edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Hudson BrettBRETT HUDSON (National): It is a pleasure to rise in support of the Patents (Trans-Tasman Patent Attorneys and Other Matters) Amendment Bill.Dr David Clark: Take a bow.BRETT HUDSON: Thank you Dr Clark; I will bow. Before I move on to it I just want to remind the House that the actual core purpose of this bill was to replace a 60-year-old and outdated regulatory regime for the attorneys and to put in a modern licensing regime. That was the heart of the bill.To help Dr Clark and his understanding of what empowering provisions are empowering provisions do not mean that those provisions are the heart of the bill. Empowering provisions empower other things to take place and they may not themselves be wholly prescriptive. That is what an empowering provision does—it empowers something else to happen—but unfortunately Dr Clark thinks that an empowering provision is the heart of the bill. He is most certainly wrong. The two parts that the bill was intended for and will deliver were firstly a joint registration system for patent attorneys between Australia and New Zealand which would also include a single disciplinary regime and a disciplinary tribunal to determine complaints and to discipline attorneys as might be necessary.The second substantial part of the bill was about opposition to patents on the grounds of lack of unity of invention and I will cover that one first because the lack of unity of invention was simply a drafting error from a previous amendment. What it meant was that unless you were seeking to patent only one unique piece of innovation someone could object to your patent application and it would be struck out. It was clearly something that had not originally been intended and it was the purpose of this bill—and still is—to remove that odd ground for opposition.But the heart of it is about the registration system which includes the disciplinary framework and tribunal. Within that it is true that the officials had looked at a single application process and a single examination process common to the two countries for patent applications and examinations. What was discovered through the select committee process was that that was looked at some years ago and times have moved on. Technology has moved on. There are already some applications either in place or in part being developed that would to one degree or another—and quite frankly to almost a whole degree—supersede and nullify the SAP/SEP application as it was called that had originally been mooted. It was for that reason that it was removed from the bill. There simply is no purpose for that no reason to go to those lengths on our own now as things currently stand.But the heart of the bill—the heart of what is still progressing through this House—is all about a joint registration system between Australia and New Zealand for patent attorneys one that has a common disciplinary code of conduct and a common disciplinary tribunal. That has always been what this bill is about that is what it remains about and I commend it to the House.
Electronic Interactions Reform Bill — First Reading
McKelvie IanIAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Like the last speaker it is with a little bit of surprise that I find myself speaking to this bill. It is with even more surprise that I find myself welcoming Barry Coates to the House and finding myself on the same side as a Green Party member for the first time in 5 years. It is a new look for the Green Party Barry.Some of the points that were interestingly raised by my fellow Manawatū MP Iain Lees-Galloway are the issues that interest me about this bill. It is not necessarily because we cannot afford the technology. It is because people of my age are tested by this kind of stuff significantly and people older than me are even more tested by this stuff than I am. I note that one of the targets that the Government has got is around 70 to 78 percent or something like that of engagement in this type of process. It is an admirable target to have. It is going to take quite some time before people older than me are going to adapt to this kind of technology. That is one of the challenges that we have got as a Government and as a country. In fact the slower acceptance of the older generation of this type of technology is one of the challenges that we have got in the world is it not? It is certainly going to take a long time and of course every time we take another pill we live another day and so we have got to put up with it for a little bit longer. Ha ha! So it is quite challenging.With those very brief words I will certainly support this bill. But I do warn the select committee that it will be challenging—it will be challenging for many of us to adopt this type of technology and the Government is just going to have to be patient with it. Thank you. I commend the bill to the House.
