edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
10. Question No. 10—HealthDr LIZ CRAIG (Labour) to the Minister of HealthQuestion No. 10—Health10. Dr LIZ CRAIG (Labour) to the Minister of Health: How is the Government helping to protect New Zealanders against influenza this winter?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): Yesterday marked the start of the annual influenza vaccination campaign. Vaccination is the best way to guard against influenza which each year kills about 400 New Zealanders with many more requiring hospitalisation. For many New Zealanders the vaccination will be free. This year's funded vaccine will protect against four strains of influenza including updated strains of influenza A and influenza B.Dr Liz Craig: Who's eligible for free influenza vaccination?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Vaccination is free for those groups who are most at risk from the flu. This includes those aged 65 and older pregnant women and people with chronic or serious health conditions such as heart disease cancer or severe asthma. Children aged four and under who have a history of significant respiratory illness are also eligible. A lot of people stand to benefit from the vaccination.Dr Liz Craig: How many people are expected to benefit from vaccination?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I urge anyone who is eligible for free vaccination to take up the opportunity. Vaccination is also available at GPs and many community pharmacies for a small fee for those who are not eligible. Last year a record 1.3 million people were immunised against influenza and I hope that we will see similar numbers again this year.
7. Question No. 7—ForestryCLAYTON MITCHELL (NZ First) to the Minister of ForestryQuestion No. 7—Forestry7. CLAYTON MITCHELL (NZ First) to the Minister of Forestry: What recent announcements has he made regarding the One Billion Trees Programme?Hon SHANE JONES (Minister of Forestry): Recently along with Minister Shaw I announced that the one billion trees programme remains a grand slam success. In addition to the historical figures as a consequence of improvements to the emissions trading scheme (ETS) otherwise known as averaging a colossal additional 89 million trees will be planted. This will have the positive impact of reducing our carbon liability by $1.3 billion.Clayton Mitchell: How do these ETS changes incentivise tree planting?Hon SHANE JONES: These improvements incentivise tree planting by stripping red tape—something that has afflicted the ETS system and the forestry sector as it grew like Topsy like Turvy over the last nine years. The averaging simplifies the ability of people to invest in forestry and capture with certainty the carbon up side. It also enables people to identify with greater ease land that ought to be moved from current land use patterns into forestry. All up a substantial improvement on the last nine years.Clayton Mitchell: What other announcements have been made recently regarding the one billion trees programme?Hon SHANE JONES: Recently an announcement was made along with the Minister of Corrections that our rhetoric is taking the form of employment reality. The nephs are definitely coming off the couch and those that are incarcerated are being prepared to work go and plant trees and ensure that the devil does not put designs that make idle hands create community mayhem—New Zealand First policy.SPEAKER: Before we move to the next question I think I should probably inform a number of members including the Hon Mr O'Connor the Hon Mr Goldsmith and the Hon Mr Bennett that my hearing is now aided; so I've been able to hear a number of your interjections that I might not have been able to previously and I would recommend that you don't do it again.
4. Question No. 4—Social DevelopmentPRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour) to the Minister for Social DevelopmentQuestion No. 4—Social Development4. PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour) to the Minister for Social Development: What are the changes to superannuation and veteran's pension rates as of 1 April 2019?Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): On 1 April 2019 net superannuation and veterans pension rates went up 2.6 percent. The annual net rate for a couple receiving superannuation increased to $32892.08. When taking into account last year's increases the annual net rate of superannuation has increased $1676.48 since we came into Government. This increase comes as a direct result of growing wages including changes to the minimum wage. When there is wage growth in New Zealand everyone benefits including the 780000 senior—SPEAKER: All right. Order! The member has more than answered the question.Priyanca Radhakrishnan: What will this mean for people receiving superannuation and the veterans pension?Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: In dollar terms this means an eligible retired couple both receiving superannuation or the veterans pension will receive an extra $15.82 per week in the hand. This increase exceeds the 2.1 percent increase in prices experienced by superannuitant households between December 2017 and December 2018 reported by Statistics New Zealand. We hope that a little bit extra in the pocket will help superannuitants towards meeting the costs of living and continuing to lead fulfilling lives as older citizens.Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Why is this important?Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: As at the end of March 2018 there were 780000 people receiving superannuation or veterans pensions. We also know that New Zealanders are living longer. The New Zealand population aged 65 and over is expected to reach over one million in the next 10 years. This represents the largest cohort of people receiving income support from the Government. We want to ensure that they are supported to age positively and continue leading fulfilling lives.
