edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Bakshi Kanwaljit SinghKANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): Thank you Mr Speaker for the opportunity to stand in support of the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Amendment Bill. As has been mentioned by all the speakers in this House this is a bill which has got cross-party support. Christchurch is the second largest city of New Zealand. I had the opportunity to visit Christchurch after both earthquakes and saw the terrible damage that the earthquakes did to that city. Every member of this House was of the same view that we have to rebuild Christchurch and that is why from time to time special powers were given by this Parliament so that as soon as possible we can bring the city back on to its feet. There was cross-party support and I would like to acknowledge all the members of Parliament from Canterbury who stood and represented well their constituents in this Parliament.I would like to particularly acknowledge the Hon Gerry Brownlee the Hon Nicky Wagner and the Hon Amy Adams who were part of the team who finalised lot of the programmes to build up Christchurch that have been seen from time to time. I have visited Christchurch on a number of occasions in recent times and every time I go I see that there is progress that has happened and people are living in a very safe atmosphere. This bill repeals some of the provisions which were given removing some of the extraordinary powers that were given which are not required any more. This bill will repeal those powers so that it can go back to the local council to make the decisions at the local level. It is very important that we involve the local council in making decisions and it should not be the Parliament's role to supervise some of the things which are to be done by the local council. So with these words I support this bill.
Ghahraman GolrizGOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN (Green): Thank you Mr Speaker. It is a pleasure to stand to take a short call on what is a bill that's supported across this House and it's always a pleasure when we all agree and it's always special. I want to congratulate Minister Dr Megan Woods for shepherding this bill through this House with such great support as well as the Governance and Administration Committee who sound like they did work very hard on this. Also I do want to acknowledge every member who has spoken and worked on this bill who is from the Canterbury region and is from Christchurch. As others have said we all know that what Christchurch has been through over the last decade or so has been difficult and traumatising in a way that perhaps the rest of New Zealand—although we've felt that sense of empathy and aroha for that city we can't know what that community has been through. So it is special that we're coming together in this House to support regeneration for Christchurch and for that community. It's also I think commendable and something to celebrate that democracy at that local level is being restored today and through this bill in terms of the decision making that will be made on what that regeneration might look like on the ground because we know that that local democracy was suspended for some time and that in turn added to the trauma of that city as decisions were centralised and removed from that community level. So we do hope I think across this House and others have said that the council will take up its role and take up the new powers and the support that's being given to hasten that recovery process. It is always a welcome thing when we're in consensus in this House so I won't go on any further but only to say that it is a day to celebrate that regeneration will happen for Christchurch and that it will happen via local decision-making which the Green Party has always supported. I commend the bill to the House.
O'Connor GregGREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): I want to start by acknowledging the previous two speakers Mr Brownlee and Nicky Wagner. I think as I acknowledge those speakers on our side or the members of Parliament from Christchurch that it's just about understanding—New Zealanders don't seem to really quite understand just what the earthquakes did to Christchurch. It was brought home to me in my previous job. I had the police take of the earthquake actually happening and the emotion and the reports coming in and those different police officers and those reporting on the radio. I played that tape about a year later at a conference and those people who were from Christchurch who heard that tape were emotionally and visibly upset. It just brought it home to me and I had been in Christchurch—I arrived in Christchurch within hours of the earthquake the big earthquake in February and spent three weeks in the red zone. Again because I was so involved at that stage it took me some time to realise—many people in Canterbury had never actually been inside the city for some time. And there was a whole series of milestones that they had to cross and again I was probably there or thereabouts as those milestones were reached. So it gives me great pleasure to actually speak on this bill because I see this as yet another milestone where those in Canterbury start to get control back of something that was a massive change and will continue for a whole generation to change the way in which Christchurch not only physically looks but in the way that life exists in Christchurch.So it gives me great pleasure to be part of the final debate on this bill and I believe that those people in Christchurch will look forward to knowing that this is another milestone another step on their road to recovery from an event which as I said will have an impact certainly on this generation and probably generations to come. I commend this bill to the House.
