edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Logie JanJAN LOGIE (Green): Tēnā koe Mr Deputy Speaker. The Greens are not supporting the Building (Pools) Amendment Bill. I think that this has been presented to the House by way of the Government saying that it is about striking a balance between reduced compliance costs for residential pool owners and territorial local authorities and maintaining child safety. For the Government those things are apparently in balance—of equal importance. We know that the legislation that is in place at the moment I think has been noted as the most successful child safety legislation ever passed in this country. So this legislation that we are amending which has been so overwhelmingly successful in saving children's lives is now being undermined for the purpose of reducing compliance costs. We have been told through the select committee process that there were 200 lives saved from fencing swimming pools and several thousand children were prevented from near-drowning as a result of the clear strong rules that were contained in the 1987 legislation. But this Government looked at that legislation and thought: Hmm! The costs are too high. We had better bring that to the House and balance that. Those 200 children's lives that are being saved—well the compliance costs are too high. Best we balance that." We heard through the select committee process from the Auckland Regional Public Health Service we heard from Water Safety New Zealand and we heard from the New Zealand Society of Paediatric Surgeons—all opposing these changes on the basis that they wanted to put the safety of children first. They saw this legislation as undermining the safety of those children. It was noted by the New Zealand Society of Paediatric Surgeons that the current law had reduced the drowning rate from around 10 children a year to only three saving seven lives every single year since 2002. That Government has listened to that evidence and it has said: "The lives of those children or compliance costs?". It is favouring compliance costs. We heard from some of the families who had had children who had died through drowning. They told the select committee—they told this Government—"Don't change the law. We lost a child through a drowning. We know what that means for a family. We do not want a single other family to have to suffer that unfairly and unjustly." I can only assume that their reference to unfairness and injustice is in relation to a perception that this Government is choosing to balance child safety with compliance costs—that that to them is not fair for those families who may lose a child through the lack of clarity and the loosening of this legislation when they have come in front of us and told us clearly: "Don't do this." The Children's Commissioner came to the select committee and argued very strongly for changes to strengthen the existing law. But again we have a loosening of that law. Plunket came and said that it was seriously concerned about the impacts of this bill on children's lives and on families' lives. For the Green Party compliance costs and child safety do not balance out. For the Green Party child safety comes first. We cannot support this legislation."
Foster-Bell PaulPAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): E Te Mana Whakawā Tuarua mauri ora. I find myself in the awkward and somewhat extraordinary position of agreeing largely with what Denis O'Rourke the member who has just resumed his seat has said. Denis O'Rourke: Very sensible.PAUL FOSTER-BELL: Ha! He is a member who is often sadly mistaken in this House but on this particular occasion every point that he has made has been I think a very sound one and a good one. It is actually somewhat unfortunate that when we heard the speech from the Hon David Parker who is an assiduous and hard-working member of this House on the last occasion that we were dealing with this bill he seemed to agree—as does Mr O'Rourke—with 90 percent of the content of the bill and for some reason has allowed the perfect to become the enemy of the very good which I believe this bill is.There are a number of very sensible and pragmatic measures that improve upon the current legislation. I do want to agree with what Eugenie Sage said. The current legislation—the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987—is a very good piece of law. It did save the lives of many many children in New Zealand. This bill goes further and brings in some sensible measures to further enhance that. For instance it deals with the lack of clarity around interior doors that open into courtyards in which there are fenced pools. Currently there is a lack of clarity around whether those doors have to be self-closing and self-latching. They will now have to be self-latching or alarmed. We must make use of new technology that is available to us to ensure children's lives are protected.It also clarifies that an objective of this bill is to reduce serious injury. We know that brain damage that can ensue from drowning is a real problem. We have heard from submitters that approximately 200 children over the course of the last 30 years have been saved from serious brain injury from drowning because of the previous Act. We want to make sure that we make use of the technology and systems available to us in this modern world to continue that going forward.I also think it is very sensible that we have a standardised regime of inspection—3-yearly—given that some councils throughout New Zealand do not inspect at all. There will be a number of councils that do have to lift their game but allowing it to be outsourced to suitably skilled tradespeople will hopefully enable this to be done in a cost-effective way and will create a system that is high in quality and gives consumers choice as well as protecting children's lives. This is a good bill and it must pass.