Hudson BrettBRETT HUDSON (National): It is an absolute pleasure to rise and speak in favour of this Electronic Interactions Reform Bill. As members across the House have noted digital technology is so ubiquitous in our lives. Even if you do not touch it personally it is in your home so you are a consumer of it one way or another. We see simple things like smartphones; I have seen reports that people look at their smartphones 2000 or more times a day which is phenomenal when you think about it. Yet more and more I find myself doing my own business and living my life through things on the phone that I think it is actually possible. We wear technology. Some people like things like Google Glass but most people might wear things like Fitbits to help to record what we are doing how active we are the status of our health how we are improving and where perhaps we could seek some help.The reality is that digital technologies are part of our everyday lives. When that is the case it is also a part of our everyday business or education. We all—or most—in some form or another are using technology to do our work or to do our studies. So it is not at all surprising then that people would have a natural expectation that they should be able to undertake their interactions with businesses and with Government agencies through digital channels. So it is a delight first to see us undertaking measures through this bill to help facilitate that—but also the Better Public Services target we have of 70 percent of transactions with Government to be performed online by the end of 2017. It is an interesting point that at this point we are already at about 52 percent or just over 52 percent so we are well on the way to meeting that target.As we go through this—and the items that this bill will achieve are laudable in themselves—what is more important I feel if this passes through Parliament is that it is showing the willingness of our agencies and us as legislators to remove the barriers to greater adoption and use of digital technology in interactions with Government agencies. Recently I attended a technology in Government seminar here in Wellington and met with one of our agencies' chief information officers. He was telling me about what he has been doing in his business. He creates a little bit of what you might call a sandpit environment" where he has got specialists who just tear down their archaic or traditional business processes and work out how they could do things differently with technology. Once they work out how they can use technology to get better or more efficient and more effective outcomes they set about dismantling that old process and putting something new in place—something new that will support the use of that technology. That in effect is exactly what we are doing here.We acknowledge that our processes and rules are outdated for this age and we are prepared to change them so that we can embrace more and more digital technologies so that our citizens can interact with us more through digital platforms. So at this stage I would just like to commend this bill to the House."
Mitchell MarkMARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): It is a pleasure to take a call on this the Electronic Interactions Reform Bill. I just want to acknowledge the Hon Peter Dunne for bringing this bill to the House.I just want to say that I found quite interesting the example that my colleague Paul Foster-Bell used in terms of getting himself registered through the RealMe process. Of course his purpose was that he wants to be a marriage celebrant and be able to carry out or officiate marriages and civil unions. But once he had done that—once he had registered once he had verified his identification—it then allowed for electronic transactions to take place.I think that David Shearer made a very good point which is that we live in an electronic world and that is not going to change. It is a digitised world where records are kept electronically. That is not going to change; that is going to grow.I think that one of the issues though that Louisa Wall just raised which I think is a very good one is around safeguards. It is about making sure both that the system protects the individuals and that actually there are sanctions available for the departments that are entrusted with this information as well. I will just draw the House's attention to just a couple of new offences that have been created as part of the bill. One is that a participating agency commits an offence if the participating agency knowingly uses an individual's electronic photograph for one or more of the purposes listed above without the individual's consent or for a purpose other than one of the listed purposes …". The other offence that has been created is "a person other than a participating agency commits an offence if the person knowingly uses an electronic identity photograph in relation to any transaction or service … and that person is not the subject of the photograph …". So there are some good safeguards being built into the legislation.We look forward to receiving the legislation at the Government Administration Committee and to being able to take it through a committee process and examine it more closely. Thank you very much."
Voting — Correction—Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill
Resignations — Hon Phil Goff Mt Roskill
Foster-Bell PaulPAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): E Te Mana Whakawā Tuarua tēnā koe. E ngā mema o Te Whare Pāremata o Aotearoa tēnā koutou katoa. I am going to make a brief intervention in this first reading debate on the Electronic Interactions Reform Bill and begin by congratulating the Hon Peter Dunne on bringing a very sensible set of measures to the House.We are living in the 21st century and this Government has made great progress already towards implementing our Better Public Services target of having 70 percent of the most common transactions that Government offers to our citizens available and delivered electronically. I have got some personal experience recently in signing up for the full RealMe verification service in order to become a marriage and civil union celebrant. I can say that although it was initially a little bit of an arduous process to go down to the post office be identified have the photograph taken and supply all the documentation and then to have the material sent to my home address so that they could verify my home address—ultimately once you have got that set up that gives you access to a wealth of Government services so much more easily so much more conveniently than would ever have been possible before.As the member opposite David Cunliffe—the very distinguished and learned member opposite—mentioned there is a digital divide and we have to make sure that services are available not only to older and younger New Zealanders but also to those of different abilities I think. Technology does have the potential to be both a great leveller as well as a great enabler of efficiency. So for those with sight or hearing challenges with the technical improvements that have been offered—such as for instance being able to communicate verbally through a speech recognition tool—there are significant prospects to make it easier for our disabled New Zealand citizens to access Government services.This is a very sensible set of measures. I think this Government will go down in history as one of the great reforming Governments in that it has brought in just yesterday the Land Transfer Bill which brings the land transfer system firmly into the 21st century from its 19th century origins in South Australia—the 1858 Real Property Act that was brought in by Sir Richard Torrens GCMG the third Premier of South Australia for instance. That is another example.But this bill in particular—the thing that I am excited about is that it allows the RealMe verification service to be extended to a far wider range of Government services. There really is very little excuse for any Government department not offering RealMe verification because it is a much better system than a person walking in and having a human compare a photo and a signature with what they see in front of them. The machine actually makes far fewer mistakes than a human. But where there are I think some barriers to that is with archaic legislation. That is what we are fixing here today. It is an excellent bill and I commend it fully to the House.