Wood MichaelMICHAEL WOOD (Labour—Mt Roskill): I stand to speak in favour of the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Amendment Bill and in doing so can I firstly acknowledge the work of the Minister the Hon Megan Woods in shepherding this legislation through the House; members of the Government Administration Committee; and members across the House because it's clear that this is a piece of legislation that enjoys wide support which is born out of the widespread commitment across political lines to see the regeneration of Christchurch move forward.What is significant and important about this bill is that it does move us into the next stage. The broader effect of this bill is to continue the transition back to Christchurch being able to make its own decisions about its regeneration and its future. It's clear to everyone that in the wake of the devastating earthquakes there needed to be strong direction from central government including strong direction in terms of the planning and infrastructure support. There were debates about whether the line should be drawn there but that was clear as a matter of principle.It's clear that 10 years later particularly under the investments that this Government has made that there is good progress being made. It is time to let the people of Christchurch and their duly elected representatives really hold the mantle in terms of how Christchurch moves forward. I do just want to note some of the significant decisions that have been made by Regenerate Christchurch which does effectively get wound down a little bit earlier under this bill as a result of the progress that's been made under this Government in recent times. It's approved the investment cases for the Canterbury multi-use arena the Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor red zone and a big suite of roading projects. So there is good progress being made there. This Government is going to keep making the investments keep partnering with local people and keep partnering with local government in Christchurch to make sure that that regeneration continues and that the great city of Christchurch gets the support that it needs. The people of Christchurch can be guaranteed that under this Government. I commend the bill to the House.
VotePart 4 Betting and TAB venuesThe question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 516 in the name of the Rt Hon Winston Peters to Part 4 be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.Part 4 as amended agreed to.Part 5 Offshore betting charges and other mattersThe question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 516 in the name of the Rt Hon Winston Peters to Part 5 be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.Part 5 as amended agreed to.Schedule 1The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 516 in the name of the Rt Hon Winston Peters to Schedule 1 be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.Schedule 1 as amended agreed to.Schedule 2The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 516 in the name of the Rt Hon Winston Peters to Schedule 2 be agreed to.Amendment agreed to.Schedule 2 as amended agreed to.Schedule 3 agreed to.Schedule 4The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 516 in the name of the Rt Hon Winston Peters to Schedule 4 be agreed to.Amendment agreed to.Schedule 4 as amended agreed to.Schedule 5The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 516 in the name of the Rt Hon Winston Peters to Schedule 5 be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.Schedule 5 as amended agreed to.Clause 1 agreed to.Clause 2The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 516 in the name of the Rt Hon Winston Peters to clause 2 be agreed to.Amendment agreed to.Clause 2 as amended agreed to.House resumed.The Chairperson reported the Racing Industry Bill with amendment. Report adopted.
EventPart 2 RacingCHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Members we come to the debate on Part 2 clauses 7A to 44 and Schedule 2. The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 516 in the name of the Rt Hon Winston Peters to Part 2 be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.Part 2 as amended agreed to.
Peters WinstonRt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister for Racing): I think to answer the member's question exactly the reason why the reader board has had its time or tenancy or term extended is because of COVID-19 and the shut down of the industry and there was no desire on the part of any of the reader board members to go on any longer—they thought they'd done their job. So I'm glad that the House has agreed that a further year is probably enough. As to when those decisions are made I can't say because it doesn't lie within my provenance as a Minister. They've got to make them. We took the submitters' view that we should listen to the codes and the codes have put their best advice forward. So it's over now for the industry to work that out not me because for me to do that would be the very level of oppression that all the members of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee thought wasn't a good idea. Now surely you're not asking me to interpose myself now to make that decision having reformed the operation for the first time for a long time. The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 516 in the name of the Rt Hon Winston Peters to Part 3 be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.Part 3 as amended agreed to.
Bayly AndrewANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): Thank you Minister. It's good to know that we're going to get the right skills and that involves making sure we've got the right selection panel to make sure they can identify the right skills. Just related to that and Mr McKelvie made a comment earlier the process for appointment to the TAB is one of the crucial next steps. How long does the Minister think it'll take before those appointment processes occur and therefore the need for the Racing Industry Transition Agency (RITA) board to be disestablished? I know the Minister has put up a Supplementary Order Paper to carry it forward during the transition stage but does he have a view on how long it would take to put in place these new governance arrangements and therefore see the disestablishment of the RITA board?