Dowie SarahSARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill): As the deputy chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee I am very pleased to be taking this call in the third reading of the Building (Pools) Amendment Bill. Of course this is a bill to maintain the protections to prevent drowning and injuries of young people when around swimming pools and the like. Of course this bill looks to repeal the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act and to simplify or codify the rules surrounding the fencing of pools into the Building Act. The reason for doing that is to make it more simple for people to understand the regulations and to make sure that they comply. I think that that is one element that is so pleasing about this bill. As the mother of two small children I am well aware that you need to keep an eagle eye on children around water. One of the good things that will come out of this bill is the regime in respect of inspections. Currently there is no regulation on inspections of fencing around swimming pools. Some councils are doing it relatively regularly; others are not doing it at all. This bill means that inspections will need to occur on a 3-yearly basis. Not only that the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment will appoint independent inspectors to make sure that inspections occur. That task will be delegated to local authorities but independent suitably qualified people such as tradespeople can be employed to undertake those inspections. That can occur as a matter of simple maintenance around the property. I think that is a good thing. It is a good thing to make sure that people are educated about the regulations surrounding the fencing of swimming pools to make sure that they are compliant and to make sure that they are maintaining a safe environment to prevent young people from accessing pools ultimately injuring themselves or unfortunately drowning. Along with that there is a stepped framework for regulation so if people are found not to be complying the council can use warnings infringement notices or ultimately can go ahead and prosecute in the judiciary. The other thing that I am quite pleased about is acknowledging that a locked cover in the use of a spa or a hot tub is adequate protection rather than fencing. That means that if people are going to buy a spa pool or a hot tub they can be educated about the requirements of fencing through a retailer. Obviously the simplest thing to do to keep young people out of hot tubs and spa pools when they are not being used is to use that lockable cover—and most people do that. Not a lot of councils know when a spa pool is being purchased by a property owner and therefore with the retailers on the case they can advise spa pool owners of what compliance is required. So look I think that this is a good balanced bill. Again it looks to maintain the protections to prevent injury and drowning of young people in swimming pools. It also looks to codify and simplify regulations so that people who own swimming pools or spa pools understand what the regulations are and can comply. Thank you.
Fox MaramaMARAMA FOX (Co-Leader—Māori Party): Kia ora Mr Speaker. The Māori Party also wants to congratulate Alicia Wright and Kristy McDonald on their appointments: one as the Chief Electoral Officer and the other—Kristy McDonald QC—as the deputy chairperson of the Electoral Commission. The process we undertook to find these appointees was a robust one and across the House everybody was involved. They are most important positions and as has been spoken about already there are a number of issues that confront us to ensure that we can get everybody out to vote. In the recent Budget the Māori Party was able to successfully bid for a small pool of funding so that we can look at increased participation in the electoral process. A number of people have talked about civics education being needed in schools because at the last election we had the smallest turnout in our history of young people aged 18 to 25 specifically for Māori—ever. If that continues on the predicted pathway then we will have smaller and smaller participation for the next 50 years. So we must do something. We must do something now. The inquiry that was held through the Justice and Electoral Committee made a number of recommendations. That amendment is coming to the House now and it will give some direction for the appointments for these two new members of the Electoral Commission. For Māori there are a number of issues that we find are significant. One is the entrenchment of Māori seats. You can remove a Māori seat in this House with a vote of 50 percent but to remove a general seat there must be a vote of 75 percent of the House. That in and of itself is an unjust law. There is the issue of the huge Māori electorates where if we rose the threshold from the current 5 percent to 10 percent then we could have a better distribution geographically by iwi to fit and secure people—so the South Island could be the South Island on its own and not all the way into Wellington and so on. So these issues we look forward to taking up and moving forward into the future. We as a party support these appointments.Motion agreed to.