Finlayson ChristopherBUSINESS STATEMENTHon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Acting Leader of the House): When the House resumes on Tuesday 18 October the Government will look to complete the first readings of the Outer Space and High-altitude Activities Bill and the three regulatory systems amendment bills and to progress a number of other bills on the Order Paper. Wednesday of course will be a members' day.
Hipkins Chris; Carter DavidVOTINGCorrection—Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment BillCHRIS HIPKINS (Senior Whip—Labour): On that note I seek leave to correct Labour's two votes on the Committee stage of the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill yesterday when 32 votes were cast instead of 31. I think the member who cast the votes is still grieving at that announcement but the correct number of votes at the time should have been 31.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is none. The vote will be amended.
Carter DavidTHURSDAY 13 OCTOBER 2016Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.RESIGNATIONSHon Phil Goff Mt RoskillMr SPEAKER: Honourable members I wish to advise the House that I have received a letter from the Hon Phil Goff resigning his seat in the House with effect from Wednesday 12 October 2016.
Wednesday 14 September 2016 - Volume 717
Education Legislation Bill — In Committee
VoteSTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): I move That the question be now put.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Yes. I have no hesitation in putting the question and I will reiterate that the reason I have no hesitation is that there was a fundamental question asked by I think all three Opposition members who spoke recently and that was clearly answered by the Minister in the chair. A party vote was called for on the question That the question be now put.Ayes 63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 57New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 13; New Zealand First 12.Motion agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 214 in the name of Tracey Martin to clause 13E be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 57New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 13; New Zealand First 12.Noes 63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendment not agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 219 in the name of Chris Hipkins to Part 1 Subpart 7 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 57New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 13; New Zealand First 12.Noes 63New Zealand Labour National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendment not agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 220 in the name of David Seymour to insert new clause 19A be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 96New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 32; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 25Green Party 13; New Zealand First 12.Amendment agreed to.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 218 in the name of Chris Hipkins to Part 1 agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 57New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 13; New Zealand First 12. Noes 63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. Amendments not agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That Part 1 as amended be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 57New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 13; New Zealand First 12.Part 1 as amended agreed to.
Judicature Modernisation Bill — In Committee
10. Early Childhood Education—Engaging Priority Families Initiative and ImpactDr JIAN YANG (National) to the Minister of EducationEarly Childhood Education—Engaging Priority Families Initiative and Impact10. Dr JIAN YANG (National) to the Minister of Education: What recent announcements has she made regarding participation in early childhood education?Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): Tēnā koe Mr Speaker. I was pleased to announce a new report from the University of Waikato that showed the positive impact that participating in early learning has on some of our most at-risk children and their whānau. The study focuses on the Engaging Priority Families initiative. Engaging Priority Families coordinators support the hardest-to-reach families to enrol their 3- and 4-year-old children in early learning services. The report found that most of the children in the study would not have enrolled in early learning without the support of the coordinators. We have around 800 more children to connect to early childhood education in order to meet our ambitious goal of 98 percent of children participating in early childhood education in 2016. Every bit of effort counts. These families are the hardest to reach because of their complex circumstances. I am very pleased with the findings of the report.Dr Jian Yang: How does participating in early childhood education ensure children and young people get the best start for school?Hon HEKIA PARATA: The report concludes that all participants develop positive learning foundations across all the strands of Te Whāriki—the early childhood curriculum—especially in oral communications good listening skills and enjoyment of reading and writing. Transition to school was easier for this group because they had visited their school their parents had been introduced to their new entrant teachers and both children and whānau felt more confident about the transition.