Peters WinstonRt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister): The reality is that we tried this as close as we could following the Messara Report and verbal advice from Messara himself and going back to Thaddeus McCarthy's views all the way back to December 1970 which is a long long time ago. We tried to look at ensuring that we just didn't get some appointment by way of being shoulder-tapped whether there was excellency within that person's skills or not. So we looked to try and have a committee criteria that would select a degree of not just familiarity but a degree of excellency of understanding and dare I say it business acumen to take the committee and the board forward in the future.It was always very difficult because you've always got the problem where the Minister would be involved and without pointing any fingers over a long period of time it is very clear that racing Minister after racing Minister thought that this was a sort of boutique operation which required them to turn up to the odd racecourse when they felt like it and without any regard to the health and the wealth and the substance of the industry. That's why we've taken so long to begin to turn this industry back to a destiny which is far more profitable and far more substantial for this country's GDP and dare I say it tens of thousands of jobs and export earnings that we have hitherto.So the idea and the member has rightly pointed to it was to get a selection process to eliminate chaff and to get excellence and I hope we get there.
Bayly AndrewPart 3 TAB New ZealandANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): Thank you. It's nice that the Minister the Rt Hon Winston Peters is in the chair and I acknowledge him. So the issue around new clause 46A—the selection panel which will be established by the Minister for the purpose of making recommendations to the Minister relating to the initial appointment of members to the governing body of the TAB—this is obviously something that was changed in the select committee stage and is obviously a new part of the bill. Having been part of the committee there was a strong desire that the selection committee or selection panel that's convened to do the recommendation of appointment of board members be one that is grounded with professional expertise with the ability and capability of identifying appropriate people and of selecting and making good recommendations around how a board such as the TAB should be established and should be run with the requisite skills. Could I just ask of the Minister: does he hold the view that that selection panel is most likely to be a professional human resources firm that are skilled in doing these types of board appointments and if that's his understanding of that appointment process?
Bayly AndrewANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): Thank you very much. I would like to just highlight the issue around the process for selecting members to the board of the TAB. It's covered in clause 46A and what it says is that the Minister must establish a selection panel for the purpose of making a recommendation to the Minister for the appointment of members of the governing body of the TAB. This is something that was substantially changed in the select committee stage and so this is a new insertion into the bill that we are now obviously discussing here today.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I just want to tell a member that that's in Part 3 although the purpose of the bill is in Part 1 so you're being really specific and you should bring that up in Part 3. I'll hand back to you and speak to this part of the bill.ANDREW BAYLY: Yeah. Sorry but I'm just trying to be very specific because I've only got one point I really want to raise so—CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Yeah. That's a point that should be made in Part 3 though—that's what I'm saying.ANDREW BAYLY: Can I—would you like me to continue or not?CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Well you could continue in terms of Part 1 which includes the purpose so if you linked what you were saying—ANDREW BAYLY: OK so just with the purpose obviously the purpose statement is around—the bill is about making sure that we've got the right process in place for the establishment of a credible board to the TAB; about making sure that we've got the right objectives for that organisation and the right level of accountability back to the industry itself through Racing New Zealand. I fully endorse those principles and I think this bill actually helps to achieve that and get us to that point. So I'll come back to the point I was just raising before in the next stage.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 516 in the name of the Rt Hon Winston Peters to Part 1 be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.Part 1 as amended agreed to.
Tuesday 10 December 2019 (continued on Wednesday 11 December 2019) - Volume 743
Electoral (Entrenchment of Māori Seats) Amendment Bill — Second Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Electoral (Entrenchment of Māori Seats) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. Ayes 54 New Zealand Labour 46; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8. Noes 66 New Zealand National 55; New Zealand First 9; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross. Motion not agreed to.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Dog Control (Category 1 Offences) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.Ayes 112New Zealand National 55; New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Noes 8Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Bill read a third time.