1. Question No. 1—Research Science and InnovationJO LUXTON (Labour) to the Minister of Research Science and InnovationORAL QUESTIONSQUESTIONS TO MINISTERSQuestion No. 1—Research Science and Innovation1. JO LUXTON (Labour) to the Minister of Research Science and Innovation: Will the Government's research and development tax incentive which will apply from 1 April 2019 help boost R & D in New Zealand?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Research Science and Innovation): Yes the R & D tax incentive will help a wide range of New Zealand businesses to boost their investment in innovation—SPEAKER: The question's answered.Jo Luxton: How can businesses check whether they're eligible to receive the R & D tax incentive?SPEAKER: Order! That doesn't flow from the question or the answer.Jo Luxton: What feedback has she heard from business on how the Government's work on the R & D tax incentive will help them?SPEAKER: No that doesn't flow from the question or the answer.Hon Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Will that very very narrow interpretation of what supplementary questions flow from the answer apply to all 12 questions today?SPEAKER: I think the member will find that most of the rest of the questions are well enough drafted to have slightly more than a yes or no answer to finish them and therefore no available supplementaries.
Hudson Brett; Rurawhe AdrianBRETT HUDSON (National): Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. I rise in support of the Financial Services Legislation Amendment Bill in this its third reading—a bill that is coming I hope with unanimous support to a conclusion. The thing that impresses me most in the way that we can summarise the heart of this bill is that the fundamental objective is that it is all about ensuring that advice ensures a good customer outcome as its chief priority. That means we're putting the customer—or the consumer in this case—at the heart of our legislation and of the code as well that will be governing the behaviour of providers of advice and that at the heart of all of this we're putting the consumer first not for—well actually for a number of reasons but perhaps the most important of those is the information the symmetry that exists in the purchase particularly of financial advice.It is well understood that most purchasers—not all but most consumers of financial advice—know far less about the advice they're receiving than the professionals that are giving it. That does place them at some degree of risk of receiving advice or taking advice that is actually not necessarily in their very—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Sorry to interrupt the member but it's come time for me to leave the Chair. Debate interrupted.The House adjourned at 10 p.m.
Local Electoral Matters Bill — Third Reading
Willis NicolaNICOLA WILLIS (National): I rise to speak on this the third reading of the Local Electoral Matters Bill. Let me start by saying that local elections do matter. If we needed any better evidence of that then we would look to Wellington and the debacle we are currently experiencing with our buses; where every day dozens of buses are cancelled or late or overcrowded because of the poor governance provided by our regional council. So that's why it's very important that people vote at local elections—isn't it Paul? I'm sure you would agree Mr Eagle the member for Rongotai that people should look very carefully at who they vote for at local election time.So National rises to support this bill because essentially we're a constructive party and we want to see good things happening. But let's be careful about the claims that are made for this bill because the previous speaker claimed that to have any queries about this bill was to stand against democracy itself. I think that that's a rather large claim because the concerns that we have with online voting are valid. You only need look at the census debacle we've all witnessed recently to know that going online doesn't necessarily work for everyone. In fact there is the potential to disenfranchise large numbers of people. So it's appropriate that this bill includes consultation mechanisms to make sure that anyone wanting to move to an online voting scheme has to consult appropriately. And also I would argue it's a good step that the change can be trialled in a smaller way so that if there is any debacle it's less widespread than it might have been across a city.But I think really other speakers have done a good job of talking about what this bill does but I just also want to talk about what this bill doesn't do. I think it is very instructive about this Government and its agenda that we are here tonight debating the Local Electoral Matters Bill which allows us to trial online voting in a ward rather than across a district a very minor change to electoral law when in fact this country faces major challenges and major opportunities and this legislation goes nowhere near any of those. This is a very minor bill and speaks to that Government's lack of agenda. National is constructive. We support it but my goodness me we hope to see some more interesting legislation in the future and more constructive legislation in the future. Thank you.
