaurau): Tēnā tātou e te Whare. Te Pāti Māori oppose this bill. The reality is that this Government continues to push their kaupapa of poor policy on to our people—policy that will punish our whānau. No one wants to live on Pōhara Street". Māori have dreams and aspirations. Workers want fair pay. Whānau hauā want the right to live with dignity and respect. This Government continues to show they have no ngākau for our people. They are anti-Māori anti - workers' rights anti-disability and anti-beneficiaries. They are all our whānau. It's a blitz on Māori. Māori will bear the brunt and we know though that the impact will hit and hurt our mokopuna the most.The state of our community is dire. The hustle is real for our whānau out on the streets and I encourage like I did in my last call any members to come out into our communities to see firsthand what it is like and what it will continue to be like for front liners in our community.This Government is continuing to give tax cuts to higher-income earners but taking income away from the lowest earners. It's disgraceful it's shameful and our people will continue to be hurt by this. So I want to mihi to all the iwi and Māori partners out in our communities especially those in Tāmaki-makau-rau who are going to feel the brunt and face the frustration of our whānau all day every day. There's going to be increased whānau continuing to line up at our food banks and increased whānau turning up at our marae requiring hardship grants. There is no way that they are not going to be turning up and wanting less support; it's going to be the opposite. And it's our whānau on the front line—those marae those Māori partners Whānau Ora providers—that are actually going to feel the brunt of this.So to this Government I encourage you to increase the funding to those providers and partners because they have to deal with what you are taking away from our people. Kia ora."
Visitors — USA
Bishop ChrisINTELLIGENCE AND SECURITY COMMITTEEMembershipHon CHRIS BISHOP (Leader of the House) on behalf of the Prime Minister: I move That under section 196 of the Intelligence and Security Act 2017 this House endorse the following as members of the Intelligence and Security Committee: Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan and Teanau Tuiono nominated by the Leader of the Opposition under section 194(2)(c) of the Act; and Rt Hon Winston Peters Hon Brooke van Velden and Hon Judith Collins nominated by the Prime Minister under section 194(2)(d) of the Act.This is a standard motion at the start of the new Parliament. I'm moving it on behalf of the Prime Minister obviously to appoint the various members of the Intelligence and Security Committee pursuant to the Intelligence and Security Act 2017. In addition to the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition the committee will consist of the Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan and Teanau Tuiono on behalf of the Opposition nominated by the Leader of the Opposition under section 194(2)(c) of the Act; and also the Rt Hon Winston Peters Deputy Prime Minister; the Hon Brooke van Velden on behalf of the ACT Party; and the Hon Judith Collins nominated by the Prime Minister under the relevant section of the Act. This is just a procedural motion to set up the committee for the new Parliament.Motion agreed to.
Costello Casey; Hipkins ChrisORAL QUESTIONSQUESTIONS TO MINISTERSQuestion No. 9 to Minister 30 January—Amended AnswerHon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Health): I'd like to make a personal explanation regarding my answers.SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course of action? There appears to be none.Hon CASEY COSTELLO: I'd like to make a personal statement regarding my answers as Associate Minister of Health to oral questions on 30 January 2024. I'm speaking specifically to the questions that asked if I was being truthful when I denied to the media that I had requested advice on freezing tobacco excise tax. On review of my response I acknowledge that there is confusion arising from my understanding of the differentiation between seeking specific advice and accepting advice being offered. I had no intention of misleading the House and I apologise for any confusion. Thank you Mr Speaker.Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition): Point of order Mr Speaker. Generally speaking when a Minister is correcting an answer they have given they state what the incorrect answer was and what the correct answer was. I don't think anyone in this House would be any the wiser as to exactly what it is the Minister has just corrected.SPEAKER: Well that's not quite true because I'm very wise on these things and right up with it as it happens. And if you think back to the way in which an earlier apology was given in this House for a matter that was potentially a matter of privilege—and we still don't know where this ends up—then you would see that a similar course of action was taken with no objection.Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition): Point of order Mr Speaker. I recall the questions asked quite clearly. The Minister was repeatedly asked whether she had requested advice and she repeatedly said no. Is her correction now saying that she did ask for that advice? If so she should say that.SPEAKER: I don't believe that is what has just been said but I'll obviously have to read it when it comes out in the Hansard. I do know what the complaint was and I do know what the response was and clearly this is still a matter under consideration. Thank you very much.
Brownlee GerryPAPERS PETITIONS SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLSSPEAKER: A petition has been delivered to the Clerk for presentation. CLERK: Petition of Jennifer Heath requesting that the House urge the Government to re-evaluate and expand Horokiwi's school zoning options to include Wellington City schools. SPEAKER: That petition stands referred to the Petitions Committee. Ministers have delivered papers. CLERK: 2022-23 annual reports for the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority and Te Toka Tū Ake—Earthquake Commission2022-23 statement of performance expectations for the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority. SPEAKER: I present to the House the report of the Controller and Auditor-General entitled Monitoring importers of specified high-risk foods. Those papers are published under the authority of the House. Select committee reports? CLERK: Report of the Petitions Committee on the petition of Merran Davis. SPEAKER: No bills have been introduced.