Dog Control (Category 1 Offences) Amendment Bill — Third Reading
Marcroft Jenny; Rurawhe AdrianJENNY MARCROFT (NZ First): Tēnā koe Mr Speaker. I'd like to begin my contribution by firstly acknowledging those who have been impacted the families and the victims of the terrible tragedy off Whakatāne of the Whakaari / White Island eruption and I also too note our news media who have been covering the story for us as it unfolds and the work that those broadcasters—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I'm sorry to interrupt the member but we have come to the end of the extended sitting. Debate interrupted.The House adjourned at 1 p.m. (Wednesday)
Young JonathanJONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): Look I'm very pleased and proud to stand in support of Melissa Lee's bill. I actually think it does achieve some very important goals. I couldn't understand why the Hon Willie Jackson can't understand it and then I discovered halfway through his speech that he was talking about things that aren't even in the bill. He's talking about testing a programme's or station's commerciality. This is not about that. What this is about is testing the viewers' or listeners' value which they give to content. My concern is that if we don't do this then we lock up taxpayer funding in programmes that basically only really get tested by a producer's report instead of actually the recipients the listeners and the viewers of that content.What that means is that other people out there in the community who have content that they want to present—perhaps they are a budding communications person or broadcaster that's come through you know the New Zealand Broadcasting School in Christchurch—can't get in in terms of having some programme funded because it's locked up. I think what this does is it analyses in a very orthodox way the public's value and appreciation and support for content. If those reports are done and publicised as the bill suggests then perhaps there is some content out there that does not receive public support—that the public do not appreciate and do not value—and that becomes an opportunity for somebody else. You know it creates some tense competitive environment and I think that sometimes broadcasters don't like that. What it does is it then creates an opportunity for somebody else to come in and improve. Competition is all about quality it's all about getting better value for money and you know I'm always worried that people aren't prepared to quantify or assess their value. When we stopped counting elective surgeries we lost 4000 operations in a year. You count what you consider to be of value. You monitor that which you want to get a positive response from the public.So in my closing comments I fully support this. I think it's a very good bill. I want to commend Melissa Lee for putting the work and the effort behind it. This will happen in time. It's probably not going to happen under this Government but I think it's a very good bill. I think that we want transparency and accountability in our country and this is a great opportunity. I commend the bill to the House. Thank you.
Andersen GinnyGINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you Mr Speaker. Well thank you very much. I'm very honoured. I feel quite privileged to have my very first member's bill read for a first time in this House today and it is an even greater sense of pride I have that all parties within this House are supporting this bill. That's so encouraging to see on such an important issue not just for women but for families in New Zealand as well. I would like to acknowledge all of the women that have spoken today whether they've shared their personal experiences or spoken about issues that are important to them. This is not just an important change in law but it provides a great opportunity for women to talk about issues that are important for women opening up a lot of those discussion areas that previously I don't think we've done well enough in the past. So I thank all of those women who have spoken today. The next step in this bill will be the select committee process at the Education and Workforce Committee so I would like to spend just a short period of time making a clear call-out to anybody who would like to submit on this bill. I think it's incredibly important for all of those who have already written to me whether they be organisations or individuals to be aware that over the holiday period we hope that the submissions period will be open. I wholeheartedly encourage any person or organisation in New Zealand with an interest in this area to make sure that your voice is heard. It's yet another opportunity in our great democratic system for your voices to contribute to how legislation is formed and takes shape and I encourage everybody to take that opportunity up. In that same vein of how wonderful the small and beautiful democratic nation of New Zealand is I've been in frequent texting contact with the person who started this bill off Kathryn van Beek. I asked her just recently The summing up bit is coming. Is there anything that you would like to add?" so it's quite nice to be in contact with the person who really was the starting point of this bill. Her words that she would like added at the final stage of this first reading process are that this is a small change for employers but it makes a big difference for people and it shows that people care and that society cares at a time when someone can feel isolated. I think that wonderfully encapsulates what we're doing today. It shows that a small change in legislation to make bereavement leave available for miscarriage and for stillbirth enables a grieving process to take place and it's the right thing to do for a compassionate country such as ours. So I would like to finish by thanking all of the parties that have given their support for this piece of legislation today and all of those members that have spoken so wholeheartedly about their views and the importance of this issue for New Zealanders. I commend this bill to the House. Bill read a first time. Bill referred to the Education and Workforce Committee."