Eagle PaulPAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai): Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker and look it's a pleasure to speak on anything to do with local government and I want to just support the Minister of Local Government here for this fantastic bit of work. There have been a lot of negative nasty words said about this but I know in reality it's just a whole lot of flip-flopping. One minute Let's do it. Let's do it literally." and then in 2016 the online trial was pulled. Then there's some debate on that side of the Houses as to "Is this good? I think it is. I don't know."—a lot of blah and suddenly they're all in support again. So there's no intention in this bill to flip-flop; it's pretty clear. And I just want to correct something too because it talks about—and if you look at the bill in two parts thanks to the hard-working Justice Committee for their fast-moving work on this—it talks about giving explicit provisions for local authorities councils to conduct trials of new voting methods so it doesn't actually just say "online". And I think we've been obsessed with that and there is some obsession with this online stuff when really if you look at the intention of the bill it wants improved participation.We know it's not the silver bullet. We know that in the urban centres getting anything more than around 40 percent is difficult—it's been acknowledged; the history shows us that. But I think it's more about saying that we know postal voting—for those that understand that and you know with only 40 percent that's four out of 10 people in this room voted—meant filling out a form that arrived in your letterbox finding a letterbox or a post office one that was open to actually post it back and then wait for the result. And what this really says is "Look let's try something different. Let's try new things." and that's really the intention and I think anyone who criticises that is really undermining democracy here because—Chris Bishop: Oh!PAUL EAGLE: Thank you "Mr Hutt South". But what we're really looking at here is permission is giving those local authorities that represent local views a localised way of implementing an improved democracy for their local area. Look how many times I said "local" then; so many times I've lost count. And that's the essence of this bill. I also think that local authorities have asked for better information and in Part 2 it certainly talks about that in terms of those local authorities who want to make or produce a better effort at promoting their elections because it will sit with the councils now to do that task. They will now be able to get their information to do that.I think this is a lot more far reaching. It may not be as super-duper as what some want but I know that in terms of legislation every little bit counts and this is going to ensure improved civic participation. I want to thank the Minister for that. I commend this bill to the House. Kia ora."
Bishop ChrisCHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South): Well that was a passionate speech by Dr Webb for what's fundamentally quite a boring bill. I've got to say—I want to go on the record and say I am a deep online voting sceptic and I have to say I find the passion with which people who express support for online voting slightly strange. Firstly I think this idea that online voting will be the cure-all for our democratic defects in local democracy misunderstands the problem entirely. The reason people do not vote is not that it's particularly difficult—it's very easy to vote in local body elections; you simply fill out a piece of paper and chuck it in the mail—the reason they don't vote is local body politicians don't do enough to encourage them to get out to vote. They've got a three-week period—or 2½ weeks three weeks—in which they can vote. Lots of people don't vote and frankly people who stand for local bodies need to do a better job of encouraging people to actually vote. Secondly I have to say anyone who has studied the issue of online voting is extremely worried about the safety and the security of online voting. Dr Webb didn't have the advantage of being on the Justice Committee in the last Parliament—Justice and Electoral Committee as it then was—but I did and we conducted an inquiry into the 2014 general election and we had a number of submissions in relation to online voting. And I've got to say it is frightening—frightening—how easy it is to hack some of the systems that are used. I'm not saying that nefarious people out there are going to hack you know the Onslow-Western ward of the Wellington City Council if they decide to go forward with this online voting trial like the bill provides—although you know given the quality of the candidates in their ward maybe they will. But I'm not saying people will be doing that but you know it is actually incredibly easy to hack online voting systems and I think that is a danger to our democracy. And the third thing is online voting I believe trivialises democracy. Once it is as easy to vote in a local body election or God forbid a general election when it is as easy as you know liking something on Facebook or participating in an online Facebook poll or a Twitter poll or all of the silly things that people who spend too much time on social media get up to I think that will trivialise what actually is a fundamentally important part of the type of society we live in. And I think there will be a trivialisation of local democracy with online voting. I understand the desire to make it as easy as possible but I think there are serious safety concerns. I think it will trivialise the process and I think it misdiagnoses the problem. With all that being said the National Party is supportive of this legislation. We are deeply sceptical. I'm not the only one deeply sceptical about it. I know many of my colleagues on this side of the House are deeply sceptical about online voting. But let's have a trial. You know if it works in you know the Onehunga ward of the Auckland Council well maybe we'll have a go later on but I doubt it. Thank you.