7. Pharmac—Medical Device Procurement and Access to MedicinesDr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei) to the Minister of HealthPharmac—Medical Device Procurement and Access to MedicinesDr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): Can he confirm that Pharmac plans to free up—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am just having trouble hearing because there is quite a lot of interjection. Would the member please start question No. 7 again.7. Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei) to the Minister of Health: Can he confirm that Pharmac plans to free up $25 million for DHB frontline services through improved procurement of medical devices?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): Yes. Since Pharmac's role was expanded in 2013 to include national contracting for hospital medical devices 34 national contracts have been signed covering around 20000 different items from bandages and sutures to orthopaedic drills and cardiac stents. These contracts are worth up to $72 million of district health board (DHB) expenditure every year and will save the district health boards around $25 million over the next 5 years. This is money that can be reinvested into the front line to deliver better services for all New Zealanders.Dr Shane Reti: How else is Pharmac delivering better access to medicines for New Zealanders?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: As part of its expanded role Pharmac also covers the management of medicines in DHB hospitals and the management of community medicines pharmaceutical cancer treatments and the national immunisation schedule. Under this Government Pharmac's budget is now a record $850 million and has increased by $200 million since 2008. As a result nearly 170 new medicines have been subsidised and access has been brought in to 245 medicines directly benefiting over 800000 more New Zealanders.
3. Economy—ReportsIAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei) to the Minister of FinanceEconomy—Reports3. IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei) to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on the state of the economy?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Today Statistics New Zealand released figures showing that the current account deficit—the difference between what we spend and what we earn overseas—fell from 3.1 percent of GDP to 2.9 percent in the year to June. This is significantly better than forecast for the current account deficit made over the last 3 or 4 years. However today's figures show that in the June quarter the current account deficit was $187 million higher than the previous 3 months as a result of record spending by New Zealanders travelling overseas.Ian McKelvie: What does today's release say about New Zealand's level of indebtedness?Hon BILL ENGLISH: New Zealand's level of external indebtedness has been a concern for about the last 30 years. Our net external debt has fallen slightly from 56.7 percent of GDP to 56.3 percent of GDP. When the Government took office in 2008 New Zealand's net external debt was 83 percent of GDP—so it has fallen very significantly over the last 6 or 7 years. Over the same period New Zealand's net international liability position deteriorated slightly because of changes in asset values. Lower national debt is good news because it means New Zealand is better placed to respond to future economic shocks.Ian McKelvie: How are exporters contributing to New Zealand's improved economic position?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Surprisingly well given the low dairy prices. In the year to June the value of New Zealand exports to the rest of the world rose by more than $3.3 billion to $71 billion—that is despite the low dairy prices. The New Zealand export economy is becoming more diverse. Tourism education the meat industry kiwifruit ICT manufacturing and seafood are all showing an improved performance.Ian McKelvie: What do the falling current account deficit the rising real wages and the declining indebtedness tell us about the New Zealand economy?Hon BILL ENGLISH: It tells us that the New Zealand economy among developed economies is in pretty good shape. It has come through the global financial crisis and become more resilient. Of course good economic figures are not important in themselves: what matters are household incomes and the confidence that households have in higher incomes and more job opportunities. This economy is underpinning higher incomes and more job opportunities.
2. KiwiRail—Northland Network ChangesRt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Minister of TransportKiwiRail—Northland Network Changes2. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Minister of Transport: Does he stand by all his statements on the rail service for Northland; if so how?Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development) on behalf of the Minister of Transport: Yes and by asking a Minister to stand here on his behalf and say so.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does he stand by his statement in October last year that there are no plans to change" the return service from Auckland to Whangarei; if so why has KiwiRail done just that on Monday this week halving its service between Auckland and Whangarei from 10 to five per week?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: KiwiRail makes its own decisions but I would note for the member that contrary to his press release on this subject the amount of freight able to be carried on that one service is exactly the same amount as was previously carried on the two services.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why would the Minister believe KiwiRail's statements on that matter of tonnage when they are the same people who said that they are scrapping the 120-log wagon utilities between Ōtīria and Kauri when at Kauri there is no place for the wagons to have stopped in the first place?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: KiwiRail makes a number of decisions designed to maximise its revenue and minimise its costs like any other business. I appreciate that the member's view of regional development in Northland is to have trains carrying around fresh air but I do not think it is anybody else's definition.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why does the Minister of Transport not exercise some of his responsibilities by stopping KiwiRail's very deceptive past behaviour such as closing the Dargaville to Whangarei line without a press statement shutting down the Portland service junction without a press statement and halving the service between Whangarei and Auckland this week without a press statement then?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: If the member is concerned about an absence of press statements—fair enough. But I notice that he has been making more than enough press statements to cater for most people.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Given that is the attitude of the Minister of Transport does he intend to have a larger engagement in the politics of Northland next year or will he put up the same loser as last year?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I tell you what—next year the Government will not be promoting trains carrying around fresh air as economic development in Northland as the member seems to."