Holidays (Bereavement Leave for Miscarriage) Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading
Election Access Fund Bill — In Committee
Loheni AgnesAGNES LOHENI (National): Thank you Mr Speaker. I'm pleased to be able to stand to make a contribution on this the Holidays (Bereavement Leave for Miscarriage) Amendment Bill (No 2) at its first reading. I'm pleased to also support this bill to the House. I've been very heartened by the speeches on this bill so far. It's been handled with a lot of sensitivity and compassion for something that we will have to still apply some robustness to in the select committee process. We've heard today that miscarriage is an issue that affects roughly 20000 women every year. I believe that number's probably higher and I echo the sentiments that my colleague Louise Upston mentioned about the number of women that because of the early stage of their miscarriage wouldn't have necessarily reported it to their GP. As a woman and as a mother of five children I say that I have also experienced a miscarriage. This was quite a long time ago and I'm having to reflect on that time but particularly I had already given birth to two very healthy children so I was extremely shocked that at 12 weeks my baby had died—so the shock in terms of How could it be that I couldn't bring another healthy baby to life to full term?" There were mixed feelings including one of guilt and including one of being quite critical of perhaps "What did I do or what did I not do right this time around?" I can imagine this is an experience that is very different for every woman. That was a profound sense of loss for my husband and myself. At that time because of the early stage not many people had known. We hadn't told many people so it was sort of a sense of loss that we just shared between ourselves. So I actually really commend Ginny Andersen and Clare Curran for bringing this issue to light and bringing this to Parliament. I commend this going to select committee as a woman and as a mother that has had a miscarriage and I am also a business owner and I am also an employer of a small business that has employed largely women. In that intimate setting of a small business with predominantly female employees over the last 17 years it has been an environment where we as business owners become quite intimately aware of some of the issues that our workers have in their lives. We have dealt with issues of domestic violence with our workers we have become aware of issues where there are issues with their children and we have become aware of issues where they have had miscarriages and also where they've had pregnancies. So as an employer I understand—and I think most small-business employers would fall into this category—that we are very compassionate in those situations and generally understanding and that it works in the best benefit of our businesses to take that approach with our employees. I understand sadly that that won't be the case for many. So I do commend this process going to select committee so that we can hear from other voices other businesses and other women ensuring that we put the best light on this bill as possible. Thank you Mr Speaker."
Logie JanJAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you Mr Speaker. It's with great pleasure that I rise to add the Green Party's voice of support in the House today to the Holidays (Bereavement Leave for Miscarriage) Amendment Bill (No 2). I too would like to add my acknowledgments to Kathryn van Beek for bringing this issue to Clare Curran as a member of Parliament initially and then for her work with Ginny Andersen who has so effectively brought this piece of legislation to the House with—so far—unanimous support. That is a significant achievement. This is in the heart quite a simple piece of legislation. It's ensuring that bereavement leave is accessible and universally accessible for families who have experienced a miscarriage or stillbirth. That's needed because the current legislation for bereavement leave is silent on the application. We've heard from many people in the House that a lot of employers automatically gave it when asked because they had a sense of connection I can only imagine to the wellbeing of their staff and wanted to support them but that has not been a universal experience. Kathryn spoke and wrote quite I think eloquently describing her outrage after her own experience to find out on asking the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment around whether bereavement leave was accessible only to be told that it was up to the bereaved person to convince their employer that their baby is worth grieving. Those are her words and that is what we are changing today—that the onus will not be on the bereaved parents to prove that their grief allows them access to time to grieve and that actually this is our expectation as a country that every family be able to grieve as they need. I do want to also reinforce the message that has come from others in the House today—and I heard it eloquently presented by Louise Upston—around the value of providing visibility for an issue that is still very taboo in our society and there is so much silence over. But I want to acknowledge the case as represented by Clare Curran via Kathryn van Beek of somebody being told by her employer to get over it and that she wasn't entitled to feelings of grief and just how inhumane that response is. All of the research and evidence and lived experience tells us that everyone's experience will be different. Some women some people will find that actually it doesn't have a huge impact on them but for others it's going to be a very complex mix of feelings of confusion and grief and loss a sense of emptiness a sense of loss of trust in their own bodies and a sense of loss of control and a concern around their future hopes and dreams for their family. That's a lot to be dealing with. I'm very very pleased on behalf of the Green Party to be supporting this legislation to ensure that people who need the time to grieve are given at least the consistent ability to access time as other people who are experiencing bereavement. I think we are all better off when our workplaces are compassionate and humane and this legislation helps us towards that end. Thank you.