Brownlee GerryVISITORSUnited States—Senator Ron WydenSPEAKER: Members I'm sure that you would wish to welcome United States senator Ron Wyden and his accompanying people in the gallery today.
Brownlee GerryTUESDAY 20 FEBRUARY 2024 The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.KARAKIA/PRAYERSSPEAKER: Almighty God we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed on us. Laying aside all personal interests we acknowledge the King and pray for guidance in our deliberations that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom justice mercy and humility for the welfare and peace of New Zealand. Amen.
Tuesday 27 February 2024 - Volume 773
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That debate on the question now close. Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 54New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6. Motion agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Arena Williams' tabled amendments to clause 6(1) and deleting clause 27(3) are ruled out of order as being outside the principles and objects of the bill.Arena Williams' tabled amendment to clause 19(2) is ruled out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.The question is that Arena Williams' remaining tabled amendments to Part 1 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 54New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6. Noes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Amendments not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that the Hon Peeni Henare's tabled amends to clause 9 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to. Ayes 54New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.Noes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Amendments not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that the Hon Willow-Jean Prime's tabled amendment to clause 10 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 54New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.Noes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Amendment not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that the Hon Willow-Jean Prime's tabled amendment to clause 15 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 54New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.Noes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Amendment not agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That Part 1 be agreed to.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 54New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.Part 1 agreed to.
Pae Ora (Disestablishment of Māori Health Authority) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Part 1
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Pae Ora (Disestablishment of Māori Health Authority) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 54New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.Motion agreed to.Bill read a second time.
Pae Ora (Disestablishment of Māori Health Authority) Amendment Bill — Second Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Pae Ora (Disestablishment of Māori Health Authority) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 54New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.Motion agreed to.Bill read a first time.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): This bill is set down for second reading immediately.
Pae Ora (Disestablishment of Māori Health Authority) Amendment Bill — First Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Legal Services Amendment Bill be now read a second time.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 54New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.Motion agreed to.Bill read a second time.
10. Question No. 10—HealthHon PEENI HENARE (Labour) to the Minister of HealthQuestion No. 10—Health10. Hon PEENI HENARE (Labour) to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by all his statements and actions?Hon Dr SHANE RETI (Minister of Health): Yes in the context they were given.Hon Peeni Henare: Does he stand by this answer regarding the repeal of the Māori Health Authority: we'll take on board all discussions and all dialogue from all parties." and if so why did his Government bring forward the disestablishment of the Māori Health Authority bypassing the urgent inquiry by the Waitangi Tribunal?Hon Dr SHANE RETI: We'll always remain open to any dialogue from any parties and from any citizens from Māori from anyone who wants to help us advance the cause of Māori health outcomes.Hon Peeni Henare: Why then could the Minister's bill not wait two more days for the urgent claim to be heard by the Waitangi Tribunal or is it this Government's intention to avoid the Waitangi Tribunal on all matters?Hon Dr SHANE RETI: The Waitangi Tribunal will still be able to critique the legislation after enablement so we're very comfortable with the position that we've taken. What we've also wanted to do is give some surety to staff with the Māori Health Authority so that they can see a vision and a pathway forward.Hon Peeni Henare: Does the Minister accept that this Government's breach of Te Tiriti o Waitangi will lead to further claims before the Tribunal and further court litigation or will he just simply do the right thing and remove his bill?Hon Dr SHANE RETI: What I accept is that we will involve Māori in the monitoring and the delivery of health services to improve Māori health outcomes.SPEAKER: Question No. 11—a point of order?Hon Chris Bishop: A question.SPEAKER: Oh OK. Away you go. Hon Chris Bishop: Does the Minister accept that given the Māori Health Authority did not exist until two years ago the abolition of it cannot possibly be a breach of the Treaty?Hon Dr SHANE RETI: What I accept is as the member says that the Māori Health Authority has been challenged and we seek to do a better job with Māori health outcomes.SPEAKER: Yeah I should have been a bit quicker there. That question did seek an opinion that's outside of the Minister's scope of responsibility.Hon Chris Bishop: It followed on from the primary.SPEAKER: I beg your pardon?Hon Chris Bishop: It followed from the primary."