Mallard TrevorThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! The time has come for me to leave the chair. The member Chris Hipkins notwithstanding what it said on the clock has 15 seconds left the next time we come back to it because we were a little slow in starting the clock. I will report progress.Debate interrupted.House resumed.The Chairperson reported the Judicature Modernisation Bill with amendment and that the Committee had divided it into 23 bills and progress on the Education Legislation Bill.Report adopted.The House adjourned at 9.58 p.m.
Macindoe TimTIM MACINDOE (Senior Whip—National): I move That the question be now put.Motion agreed to.Part 2 agreed to.Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.
Hipkins ChrisCHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka): Now that I have had a chance to refresh my memory I do want to address the issues around the State Sector Act and the changes being made to the State Sector Act and in particular the new powers that are being given to the State Services Commissioner. I want to just run through those because these were debated at the Education and Science Committee and there was some divided opinion amongst the submitters and amongst the teacher unions and the principals who came in and presented to the committee.The new power in new subsection (1A) of section 75 inserted by clause 83 says that the State Services Commissioner may in addition to the actual conditions declared under subsection (1) approve further conditions of employment for an individual employee or any class of employees"—that has been struck out—"who is employed in the education service under a collective agreement if the conditions are—(a) mutually agreed … ; and (b) not inconsistent with the conditions of the collective employment agreement."What the submitters presented to the select committee was support for the idea that the commissioner should be able to approve in individual circumstances additional conditions of employment but they should not be able to impose those on a whole class of employees as the bill was originally structured. There was a variety of submissions that were received and they were by no means unanimous. The New Zealand Post Primary Teachers' Association supported the amendments. NZEI Te Riu Roa and a couple of individual submitters supported parts of the amendments but not parts of others. But the main issue of concern was around the idea that the State Services Commissioner could approve new conditions of employment for a whole class of employees. What that would do effectively is undo the collective bargaining provisions because these are provisions that would be in addition to any collective employment agreement that is being entered into and that really does undermine the whole good-faith bargaining concept—that bargaining can take place and the commissioner can then go outside the bargaining to approve additional terms and conditions that would undermine that.The change that has been made to allow the commissioner the ability to approve additional terms and conditions for individuals which has now been made by striking out the words "or any class of employees" basically I think meets that test. So having earlier said that we were going to oppose this I can say that we will support it on the basis of the select committee's very sensible change because I think that we have actually addressed the concerns that were being raised by the submitters."
Martin Tracey; Mallard TrevorTRACEY MARTIN (NZ First): Kia ora Mr Chair thank you very much. I just want to make a few contributions around Subpart 2 of Part 2 Amendments to Pacific Islands Polynesian Education Foundation Act 1972" particularly with regard to the interpretation of "Pacific person". I want to acknowledge and thank the Education and Science Committee members for supporting the inclusion of the Kiribati and Tuvaluan community as part of the descriptors of Pasifika persons living in New Zealand. As a member of a community with the largest Kiribati and Tuvaluan community based in New Zealand which is in Warkworth it is personally satisfying to have this community—a relatively new community to New Zealand; over a decade now—recognised in this way. I do not want to take any more of the Committee's time but I do want to acknowledge that it required the support of the officials and it required the support of the majority of the select committee to make sure that the Kiribati community and the Tuvaluan community of New Zealand are acknowledged inside this legislation. Kia ora.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): The question is—Chris Hipkins: I am sorry Mr Chair.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Are you calling? Chris Hipkins."