Patterson MarkMARK PATTERSON (NZ First): I rise on behalf of Darroch Ball the sponsor of the bill to give his reply. It is poignant as others have noted that we are dealing with this Protection for First Responders and Prison Officers Bill at a time when we are seeing our first responders at their very finest putting themselves in the way of harm to help others in a significant national event. I too join my voice to those that have acknowledged that today.I'd also like to commend Darroch Ball on bringing this forward. This is a Government that is looking at changing the justice system and how we do things and do them differently and things like restorative justice and rehabilitation health-based approaches to things and they're all important discussions. But Darroch is someone that is immersed in all that and studies this sort of thing extremely closely and he's also someone that is an advocate for consequences as well. We cannot just have an educational approach; there does need to be consequences when people transgress and particularly when they transgress in an egregious manner—in this case against first responders some of our most worthy citizens and well-meaning citizens putting themselves into places of trouble.The scale of this issue is significant. The figures I've got here—we've got for 2019 to date 1800 assaults on police officers including 350 that resulted in injuries; 655 assaults against prison officers of which 20 were serious and 16 were of a sexual nature. In 2018 we know that there was in terms of the ambulance and Fire and Emergency response 747 crew abuse cases including 193 assaults. These first responders are often dealing with distressed drunk or drugged individuals and it is a dangerous situation all too often. Those figures are stark and I'm quite actually alarmed by them. This is totally unacceptable and New Zealand First will not stand by and accept those figures. We would find it unconscionable that the Parliament would not prioritise our first responders in supporting this bill and I'm pleased to hear so far that the speakers from both the Labour and National parties have indicated they will support this bill.Of course the key measure I think is the minimum sentence of six months. If you assault a first responder you are going to jail and that is a strong deterrent along with other measures. I think that that is the key feature of the bill. We're just sending a signal as a society and as a Parliament that assault on first responders is totally unacceptable and we will not countenance it.So in the 13 months since this bill was introduced or drawn there have been literally hundreds of assaults against our first responders. We must get on and deliver this bill so that we can actually give them the security and the protection that they deserve in the important work that they do. So my urging to the Parliament is: let's get on with the job get this bill passed and put those protections in place. Thank you Madam Speaker.Bill read a first time. Bill referred to the Justice Committee.
Protection for First Responders and Prison Officers Bill — First Reading
Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you Madam Speaker. Like others I wish to acknowledge those involved as first responders as well as those most directly affected by the recent tragedy at White Island also known as Whakaari. I recently bumped into the Minister of Civil Defence and I hope he won't regard it as a breach of confidence that he assured me in that setting how impressed he was by the work of the New Zealand Defence Force in that context. So while the scope of the bill is first responders and prison officers—or Corrections officers I suppose we might also call them—it's helpful to acknowledge as others have done in this House those who have been involved in that particular occurrence and doing such wonderful work on the ground and indeed at sea surrounding that island.The only thing I've heard so far that's disturbed me about this bill is the extent to which my speech notes that I've been making have reflected the comments that the member for Mt Roskill has made. In all seriousness he's actually—Michael Wood: We're both embarrassed!CHRIS PENK: That's right—We're both embarrassed!" says the member. So perhaps I'll charge on reasonably briefly except to say that he made the point about the fact that it's every day for first responders and not simply the case of the recent albeit tragic events at White Island and for that matter the flooding in the South Island and so on. But it's every day and I'll underline that word "every" in the context of the upcoming Christmas - New Year period. A holiday for many but for those of us who keep their fellow Kiwis—and visitors for that matter—safe on our roads and at sea it is an ongoing proposition and therefore ongoing danger to which they are exposed not only by the inherently risky and dangerous nature of what they do but additional danger and risk in the case of behaviour that we would not wish to have them exposed to.That of course is the subject of the bill. I look forward to finding out a bit more about that including—again as the member for Mt Roskill has acknowledged—whether the settings are exactly right and there are different policy responses. I have the good fortune of being on the Justice Committee so along with the chair and others in the House I welcome the opportunity in that forum to engage a bit more closely with the detail. We must do what we can to help those who help others. So it's a matter of justice but also recognising those consequences in terms of not wishing to have people who would put their hand up to perform these roles—we don't want them to be discouraged from doing so. On that note I'll finish my contribution but say that I look forward to continuing to engage with the debate and the discussion and the bill itself as it progresses further."