1. Question No. 1—HealthJAMIE ARBUCKLE (NZ First) to the Associate Minister of HealthORAL QUESTIONSQUESTIONS TO MINISTERSQuestion No. 1—Health1. JAMIE ARBUCKLE (NZ First) to the Associate Minister of Health: What updates can she provide if any on the repeal of the Therapeutic Products Act 2023?Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Health): The Government has committed to begin work to repeal the Therapeutic Products Act 2023 within its first hundred days. I will be taking a paper to Cabinet next week seeking approval to progress this work.Jamie Arbuckle: Why does the Minister want to repeal the Therapeutic Products Act?Hon CASEY COSTELLO: The Therapeutic Products Act was not fit for purpose. Appropriate regulation of medicines and medical devices is vital to ensure that these products do what they claim are high quality and that product approval pathways do not make them inaccessible or unaffordable. We also know that the current fragmented and outdated approach to the regulation of natural health products means that New Zealand is missing out on a significant proportion of opportunity to grow jobs and the economy. We need to develop a fit for purpose regulatory system for both.Jamie Arbuckle: Will repealing the Therapeutic Products Act adversely impact medical safety or health outcomes of New Zealanders?Hon CASEY COSTELLO: The Act has a commencement date of 1 September 2026 so no changes are required from the health sector or industry. I have received advice that implementing the changes required to meet the commencement date would've been extremely challenging. This poses the real possibility of poor outcomes for New Zealanders.Jamie Arbuckle: How does the Minister intend to progress work on replacing the Therapeutic Products Act?Hon CASEY COSTELLO: The Government has an opportunity to replace the Therapeutic Products Act with legislation that protects consumers without creating unnecessary red tape on industry. We know that communities the health sector and industry have concerns and we intend to listen to those concerns as we develop new proposals.Rt Hon Winston Peters: So will big pharma that's tried to control this part of the market in New Zealand for the last 2½ decades be finally again put back in its place?Hon CASEY COSTELLO: We are confident we will have effective legislation that will deliver good outcomes.
Reti ShaneHon Dr SHANE RETI (Minister of Health): Thank you Mr Chair and I thank the member Hūhana Lyndon who has just taken her chair. As I said I'll take advice from the Hauora Māori Advisory Committee on the best way to return that taonga and I do understand that.I also want to talk to the two members Peeni Henare and Scott Willis who raised the question around clause 43(2) inserted by new Part 2 into Schedule 1 around a reasonable consultation. I've been advised that that terminology copies provisions of existing schedules and the consultation mirrors the Employment Relations Act.
Lyndon HūhanaHŪHANA LYNDON (Green): Tēnā koe. The Minister hasn't answered my question regarding resourcing for localities up into the date of July 2029. I ask this again as a member of hapū and iwi in Whangārei who wait to be resourced by Te Whatu Ora to do this very important work. So I'd like to receive an answer: if there will be resourcing to allow us to do this work up into this date.Further he inoi tēnei ki te Minita e pā ana ki te ingoa o Te Aka Whai Ora. I haere ahau ki te whakatuwhera te whakarewatanga o te ingoa o Te Aka Whai Ora ki Waitangi. He hui nui he hui whakahirahira mō te iwi mō te motu whānui. Ki reira ka rongo i ngā kaikōrero e whakamārama ana i ngā kupu ōhākī o rātou mā me te whakamārama i te ingoa Te Aka Whai Ora".Kua tono mai taku whaea Debbie "He aha te tikanga kia whakamoea te ingoa 'Te Aka Whai Ora'?" Nō reira he tono tēnei mai i tēnei uri o Te Taitokerau: me hoki anō te kaupapa ki Waitangi kia whakamoea te ingoa o Te Aka Whai Ora ka tika. Kia ora. [Further this is a request to the Minister with respect to the name of Te Aka Whai Ora. I attended the opening the launch of the name of Te Aka Whai Ora in Waitangi. It was a significant meeting an important meeting for the people and for the wider nation. There I heard the speakers explain the parting words of those who have passed on and also explain the name "Te Aka Whai Ora". My Aunty Debbie asked of me "What is the reason for putting the name 'Te Aka Whai Ora' to sleep?" So this is a request from this descendant of Northland: the initiative should return to Waitangi so that the name of Te Aka Whai Ora may be put to rest; it is the most appropriate thing to do.]Kia ora."
Kirkpatrick DanaDANA KIRKPATRICK (National—East Coast): I move That debate on this question now close.
Boyack RachelRACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you Mr Chair and apologies to my colleague the Hon Willow-Jean Prime for taking over the call because I think she was keen to—and I know she's got a lot of new material to continue bringing to the debate. But I was just reflecting Mr Chair on your advice to the committee of the whole House earlier around engaging in a little bit of quick-fire with the Minister of Health so I'm quite keen to do that and so I'm hoping that the Minister might take me up on that opportunity.Because we've been talking around employment relations I'm specifically interested to know if the Minister has met with any of the unions that represent the workers that are affected. Specifically has he met with the Public Service Association has he met with the New Zealand Nurses Organisation or has he met with any other health unions—or have any of his officials—to specifically talk through the transfer and the employment rights for those who will be transferring from one agency to another? I'm hoping that the Minister may engage in some of that quick-fire with me now.