Webb Duncan; Rurawhe AdrianDr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. Well I'm really not quite sure where the National Party are on this one because on the one hand they say We're not going far enough. It's too small." and on the other hand they're saying "Don't do it at all because we don't have confidence in the system." It does seem to me that the National Party wouldn't try anything with that kind of attitude because we know—and we've heard the Hon Maggie Barry just say that she sees in the future that online voting will be a thing. Well I've got an idea: let's adopt this bill because we can test it. We can find a test group we can find a test location and we can run it and that's exactly what this bill allows us to do. It allows us to actually find a cohort of people and see what two things are—the best way to run online or electronic voting—and also to look at the statistics of those people and see where the greatest uptake of online voting is so that we've got some better design principles going forward. So this is the kind of legislation that we absolutely need to increase participation in a very very important area of local body politics. At the moment we have a participation issue. People are disengaged and this is one way in which to say "Here it is. It's right in front of you. You don't need to leave your home. You don't have to go through what"—frankly for some people—"is an unfamiliar process of going through lots of paper forms." It's time for voting—and for the National Party—to move into the 21st century where online voting and online behaviour is the norm. Now we know what the statistics are. We know that there's work to be done in this area but we are not shying away from it. So that's why this is a good piece of legislation and a well-designed piece of legislation with appropriate safeguards there and an ability to run an appropriate test. We can learn from it and then let's roll it out. Let's get wider participation in our local body elections so that we can have better democracy everywhere for everyone. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Chris Bishop—five minutes."
Smith NickHon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): On the scale of small and minor amendment bills this one really does take the cake. I think the House needs to be aware of exactly what this bill does. The current law provides for local authorities to be able to trial novel voting methods including internet or online voting. All this bill does is say that rather than a council being able to trial it over all of their community they'll be able to trial it in a single ward—that's it. That's about as much as this bill does. Yes it does make some very minor changes to the Electoral Act and to the Local Electoral Act to allow the sharing of data about participation rates.Now if anybody in this Parliament really believes that this very minor tinkering with the Local Electoral Act is somehow going to deliver on a big change in voter participation they really are off in dreamland. In fact this bill is so symptomatic of the gulf between this Government's promise and what it's actually done in practice. If you look up the Labour local government policy at the last election they said that introducing electronic voting was a piece of cake and they were going to be doing it for the 2019 local body elections. I would love Labour members to say whether that's still their policy. Are we going to be having online voting at the local body elections later this year? No. All we've got is this very very minor bill.Now National in its report has pointed out—and I actually think as is so often the case around issues of competency when National raised at the select committee the international evidence around the issues of online voting and the importance of the integrity of the vote Labour members got cold feet. I think they actually recognised once again that National was right: in terms of online voting the risks of being able to hack the system or pervert our democratic system are such that it needs a significant amount of caution. The National minority view makes reference to the National Academy of Sciences' very comprehensive international report on the risks of online voting. I would just draw those to the attention of the House because they effectively contradict what Labour promised at the last election and this bill is a minnow of what Labour promised in this area of policy.National members are very relaxed about passing this super-minor bill but I emphasise again that anybody who thinks this bill is going to result in a turn-around in the participation of local government elections which once was about 80 percent—at the last local body elections in 2016 it was down at about 45 percent. The idea that that negative trend is going to be reversed by this bill is truly in dreamland. You're going to need something far more substantial and some of the far more innovative policies that National's working on to address these issues. This bill is fundamentally an embarrassment for the Government in the area of local government policy.
Organ Donors and Related Matters Bill — First Reading
Dyson RuthHon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): Can I begin my contribution in this debate by commending the Minister for the continuation of the vision that has been demonstrated by other members in this House who have a passion for ensuring that New Zealand's organ donation numbers increase. And I want to commend the member who just resumed his seat Chris Bishop. He ended on a sour note but that's OK. I don't blame him. He probably still feels a bit resentful being in the position he is. But I want to commend him for the work that he did on improving organ donations and I think it made a difference. He raised the issue in this House. He inherited the bill—he didn't actually write it himself; Michael Woodhouse actually wrote it. But in any event the bill got through to this Parliament and enjoyed a lot of good debate and it raised the awareness outside and that's part of increasing the donations and it's great to see cross-party support on this issue. I think that the legislation's proposal to have the strategy run from within the New Zealand Blood Service is correct. I also think that the staging of various bits of progress in the implementation of the organ donor strategy is a good one. In 2017 we had the highest number of organs donated in New Zealand. That's something we should all be very proud of and I hope that continues to increase. We know why we want organ donations to increase because it transforms or saves lives. So clearly people who have died are not using their organs any more but somebody who needs them can receive them and it can literally save their life. That is a huge and generous gift that that person who's just lost their own life is able to give to someone else. But the opportunity for a donation comes at the worst possible time for a family to make a big decision such as agreeing to have their dying family member's organs donated. That's why it's so important that everyone in this House and everyone who's listening and everyone who's interested in this topic talk to their family about their desire to have their organs donated when they've died. You can do as I've done have a living will have a will that then formally lays out that you'll donate whatever part of your body can make a difference to someone else. It could be an organ. It could be your brain for research. It could be your eyes for giving someone else the gift of vision. So talk to your family about the fact that we were debating this bill in the House and that it's really important that they know of each of our intentions to donate organs upon death.I want to conclude by just taking a moment to reflect on the generosity of those people and their families who have donated their organs as they have passed away and have made such a huge difference to the lives of so many others. It's the ultimate gift and it's one that we should be very thankful for. Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker.