Bennett DavidPROTECTION FOR FIRST RESPONDERS AND PRISON OFFICERS BILLFirst ReadingDebate resumed from 3 April.Hon DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): Thank you. I just want to wrap up the speech on this bill which we will be supporting. I want to just take this time to especially say a big thankyou to all those first responders that have been in your area with your people and just to pay respect to them and thank them for the good work that they are doing up there and also to yourself. Hopefully they can get those bodies out very quickly and the families can get some closure at this time.I also wanted to take this time to especially thank our prison officers who do a fantastic job through our country. They are people that put themselves in danger every day dealing with the most hardened members of our community that don't have respect for people or personal rights and are very difficult people to deal with. Those prison officers deserve our thanks and gratitude for the work they do. At this time of year I think that we need to publicly thank them and acknowledge the good work that they do.It's been very disappointing to see in the last year that the current Government hasn't taken their role seriously and has meant that we've had an increase in assaults on prison officers and they've even had to go and look at getting prison officers in from Australia to cover the gap over the Christmas period from the current Government. That's been disappointing to the prison officers and I know the Government has had to back down and stop that process in the last few days because they know it's not the right thing to do.So this bill will get the support of the National Party but I just want to use this opportunity to thank those that work in our first responders' areas and also especially our prison officers for the great work they do and I wish them all the very best for the festive season.
King MattMATT KING (National—Northland): I get the last word. I get the honour of the last word. My wife hates it when I have the last word. The Dog Control (Category 1 Offences) Amendment Bill. This is a very simple bill that identifies a problem and then provides a solution and that is the way Ian McKelvie works. I'd like to pay tribute to that man—hugely respected across the House for the work that he's done in this House and continues to do. This is a member's bill. We're on a members' day. We all agree on it. The issues have been well traversed. I can't understand why we can't truncate the process and just knock these sorts of bills to touch very early on speed them up and get through it but then I realised that the Government doesn't want us to do that because if that bill gets dealt with and gets voted on—as it will be today and it'll pass into law—then we go to the ballot and we get another member's bill. I've got three really good bills waiting there to be drawn. I got one drawn last year the Crimes (Coward Punch Causing Death) Amendment Bill. So I realise that's why they want to stall because they don't want us to get our members' bills out. So this is a great piece of law—[Interruption] Oh they've sparked up on the other side now. This is a great piece of law brought to the House by a great man and I commend it to the House.
Walker HamishHAMISH WALKER (National—Clutha-Southland): Quite clearly the House has gone to the dogs and I'm not talking about the member beside me. But I just want to start by acknowledging the person who brought this bill to the House Ian McKelvie. He's an incredibly hard-working rural MP. He was the mayor of the Manawatū from 2002 to 2011 and a fact that not many people in here probably realise: he is the longest-serving mayor of the Manawatū District to date. Also I want to acknowledge the brains behind the operation—that's his wife Sue. She's a wonderful lady and does a great job.Madam Speaker I want to acknowledge you for the events that have happened up your neck of the woods in the last 36 hours. You have got an electorate office only 300 metres from the wharf. You have been the MP there for a long time. You were on the ground yesterday and the day before. I just want to acknowledge you and also the efforts of all the emergency services over the last 36-48 hours.Back to the bill it's a very simple bill. Most of the points have been acknowledged by both sides. It basically takes a bit of pressure off the courts and allows JPs to hear dog cases. We must remember we are talking about dogs but in many cases a dog is more than just an animal; it's man's best friend woman's best friend. We love them. I've had a few dogs in my time. One of them was called Mad Max and unfortunately this legislation may apply to my lovely Mad Max. He's a boxer dog that gets into trouble from time to time. It's also worth mentioning that last year there were just under 500 cases heard under the Dog Control Act so this will free up the court's time.Just lastly I want to again acknowledge the hard-working rural MP Ian McKelvie. You've done a great job and I hope you're watching. Wherever you are Ian I hope your health's coming back. Cheers.
van de Molen TimTIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Thank you Madam Speaker. The previous speaker Marama Davidson was just barking up the wrong tree. There's nothing wrong with this piece of legislation. I don't mean to hound her unnecessarily but this is a pretty straightforward set of changes that have been proposed by Mr McKelvie. Really it's about getting the right result not burdening the court system unnecessarily and it's good to see it progressing through. So I wanted to congratulate Mr McKelvie on that in particular.There was actually one question from the committee of the whole House stage that went unanswered and I do just want to reflect on that as well. I believe it was Mr Penk who queried exactly who had let the dogs out and so in relation to this bill by being able to change the process to remove the time dogs are spending in the pound then I think it's appropriate to answer that by saying this House will indeed be responsible for having let the dogs out and streamlining that process. So I commend it to the House.