O'Rourke DenisDENIS O'ROURKE (NZ First): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to congratulate Kristy Pearl McDonald deputy chairperson of the Electoral Commission and Alicia Wright Chief Electoral Officer on their appointments. We look forward to working with them and the commission as a whole constructively and cooperatively in the future as we have in the past. New Zealand First will be pleased to vote in support.
Logie JanJAN LOGIE (Green): Kia ora Mr Speaker. I rise to offer the Green Party's support for this motion for the appointments of Alicia Wright as the Chief Electoral Officer and Kristy McDonald QC as the new deputy chair of the Electoral Commission. It is particularly nice I might say to be able to stand in support of the appointment of two women to such important positions. It is nice to see that leadership being recognised.Tracey Martin: On merit.JAN LOGIE: On merit—exactly. It always is usually so much more of a struggle to have merit recognised and it is great to see that breaking through. They are both supremely qualified women. We have absolute confidence in their ability to do the job and do it very well. It is as has already been said a very important job for us in this House. I hope as well that some people in the country at least understand how important it is for all of us.It is quite a challenge ahead for both of them. We had about a million people who were eligible to vote who did not vote in the last general election—that was about a third of eligible voters who did not participate in our electoral system. That undermines our mandate in this House for every single one of us and it means that a third of our population roughly is unrepresented in this House. I am very pleased to hear that these women are not just very well qualified but very passionate about the roles that they are taking on because part of their roles is ensuring the integrity of the electoral system and another part is providing advice reports and public education on electoral matters. It does seem to me that there is work—some very serious thinking—that we need to do in this country to be able to ensure better representation for those people and give them confidence and a sense of purpose in voting.It is with great pleasure again that I just offer our support and also thanks for the opportunity to provide feedback through this process which our co-leader Metiria Turei did. So again the Green Party supports these nominations.
Urgent Debates Declined — Department of Corrections—Assaults on Prison Staff
Carter DavidURGENT DEBATES DECLINEDCorrections Department—Assaults on Prison Staff at PāremoremoMr SPEAKER: I have received a letter from Mahesh Bindra seeking to debate under Standing Order 389 the assault on three Corrections staff at Pāremoremo prison. This is a particular case of recent occurrence for which there is ministerial responsibility. Assaults on prison staff are unacceptable but the purpose of an urgent debate is to hold the Government to account for its actions. The member has not provided any authentication to show that the Government has announced a response to the assaults. There must be an element of urgency for the matter to take precedence over other business. I am not convinced that the matter raised by the member warrants the setting aside of the business of the House today. The application is therefore declined.
Points of Order — Tabling of Documents—Reports of 1080 Poison Exposure
Prosser Richard; Carter DavidPOINTS OF ORDERTabling of Documents—Reports of 1080 Poison ExposureRICHARD PROSSER (NZ First): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek leave to table three documents. One is an incident report from the medical officer of health on the West Coast on an investigation into the exposure of two members of the public to 1080 during an aerial operation. It is dated September 2015. The second is a medical case review of one of those ladies dated August 2015. The third is a statement to the New Zealand Police by another gentleman who was also exposed to 1080 during an operation in Te Ānau. It is dated 16 October 2016.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table those three particular documents. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Robertson GrantGRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): I thank the Leader of the House for that and I am sure that he would want to join me in congratulating his shadow Leader of the House on the birth of his first child Charlie Douglas Hipkins another feisty redhead in the Upper Hutt born yesterday. We wish Chris and Jade all the very best.
Brownlee GerryTHURSDAY 20 OCTOBER 2016Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.BUSINESS STATEMENTHon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): When the House resumes on Tuesday 1 November the Government will look to complete the third readings of the eight bills that have been split from the Health Practitioners (Replacement of Statutory References to Medical Practitioners) Bill and a number of other bills on the Order Paper.