Bishop ChrisCHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South): Thank you very much Mr Speaker. This bill amends what started life as my legislation and I think I haven't been in the situation before where a Government bill has amended an Act that started life as a member's bill in my name. It actually started life as Michael Woodhouse my colleague pointed out earlier as Michael Woodhouse's member's bill. It lay dormant in the ballot as so many member's bills do before it magically got pulled I think probably two months after it got lodged in my name. But it's something that I care very deeply about.Look as the original sponsor of the original piece of legislation I support the amendments to the Compensation for Live Organ Donors Act 2016. We were very well served may I say on the Health Committee that I subbed on to when we considered that legislation. We were very well served by the Ministry of Health advisers. They had to do quite a lot of work actually to include in the bill a series of kind of operative clauses that would allow the bill to work. In particular we had to deal with the quite tricky issue about how you calculate income and how you calculate when people are working part time and what it means to actually receive 100 percent compensation. And you know we didn't get everything right obviously and Parliament's now doing what it absolutely should do which is to come back and just make a couple of clarificatory amendments.Clause 6 of the bill deals with what happens when people return to work on reduced hours. That's very sensible. And then it also deals with what happens when an organ donor returns to work on their usual hours but then happens to work reduced hours because of the effects of the surgery. It also allows for organ donations that are done with an approved international agency.Now it's also an omnibus bill and it's slightly strange in some ways. I suppose it is an omnibus bill because Part 2 of the bill deals with the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Act and it makes it easier on the Blood Service—basically the approved agency for organ donation in New Zealand. I do have to throw a bouquet to the Government for advancing the legislation but also a brickbat which is to say that it is far too late for the Government to be doing this. They should have done it far earlier. Those in the organ transplant community organ donation community have been crying out for the announcement of the New Zealand Blood Service as that agency for months if not years. It should have happened very soon after the Government took office but David Clark was too busy scaremongering about mould and things like that. Anyway it's good that they're doing it now and we're looking forward—well I'm not going to be on the Health Committee that considers it but I'm sure my colleagues on the Health Committee led by Matt Doocey and the rest of the team will be considering that and I look forward to it passing into law.
Warren-Clark Angie; Rurawhe AdrianANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. I'm very pleased to be participating in this Organ Donors and Related Matters Bill. I'd like to thank the Minister of Health for bringing this forward and I would like to encourage everyone in the community if they have an interest to submit on this bill. We look very much forward to hearing from people. As we have heard from all the members tonight the bill does two things. One it implements—by creating—a national organ donation agency to increase the Increasing Deceased Organ Donation and Transplantation strategy. The second part is the compensation part for people who are live donors returning to work partially. I am going to make a very brief call tonight. However what I would like to talk about is the importance of the conversation that we must all have with our family members in regards to organ donation. I'm a donor myself and I've had that conversation with my family as to what my wishes are. People are probably not aware when they put donor" down on their driver's licence that that is only their wishes and the family itself gets to make the final decision. So it is very important that this conversation as awkward as it may be is had if a person ends up in the state where they are donating organs. I would also very much like to talk very briefly about Wairangi Te Rupe. Now Wairangi is watching this tonight from Australia. Wairangi Te Rupe is the sister of my daughter Danah and Wairangi had at eight weeks biliary atresia. Now that is a life-threatening illness. It is a fatal illness without treatment. Wairangi had various treatments but they all failed and she needed to have a liver transplant. She was in liver failure and her family knew that they would lose her if they weren't able to have that organ donated. Essentially what happened was that she was given the gift of life from an unknown person in Australia who had passed away under the circumstances that donation can occur under. That was a tremendous gift to the family. So personally you know this is a little girl who is now 10 years old who loves life and unicorns and all the things that you would expect a small child to like and enjoy and she was given that gift because someone gave that gift of life to her. So what I would like to do is encourage people to have this conversation and to think that it is really important that we increase the numbers.I would just like to finish with a quote from Sam her mother: "If Wairangi didn't get her liver in time she would have passed away. People die on waiting lists all the time. That's why we give thanks for her liver every single day. A very special person passed away. A brave family carried out their loved one's wishes and said yes to giving Wairangi their liver and they let their special person pass away so that Wairangi could live." Thank you.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Chris Bishop—five minutes."