Adams AmyHon AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn): Thank you Madam Speaker. I only intend to take a brief call because while this is an excellent bill that clearly enjoys the support of the House it's a bill that only has in fact one operative clause. While every bill in this House goes through a process of 12 10-minute speeches I don't see the need in talking and being on my feet for the mere sake of it. The two points I really just want to make are that it's a bill that speaks to me to head and to heart. Heart because I'm a massive dog lover—in fact generally I enjoy time with them more than I do with many people—and anything that assists the ability of our system to ensure dogs are properly cared for I support. The second—the head point—is simply that as an ex - Minister for Courts anything that can take the small easily handled cases out of the full court process and put them through a much more pragmatic practical system as a category 1 offence only makes sense. So I just wish as others have done to commend Ian McKelvie for finding a simple but very effective and helpful way of ensuring that our courts work better. I hope that the animals that so many of us get so much pleasure and enjoyment from continue to be well looked after and that for those who don't care for them properly their justice is swift and effective. I commend it to the House.
Patterson MarkMARK PATTERSON (NZ First): Mr Chair I'd just like to take a call if I could on this committee stage of the Election Access Fund Bill. I'll start by congratulating the member Chlöe Swarbrick for bringing this bill forward taking time out from her usual role of being a global voice of a generation and enraging older white men everywhere to bring this thoroughly practical and considered and sensible member's bill forward. It is important that we have a House of Representatives to represent everyone including older white men but we've seen I think the example obviously of Mojo Mathers having made it into the Parliament but also a number of candidates that we know and New Zealand First has run a number of disabled candidates—a fully blind candidate in a recent election. Apparently we once had quite literally a one-armed paperhanger run for us in one of the Auckland electorates I believe.So this is a welcome step. We do need to make it accessible. New Zealand First were concerned and I guess we just want some reassurance from the member that this is not a socialist conspiracy for party political funding by the State. We were concerned about that at the start. We are pleased to see that the bill has been narrowed to come down to funding of the individual candidates and just for expenses that are incurred as part of that disability—things like interpreters sign language interpreters and the like. So just some reassurance that you're not using this as the thin edge of the wedge to come in here with some wider scope and conspiracy theory.I guess in terms of the funding do you have any idea of what this might cost and how broad this could become? Because I guess it depends as the previous speaker alluded on what the criteria are for who is disabled and who isn't and how wide you expect this to be. Do you expect this to be accessed by a number of people? As I think Tracey Martin alluded to in her second reading speech we've actually got a legally blind member in our caucus at the moment who possibly would be eligible for this if he chose to be. So it could be that actually the scope could get quite broad. So how can we keep that narrow or make sure that we know that the funding will be there to carry out what we're proposing?I guess that's pretty well where we see it as New Zealand First. We do support the intent of the bill getting more disabled people being prepared to put their names forward for Parliament but we do want to see that it's not just the thin edge of the wedge in terms of that wider State funding of political parties which we do not support. So I just once again commend the member on the bill and look forward to it progressing. Thank you.
Yule LawrenceLAWRENCE YULE (National—Tukituki): Thank you Mr Chair. Just a very brief call and it's more a question. In Part 2 clause 7(2) it says that The Electoral Commission must not issue a notice … without first consulting persons and organisations that the Commission considers appropriate having regard to the purpose of the fund." I wonder if the member actually believes that part goes far enough. In other words you're leaving it wide open to the Electoral Commission to decide who those organisations may be. I know it's difficult to put in legislation or even regulations naming people but I would hate—because this is such a big move and a bold move—that some of those organisations are left out or it's a tick-box exercise rather than in reality getting to the depth of the situation. So in my brief call I'd just like the member to consider how that may be addressed. Thank you Mr Chair."