Wednesday 19 October 2016 - Volume 717
6. Land Transfer (Foreign Ownership of Land Register) Amendment Bill—SupportRICHARD PROSSER (NZ First) to the Member in charge of the Land Transfer (Foreign Ownership of Land Register) Amendment BillLand Transfer (Foreign Ownership of Land Register) Amendment Bill—Support6. RICHARD PROSSER (NZ First) to the Member in charge of the Land Transfer (Foreign Ownership of Land Register) Amendment Bill: What indications of support has he received for the Land Transfer (Foreign Ownership of Land Register) Amendment Bill?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Member in charge of the Land Transfer (Foreign Ownership of Land Register) Amendment Bill): In 2013 then Federated Farmers president Bruce Wills asked the Government to establish a foreign land register. This has been repeated by current Federated Farmers president Dr William Rolleston. It is no secret that other organisations agree with New Zealand First on what is important in this bill. Now I am going to give them some action. Richard Prosser: What objections has he received to the Land Transfer (Foreign Ownership of Land Register) Amendment Bill?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: None that make any sense. If 930 years ago William the Conqueror could undertake a detailed stocktake of medieval England using parchment and horsepower then in the 21st century New Zealand should be able to easily figure out how much land—our land—is owned by foreigners.
5. Land Transfer (Foreign Ownership of Land Register) Amendment Bill—Proposed SanctionsCLAYTON MITCHELL (NZ First) to the Member in charge of the Land Transfer (Foreign Ownership of Land Register) Amendment BillLand Transfer (Foreign Ownership of Land Register) Amendment Bill—Proposed Sanctions5. CLAYTON MITCHELL (NZ First) to the Member in charge of the Land Transfer (Foreign Ownership of Land Register) Amendment Bill: What sanctions are available if a person or persons breach the Land Transfer (Foreign Ownership of Land Register) Amendment Bill?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Member in charge of the Land Transfer (Foreign Ownership of Land Register) Amendment Bill): If a person knowingly fails to comply they will be liable on conviction to a fine of up to 25 percent of the value of the land involved. We need to get serious because as Mark Twain once observed: Buy land they're not making it any more."Clayton Mitchell: What other reporting measures does the Land Transfer (Foreign Ownership of Land Register) Amendment Bill propose?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The people will be delighted to know that Land Information New Zealand will need to report in its annual report the number of registered proprietors in the register at the end of each financial year as well as the total amount and value of land involved."
4. Land Transfer (Foreign Ownership of Land Register) Amendment Bill—Proposed Register InformationPITA PARAONE (NZ First) to the Member in charge of the Land Transfer (Foreign Ownership of Land Register) Amendment BillLand Transfer (Foreign Ownership of Land Register) Amendment Bill—Proposed Register Information4. PITA PARAONE (NZ First) to the Member in charge of the Land Transfer (Foreign Ownership of Land Register) Amendment Bill: What information will the register collect?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Member in charge of the Land Transfer (Foreign Ownership of Land Register) Amendment Bill): The register will record each registered proprietor who is an overseas person including the person's name and nationality the amount and value of the land involved and the district or districts in which the land is situated.Pita Paraone: How much will it cost people to access the foreign ownership of land register?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Anyone will obtain read-only access to the register without having to pay a single cent. That is about openness.
3. Land Transfer (Foreign Ownership of Land Register) Amendment Bill—Timing and CostsDARROCH BALL (NZ First) to the Member in charge of the Land Transfer (Foreign Ownership of Land Register) Amendment BillLand Transfer (Foreign Ownership of Land Register) Amendment Bill—Timing and Costs3. DARROCH BALL (NZ First) to the Member in charge of the Land Transfer (Foreign Ownership of Land Register) Amendment Bill: Why is it necessary for the Land Transfer (Foreign Ownership of Land Register) Amendment Bill to be advanced at this time?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Member in charge of the Land Transfer (Foreign Ownership of Land Register) Amendment Bill): Another brilliant question. Good policy needs good data just as bad policy lacks data. In 2007 the Reserve Bank estimated foreign landownership at 5 percent. In 2014 the housing Minister Nick Smith and Treasury estimated foreign-owned homes at 11 percent. Then in 2016 the Minister for Land Information embarrassed herself with the discredited figure of 3 percent which now resembles Swiss cheese. We intend to fix that.Darroch Ball: What is the potential cost of a foreign ownership of land register?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Australia's land register had a regulatory cost of $186000. Then again its system involves application fees that are funding a dedicated compliance and enforcement unit to detect breaches and enforce compliance—something we do not have in this country and deliberately so because the Government does not want to know about it.Mr SPEAKER: Order!Pita Paraone: Supplementary.Mr SPEAKER: No. The member can ask a primary question. Does the member wish to ask his primary question?