Mallard Trevor; Rurawhe AdrianPart 2 Amendments to other ActsThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): We now move to debate on Part 2 and schedules 1 and 2.ADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour—Te Tai Hauāuru): In speaking to Part 2 I want to refer to Subpart 1 Amendments to Ngarimu VC and 28th (Maori) Battalion Memorial Scholarship Fund Act 1945". I stand in support of the new provisions within this subpart of the bill and it is a shame that this is part of a wider bill that we do not support. All due credit to the Minister Hekia Parata; this is a very important part of New Zealand's history the contribution by the 28th (Māori) Battalion and by the famous Ngati Porou soldier Ngārimu. Those contributions ought to be reflected properly within the Act and the changes in the Act need to be acknowledged. Nō reira e tika ana kia tū ake au kia tuku mihi atu ki ngā āhuatanga katoa kei roto i tēnei wāhanga o te pire nei. E mihi ake au ki te whānau o Ngārimu i roto i tēnei āhuatanga. [So it is appropriate that I rise to acknowledge all aspects in this part of this bill. And similarly to acknowledge the Ngārimu family in these circumstances.]This provides an enormous legacy and rightfully so. It is important that the whole Committee actually acknowledges these changes although they are mostly technical—changing the language and correcting the way that things are expressed. It is about a scholarship so I understand why it is in the Education Legislation Bill. I look forward to when this subpart of the bill is separated out into its own bill and we will be able to support that moving forward. I think it is also important that the other parts of the legislation—and I am sure my colleague Jenny Salesa will speak to those ones that affect the Pasifika people.Ā nō reira kāore e roa tēnei tū otirā e tika ana kia tū ake ki te tuku mihi atu ki ēnei āhuatanga i te tuatahi; nō reira e Te Whare tēnā tātou kia ora![Therefore this speech is not a long one but at the same time it is apt that I rise to acknowledge these aspects in the first place; so accolades to us the House and thank you.]"
Rurawhe AdrianADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour—Te Tai Hauāuru): Following my colleague Chris Hipkins on this very issue of employment-based trainee teacher positions the question that he asked was about the school teacher entitlement and where this position fits in. I do not think the Minister addressed that issue so I am asking again. I am also reflecting on the New Zealand Principals' Federation and the contribution it delivered to the Education and Science Committee around this issue. I will join it up to the other issue that I raised in my first contribution about principals managing more than one school. It would be quite interesting to know about employment-based trainee teachers in a school that is managed by one principal—say a principal managing three schools and they have these employment-based trainee teachers at each of them. That would be interesting. I go back to the original point in my first contribution. How would a principal be able to manage a school under the current conditions but adding another layer of required support for employment-based trainee teachers? I want to quote—and it will probably become one of my favourite quotes—from the New Zealand Principals' Federation in its submission talking about these changes: On the surface they might be described as a collection of ill-conceived baseless changes which lack any intelligent rationale." It goes on to say: "They might otherwise be described as changes without openly expressed rationale yet intended to enable further expansion of certain policies and direction. As such they would be deeply systemic changes with the potential to alter the very shape of our education system."My point in relation to that statement and these changes is that they are creating systemic changes within our education system without as has been pointed out research and without the Government presenting to the New Zealand public a broad explanation or policy about the direction that they are taking New Zealand's education system. This bill is making a change to the Education Act 1989 which is a landmark piece of legislation in our country. I acknowledge that not everyone was on board with Tomorrow's Schools or with the Picot report but the reality is that the Act has endured for 27 years. That report and what happened in 1989 with this piece of legislation was open to everyone to have their say. My question around the changes in the bill and in particular with this employment-based trainee teacher provision is: where was the public debate on this issue? It did not happen. It did not even make it into the first reading of this bill. It was added in through a Supplementary Order Paper. I say to the Committee that it has not been fully discussed to the extent that it could have or should have been. I ask the Minister to address the issue around teacher entitlement and the establishment of this type of position. Is it included in the current teacher entitlement that each school has? Thank you."
Coleman JonathanHon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): It has been a very interesting debate and I will now move outside my comfort zone and general field of knowledge out of the health portfolio to try to address some of the members' questions. Some of the issues being raised regarding initial teacher education arise from a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) introduced at the select committee stage; so everyone is aware of that. Members are concerned as I understand it that that provision may create a class of teacher. The SOP relates to providing certainty for Teach First NZ field-based trainees. It arose out of Teach First NZ but will now apply to any field-based training but the fact is there are no other programmes out there so it sounds pretty hypothetical. It is highly regarded and well evaluated as a teacher training programme and schools are very keen on having these graduates in their schools—just to tell you a bit of what you probably already know.The Education and Science Committee also recommended an important change to initial teacher training in New Zealand improving the quality of initial teacher education as part of that broader programme to lift teacher quality and leadership and to strengthen overall workforce capability. Those are probably a number of things you also already know. The point is that initial teacher education positions can only occur at the request of the board of trustees. They make that request to the Secretary for Education. This is the key bit. These positions are supernumerary and for that purpose only. They are just for the field-based training. The Ministry of Education funds the programme and enables enrolment in the school. The requirements in the State Sector Act and the collective agreements as regarding the advertising of vacancies still need to be made. So I hope that clarifies any questions members may have.