Wagner Nicky; Rurawhe AdrianHon NICKY WAGNER (National): Thank you very much Mr Assistant Speaker. National is very pleased to be supporting this bill because organ donations can save lives and give sick people another chance to live a good quality of life. National has been working to lift the rate of organ donation in New Zealand for many years and this is the next step in the programme. As early as 2006 National MP Dr Jackie Blue introduced a member's bill to increase organ donation. Unfortunately at the time it was voted down by Labour New Zealand First and the Greens but fortunately they have changed their minds about that. However National has always been committed to increasing donation numbers and has employed a number of strategies to improve transplantation rates. In 2012 we started with a $4 million budget to raise awareness and to encourage more people to donate organs. That was followed in 2014 with the establishment of the National Renal Transplant Service to increase the number of live kidney donor transplants. At that time we also provided funding to establish donor liaison coordinators and these people have done an enormous amount of work to raise the rate of donations. Following that National MP Chris Bishop introduced a member's bill in 2016 which introduced the payment for compensation for live organ donors. That was important because it was a barrier for people to make donations. Since then there's been a huge lift in the number of donations. I think the new system is much better it's fairer and it has made a big difference to people waiting for organs and for transplants. In 2017 the National Government announced a national strategy to increase deceased organ donation and transplants and this bill implements recommendations from that strategy. So I'm very pleased to support the bill. It builds on the work that National has done for over a decade and it will make a real difference to people who require transplant and their families. So I commend this bill to the House.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): This is a split call—five minutes.
Craig LizDr LIZ CRAIG (Labour): Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. Well it's a real pleasure to be speaking on the first reading of this bill. Just reading through the Organ Donation New Zealand website it's a really good reminder of the transformational impact that an organ donation can have on somebody's life. There's a whole range of stories; it's worth going and reading some of them. I think the one that stood out to me was baby Ruby who was born with biliary atresia and ended up spending a huge amount of time in hospital before she received a lifesaving liver transplant. What the reality is though is in New Zealand there's a large number of people waiting for organ transplants many more than the number of organs available. Organ Donation New Zealand estimates there are about 550 people currently waiting for a transplant here in New Zealand so what this bill does is it aims to make it easier for people to become organ donors. There's two parts to this bill. The first part is for live donors and at the moment somebody who's made an organ donation can receive up to 12 weeks earning compensation for that but the understanding is that you then take that time off work and you don't return to work. But what this bill does is it allows for people to come back to work at less than their usual hours and still receive compensation. So either you're working reduced hours when you come back or if you do come back to work at your normal hours and then you find that you are unable to continue at those hours because of the effects of surgery this allows that compensation to be paid.The other aspect in terms of live donors is that it allows regulations to be made which can approve overseas organ exchange programmes. What it specifies is a few criteria that those overseas countries have to meet but it makes that possible under the New Zealand regulations and legislation.The second part to the bill looks to expand the functions of the New Zealand Blood Service—they're already outlined in the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Act. But what it does is allows oversight and clinical governance for organ donation and transplant system because there's a recent strategy that many other speakers have alluded to—the national strategy for Increasing Deceased Organ Donation and Transplantation—and what this really does is create that dialogue and encourages people to share their wishes about organ donation with their families. Also the strategy aims to provide that support to the families that are having to make those donation decisions. What the strategy talked about though was the need for an organisation to oversee the implementation of that strategy. So what this bill does is it identifies the New Zealand Blood Service which was felt to be the most appropriate Crown entity to host such a national agency and it expands the functions of the Blood Service to provide oversight and clinical governance of organ donation and transplantation. So those two key elements—the aim is to increase the amount of organ donation that is happening in New Zealand. So as a result I'm very pleased to commend this bill to the House. Thank you.