2. Land Transfer (Foreign Ownership of Land Register) Amendment Bill—PurposeBARBARA STEWART (NZ First) to the Member in charge of the Land Transfer (Foreign Ownership of Land Register) Amendment BillLand Transfer (Foreign Ownership of Land Register) Amendment Bill—Purpose2. BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) to the Member in charge of the Land Transfer (Foreign Ownership of Land Register) Amendment Bill: What is the intention of the Land Transfer (Foreign Ownership of Land Register) Amendment Bill?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Member in charge of the Land Transfer (Foreign Ownership of Land Register) Amendment Bill): I want to thank that member for endeavouring to enlighten those who are across over here. This bill will deliver a comprehensive register of all foreign-owned New Zealand land that will include names and nationalities the amount and the value of the land involved as well as the regions in which the land is situated. Hon Gerry Brownlee: Blah blah blah.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: This is about—something very foreign to Gerry—transparency—Mr SPEAKER: Order!Barbara Stewart: What types of land will be covered by the Land Transfer (Foreign Ownership of Land Register) Amendment Bill?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: It will apply to all land as it is defined in section 2 of the Land Transfer Act 1952. Such land includes messuages tenements and hereditaments corporeal and incorporeal of every kind and description" and even if it is owned by Russians."
1. Land Transfer (Foreign Ownership of Land Register) Amendment Bill—PurposeFLETCHER TABUTEAU (NZ First) to the Member in charge of the Land Transfer (Foreign Ownership of Land Register) Amendment BillQUESTIONS TO MEMBERSLand Transfer (Foreign Ownership of Land Register) Amendment Bill—Purpose1. FLETCHER TABUTEAU (NZ First) to the Member in charge of the Land Transfer (Foreign Ownership of Land Register) Amendment Bill: Why did he introduce the Land Transfer (Foreign Ownership of Land Register) Amendment Bill?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Member in charge of the Land Transfer (Foreign Ownership of Land Register) Amendment Bill): There is currently under this administration no easy or accurate way to measure the amount of land under the control of foreign nationals. This is due to the fact that unlike in other jurisdictions there is no official database of foreign ownership in New Zealand. That is what this bill is going to fix up.Fletcher Tabuteau: What other jurisdictions have registers of land ownership?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: A very insightful question—a number of countries do and the Australians have discovered with some consternation that Australian land equivalent to the size of two New Zealands is in foreign ownership including 2.5 million hectares in the past 3 years. If 13 percent of Australia's farmland is in foreign hands what percentage of ours is also foreign-owned? We are going to find out.
12. Erosion Control Funding Programme—2016 Funding RoundIAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei) to the Associate Minister for Primary IndustriesErosion Control Funding Programme—2016 Funding Round12. IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei) to the Associate Minister for Primary Industries: What recent announcements has she made regarding erosion-prone land?Hon JO GOODHEW (Associate Minister for Primary Industries): Last week the Ministry for Primary Industries announced the results of the latest round of the Erosion Control Funding Programme (ECFP) to reduce the serious erosion issues faced by the Gisborne district. I am pleased to report to the House that 1438 hectares of land will be treated through $2.39 million worth of projects. The programme will bring environmental benefits to the region's infrastructure waterways hill country farms and higher-quality floodplain land through reducing sediment runoff and improving the resilience of the land to severe weather.Ian McKelvie: How has the increasing uptake of the programme benefited the rural East Coast?Hon JO GOODHEW: The ECFP is focused on reducing the severe erosion problem facing the Gisborne district where 26 percent of all land is severely erosion prone causing long-term damage to the productivity of rural land. Doubling the number of applications in the area approved for treatment compared with last year is a fantastic sign for the ECFP in addition to the positive environmental outcomes. Having a dedicated staff member on the ground in Gisborne and working in partnership with the Gisborne District Council and Te Rūnanganui o Ngati Porou has been a real benefit and shows that this Government is committed to regional development that delivers.