Mallard TrevorThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): As I call Tracey—Tracey Martin: Martin.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Martin—sorry. I just want to inform the Committee that the Silver Ferns won 61-38.
Foster-Bell PaulPAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): I move That the question be now put.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): I am—[Interruption] When I stand up other people sit down. I am not going to accept the closure motion and it is for reasons very close to those that were alluded to by Mr Hipkins. When a bill has a significant change occur at the select committee and it has not been properly advertised for submission that means that it is treated differently at the Committee stage and therefore there is an extended debate in particular on that part of the bill. I think that when there are reasonable questions that are asked about that sort of area they should be answered or the debate will run on for some time.
Parata HekiaHon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): I will just take a quick call to take up the invitation from the member for Ikaroa-Rāwhiti Meka Whaitiri. She referred to a number of schools and kura with whom I am very familiar as she indicated. Let me just be very clear about this. In fact area schools of which Tolaga Bay Area School is one are several schools in one. Tolaga Bay Area school is a kōhanga as well as a total-immersion preschool; it is a primary intermediate and secondary school. In many senses we already have examples of this with area schools all around the country. The member asked whether there is evidence on this. Actually yes there is. This practice occurs in a number of areas in the UK as well as in Europe but we are more interested in New Zealand simply around facilitating the opportunity for those communities that think it will work for them to do so. To take Te Wānanga Whare Tapere o Tākitimu another example that the member referred to its whole kaupapa is about kōhanga reo kura kaupapa whare kura and it is interested in a whare wānanga. So there we have an example of one principal in charge of in effect four schools but within a different model arrangement. So I hope the member feels reassured by that—that her electorate already has shining examples of what it is we are talking about. Thank you.
SpeechThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Members I just want to draw a couple of things to the attention of the Committee. Before the Minister spoke because you have got such a lenient and convivial Chair the wheels got a little bit wobbly. I just want to remind members that the Committee stage is about discussing the parts of the bill that are under debate at any one time—to consider for instance the submissions that were made before the select committee and to pose questions to the Minister and for the Minister to respond. What I noticed in a number of contributions in the last half an hour is that there has maybe been a little bit too much humour and conviviality. We have taken a few slaps each side. Now we are going to come back.Over the past few days you will have noticed various presiding officers referring more to the Standing Orders. So we are going to look now to contributions in this Committee stage that actually adhere a little bit more closely to the Standing Orders—that examine the parts that are before the Committee and scrutinise the legislation that we are considering.
Ross Jami-Lee; Tisch LindsayJAMI-LEE ROSS (Junior Whip—National): I have cast two votes for the Māori Party on Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 217 in Louisa Wall's name incorrectly. Can I seek leave for the Māori Party's votes on SOP 217 in the name of Louisa Wall to be cast as two in favour in each instance? The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Leave is sought for that purpose to correct the record. Is there any objection? There is no objection. So the corrected vote on Louisa Wall's amendments as set out on SOP 217 is Ayes 46 and Noes 73 and the amendment is not agreed to.The Committee divided the bill into the Senior Courts Bill the District Court Bill the Judicial Review Procedure Bill the Interest on Money Claims Bill the Electronic Courts and Tribunals Bill the Arbitration Amendment Bill the Bills of Exchange Amendment Bill the Building Societies Amendment Bill the Children Young Persons and Their Families Amendment Bill the Companies Amendment Bill (No 2) the Contractual Remedies Amendment Bill the Copyright Amendment Bill (No 2) the Courts (Remote Participation) Amendment Bill the Criminal Procedure Amendment Bill the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 4) the Family Courts Amendment Bill the Insolvency Amendment Bill the Local Government (Rating) Amendment Bill Property Law Amendment Bill the Remuneration Authority Amendment Bill (No 2) the Resource Management Amendment Bill Te Ture Whenua Maori Amendment Bill and the Trans-Tasman Proceedings Amendment Bill pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper 200.Bill to be reported with amendment presently.