Wall LouisaLOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe Madam Deputy Speaker. As the chair of the Health Committee it's my pleasure to rise in support of the Organ Donors and Related Matters Bill at this the first reading. Actually I want to start in 2006 when Dr Jackie Blue had the Human Tissue (Organ Donation) Amendment Bill before the House. It made it through to the select committee stage but then was defeated at the second reading.I find it incredibly not ironic but the right thing to have happened that 13 years later Dr Jackie Blue is the deputy chair of the New Zealand Blood Service. So the fact is that she now has an opportunity to germinate so to speak the ideas that she had in the bill from 2006 which was about public information campaigns about creating donor information and about working with the Land Transport Safety Authority to make sure that donors' wishes were not overridden by their family members.So it's a pleasure actually that this piece of legislation has come to the House and is expanding the compensation regime that Chris Bishop initiated in his bill because essentially they are the two expansions of this bill to the current regime: more people being eligible and the national organ donation agency being formed.I guess my only other contribution was to say that this is relevant to 550 New Zealanders. That's the number of people on the waiting list now for transplants. It's been interesting if you look at I guess this whole area since 2013 when there were only 36 donors: in 2014 there were 46 donors in 2015 there were 53 donors in 2016 there were 61 donors and in 2017 which is the last stats there were 73 donors but those 73 donors helped 215 individuals.So essentially what we really need to do is look beyond deceased organ donors which have classically been the ones who have provided organs for New Zealanders who need them. There were a couple of cases. The most recent one I could find was on 28 February this year: a 16-year-old boy at a motocross event in Auckland. He died from injuries he sustained at the motocross event and he donated because he wanted to get to live on"—which was a quote in the paper—but his organs helped seven other people.So I think that for people who are engaged specifically in this area it is based on their experiences of having family members either who have died and contributed organs or who have been the recipients of organs. So I think this bill is incredibly important. I think it's beyond time that we focused on it. If we can have a waiting list that is every year cleared because we have enough organs to meet the needs of our fellow New Zealanders then I think that this piece of legislation and the history of it will actually fulfil the legacy of people like Dr Jackie Blue who bring these issues to our Parliament. Kia ora."
McAnulty Kieran; Tolley AnneKIERAN McANULTY (Junior Whip—Labour): I move That the question be now put. DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm not going to accept a closure motion at this stage partly because the Minister who moved the motion for a shortened period has not given the House a reason. She merely moved it and sat down. There might be another Minister in the House who might like to give the House a reason for the motion but I'm going to call Simon O'Connor.
Martin TraceyHon TRACEY MARTIN (Minister for Children): I move That the Oranga Tamariki Legislation Bill be reported back to the House by 27 May 2019 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions) during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House and outside the Wellington area despite Standing Orders 191 193 and 194(1)(b) and (c).
Loheni AgnesAGNES LOHENI (National): This is my first call after what has been a very difficult and harrowing time for our country and so I'd first like to note my condolences to the families and the community affected by the terrible event on 15 March in Christchurch. It is my pleasure to take this call on the Oranga Tamariki Legislation Bill. It is good to see that this bill tightens up and strengthens the legislation which is ultimately about ensuring that working families whānau and our young people have access to the care and support they need. The intent of this legislation is to put children and young people's well-being and safety at the heart of the decisions that are made around them. It's about acknowledging that young people can be the best ones to ask about what works for them and hearing their voices throughout the support process. This legislation represented a pivotal transformation programme to build a more child-focused care and protection system which focuses on harm trauma and prevention and early intervention. As my colleague Louise Upston has earlier noted and strongly conveyed let's not rush this. We owe it to them to our young people to get it right. I'd like to acknowledge the work that was done by the previous National-led Government. In particular I acknowledge the work of the Hon Anne Tolley and her significant contribution which transformed the outlook for children. This bill is the continuation of that work to ensure that the amendments made by the 2017 Act will be in line with the intention of the policy. The majority of the reforms in the Children Young Persons and their Families (Oranga Tamariki) Legislation Act come into force on 1 July including reforms which will ensure that 17-year-olds within the youth justice jurisdiction are realised. On that note can I just highlight some of the key features of this bill: updates to the definition of young person" to align with the definition in the Oranga Tamariki Act 1989 to ensure consistent application of the extension of the youth justice jurisdiction across all relevant legislation; clarification of procedures and processes that will be applied to 17-year-olds with the extension of the youth justice jurisdiction particularly in relation to bail and the taking and retention of bodily samples; and finally the transitional provisions to clarify which jurisdiction adult or youth should be applied to a 17-year-old depending on the date that proceedings are commenced against a 17-year-old. I've heard comments about this being a very technical bill. The problem with it is that if technicalities aren't treated right we will be tripped up. I commend this bill to the House."
Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): It's a pleasure to rise and take a call on the Oranga Tamariki Legislation Bill noting as others have on this side of the House and indeed on the other side the necessity of aligning various aspects of this legislation with other laws on our statute book. I think it was the previous speaker who noted that there are some 12 Acts of Parliament that need to be amended in a consequential way to ensure that the aims of the original legislation will be met.Like others on this side of the House I would like to perhaps just strike a note—without over-emphasising it—of caution I suppose in relation to the need to give due diligence and proper scrutiny to the legislation. Notwithstanding that it is described as being technical in nature that's not to say that it's unimportant. So I think we need to be careful of not confusing that which is substantive and that which is substantial. It is pretty procedural it is pretty technical but that doesn't mean that it's unimportant. Its importance of course derives from the fact that the subject matter is so important—the way that we treat young people the way that we deal with young people within the criminal justice system and the health system and the way that we regard young people as members of our society more generally differs currently according to whether they're 17 or 18 in some particular jurisdictions and not others. So that's the degree of consistency that others have rightly acknowledged does need to be clarified somewhat does need to be aligned and does need to be streamlined. These are worthy objectives of the law worthy objectives of the House's time and so I have no hesitation or make further ado in commending it to the House accordingly.
O'Connor Simon; Rurawhe AdrianSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Thank you Mr Speaker. I'm pleased to take a call on this first reading acknowledging the Minister for bringing it to the House. Importantly as other colleagues have noted this was part of a National Party approach initially and with mostly support from across the House in passing the original legislation before the end of the last Parliament. It was known then—and again that's why it's good that the Minister has brought it to the House now—that there would have to be subsequent legislation to incorporate the initial changes around 17-year-olds and how they'll be treated in the justice system.I acknowledge too the then Minister Anne Tolley for the enormous amount of work that she led in this space to bring about what was one of the fundamental changes—again that a 17-year-old should be treated in the youth justice sector rather than the adult justice sector. So this is a piece of legislation which you've already anticipated Mr Assistant Speaker has our support—I would say from across the House but certainly from the National Party—first and foremost because it's a piece of legislation that we were adapting and were prepared to adopt.Look fundamentally as has been mentioned it's an omnibus bill simply because there are a number of pieces of legislation which need changes. The original Act a year ago did not or could not effect changes across at least 12 other pieces of legislation. So I think it's a good bill. I am concerned and surprised that the Minister has indicated this is going to be a truncated process. I'm a little confused about why that has to be the case and I do want to put on the record again particularly in this social development space that there is a continuing theme from this Government of rushing through legislation. We had it around the winter energy payment most recently we're having it again here tonight around Oranga Tamariki and I would counsel for want of a better word the Government against that. They've often spoken about the need for voices to be heard and that of children's voices. If they were true to that they'd be enabling a full amount of time. With that I commend the bill to the House.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): This is a split call—five minutes each.
Pugh MaureenMAUREEN PUGH (National): Thank you very much Mr Speaker. I join with my colleagues at this time to lend my voice also and acknowledge the families and the friends of those who lost their lives on 15 March in Christchurch. I also acknowledge and thank the New Zealand Police St John and all the volunteers and indeed the community who rushed to the support of those victims' families.Back to the bill—the Oranga Tamariki Legislation Bill. In 2017 as we've heard from previous speakers the then National-led Government introduced and passed the Children Young Persons and Their Families (Oranga Tamariki) Legislation Act. In terms of this bill this is an omnibus bill and simply by its very nature it is because it impacts several other bills. As the Hon Louise Upston said earlier it actually impacts on 12 other Acts.So the purpose of this bill is to bring 17-year-olds—under-18s—into the youth justice system. This is something that's very non-contentious. In fact it was strongly recommended by Judge Andrew Becroft the Children's Commissioner and it also aligns us very well with UNCROC—the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child—who referred in our report back to them in 2016 that this would also be a suitable move. So it's very good to see this piece of legislation being put into place to ensure that under-18s—our 17-year-olds—are no longer dealt with in the adult criminal justice system but now in the youth justice system. This enables them to also have the wraparound services that provide for their care in terms of perhaps changing their direction of travel. It's very non-contentious because the impacts on the rights of those under 18—the 17-year-olds—in this piece of legislation are all beneficial. I commend this bill to the House.