O'Rourke DenisDENIS O'ROURKE (NZ First): I will just take a moment because I want to comment on something that Nicky Wagner said. I am grateful for her advice that we are now going to see at least some significant judgments of the District Court published on the internet. But that does not explain why the entire clause 401 of the bill is now going to be deleted. It does not explain that at all. If indeed that is what is going to be happening and happening more and more and more then how come we are deleting clause 401? All it says is this—and this is clause 401(1)—Every final written judgment of the court (excluding the Family Court the Youth Court and the Disputes Tribunal) must be published on the Internet as soon as practicable unless there is good reason not to publish." the complete judgment. And then in clause 401(3) it says: "final written judgment means a written decision that determines or substantially determines the outcome of any proceedings and is either—(a) a written reserved judgment; or (b) an oral judgment transcribed by an official transcription service." That is all it covers. The Minister was talking about minor decisions made by District Court judges that it would not be practicable to put on the internet and so on but that is not covered by this clause. It actually covers precisely what we have been told is happening now and is going to happen more and more. So how come then clause 401 has to be completely removed? It still does not make sense. As far as I can see if in fact the resources are there already and it is already starting to happen why are we now deleting it? I expect as I said in my other speech that by the beginning of next year we will be able to see a lot of those substantive judgments on the internet and those are the ones that people want. So my question has not yet been answered.Hon Member: No.DENIS O'ROURKE: No. I need to know why we are now being asked to delete clause 401. It does not make sense. So I would ask Nicky Wagner on behalf of the Minister of Justice to again consult her officials and get an answer to that because I want to know."
Ross Jami-Lee; Tisch LindsayJAMI-LEE ROSS (Junior Whip—National): I move That the question be now put.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I have not heard from Gareth Hughes.
Wagner NickyHon NICKY WAGNER (Minister of Customs): I would like to answer the member Denis O'Rourke. He has asked when the public will be able to access online District Court decisions. He will be very pleased to know that significant decisions of the District Court are beginning to be made available on its website DistrictCourts.govt.nz. The numbers are small so far but the website went live very recently. As the Minister of Justice said the District Court makes thousands of decisions each year but significant ones will be uploaded as they are made. I would also like to make a comment on Sue Moroney's question on the change of land value. The bill increases the jurisdiction of the District Court from $200000 to $350000. This is the first increase for over 20 years. Clause 260 lists traditional exceptions to the District Court. Where land values exceed $350000 proceedings must commence in the High Court. Where a matter in dispute exceeds $90000 the party may request the transfer of these proceedings to the High Court and the District Court must agree. Where a matter exceeds $50000 but is less than $90000 a party may request a transfer to the High Court and the District Court may agree.
Rurawhe AdrianJUDICATURE MODERNISATION BILLIn CommitteeDebate resumed from 23 August.Parts 1 to 6 schedules 1 to 11 and clauses 1 and 2 (continued)ADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour—Te Tai Hauāuru): Tēnā koe e Te Heamana o Te Komiti o Te Whare nei. It is a pleasure to stand in the Committee stage of the Judicature Modernisation Bill and I want to turn my attention to one part of the justice Minister's Supplementary Order Paper 197 in particular Part 3 the provisions around judicial review procedures. First of all can I acknowledge the Justice and Electoral Committee—in particular one point made by the Labour Party minority view and in particular the omission from the purposes of clause 3 of any reference to a commitment to parliamentary sovereignty the rule of law judicial independence and the Treaty of Waitangi. It occurred to me that in looking at judicial review procedures it would be helpful I believe for these procedures to have some commitment to those elements particularly—for me—to the Treaty of Waitangi. We just heard Poto Williams talking about reviewing the principles in her maiden speech. I think that helpful for every Māori electorate MP—indeed more than Māori MPs and MPs who come to this House and talk about the Treaty of Waitangi. I thought in looking at the judicial review procedures how having an overview or a commitment to the Treaty of Waitangi in the purpose of this bill would give more enhancement for the judges carrying out the reviews to have consideration for these parts of the clauses which are not there. I decided to have a look at the whole process of judicial reviews and it goes back a very long way in common law as I understand it. In 1972 the Judicature Amendment Act 1972 was put in place. This modernisation bill repeals that Act but it replaces it with a whole new part within the Judicature Modernisation Bill which is wholly appropriate. It is a very important part of our judicial processes. I know about some more recent cases particularly in the education system where decisions that have been made by the Minister have been challenged through these processes. I think it is important that these processes are retained and are maintained that they are updated and that the language is changed where appropriate. Although some of the language to me does not make it any less or more clear I think it is just the modern language that we use around this. I think this process is very important as I say and needs to be within the bill. The whole bill takes a collection of Acts and modernises them in a way that is appropriate for 2016. Some of these parts of the bill—as I say this one is from 1972 and others go back a lot longer over 100 years ago. I stand in support of this part of this bill but with the note that it would be much better to have consideration for the elements that are not actually there—mainly for me the Treaty of Waitangi. Kia ora.