11. Police Resourcing—NumbersSTUART NASH (Labour—Napier) to the Minister of PolicePolice Resourcing—Numbers11. STUART NASH (Labour—Napier) to the Minister of Police: Does she agree with the new Police Association President Chris Cahill who described the front line as being at crisis point"?Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Police): What a well-timed question from that member. I have just today met with Mr Cahill and can confirm that I agree with him on many things—in particular that police will in the future need more resources. However I do not agree that police are in any kind of crisis. In fact I think our police are doing excellent world-leading work. Although that member may not agree with that view I am not the only one who holds it. Just today New Zealand Police has won an international award from the International Association of Chiefs of Police for its outstanding work on the investigation into threats to poison infant formula with 1080. Well done New Zealand Police. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! If I need to ask the member again to stop interrupting I will name her and if I need to go further I will ask her to leave.Stuart Nash: Why did she fail to secure anything in Budget 2016 to specifically increase police numbers despite the fact that crime was already apparently on the rise at that point?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I do not think I would have ever suggested that—I think it was $297 million extra that Police got in Budget 2016. That member might think that that is nothing—a bit of paltry money—but actually that is a lot of money and Police was very grateful for it.Stuart Nash: Does the Minister specifically remember what 94 percent of that $297 million was earmarked for; if so can she enlighten the House?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I certainly can. In answer to the second question yes of course—that is in fact to pay the increases in wages that police have been given under this Government.Stuart Nash: Does she believe that the Prime Minister has lived up to his 2007 promise to the New Zealand Police Association that National would "improve the ratio of police to population beyond 1:500" given that under National the ratio has ballooned to 1:526.Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Of course the Prime Minister did live up to his commitment. We did in fact increase policing by funding an extra 600 front-line police officers. As for that member his Government had ratios far in excess of what we have at this stage.Stuart Nash: Who is right: the Salvation Army when it stated yesterday that "There is an increasing use in methamphetamine." or the Prime Minister who said that usage is declining?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: As much as I am very fond of the Salvation Army I agree with the Prime Minister.Stuart Nash: When a burglar in New Zealand has a 90 percent chance of getting away with it under National is it because there are not enough police on the front line?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I do not think so at all. In fact what I am really proud of the New Zealand Police for this year is that it has stopped talking about burglary as a volume crime and understands it is a priority crime. I would like that member to support the New Zealand Police in taking burglaries seriously."
9. Schools Buildings—InvestmentMATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri) to the Minister of EducationSchools Buildings—Investment9. MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri) to the Minister of Education: What recent announcements has the Government made about investment in education infrastructure in Christchurch?Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): Yesterday I announced that $750000 will be invested to build two new classrooms at Fernside School in Canterbury. This is part of a second round of investments in new classrooms under Budget 2016 which provides $882.5 million for school property including 480 new classrooms to meet roll growth across the country. The first round of investments was announced in May and June this year and that saw 21 new roll growth classrooms for Canterbury schools. Today's investment on top of that announced earlier in the year recognises that schools in Canterbury are experiencing roll growth as the local population grows or shifts.Matt Doocey: What investment in schooling infrastructure is already under way in Christchurch?Hon HEKIA PARATA: Since June of this year Minister Kaye and I have announced over $67 million in projects to build new schools and classrooms in Christchurch. This spending is part of the $276 million being invested in Canterbury school infrastructure. The total investment package is made up of around $168 million towards the Christchurch schools rebuild programme at least $100 million to build two new schools and deliver two relocated and rebuilt schools around $8 million for new roll growth classrooms and in addition $6 million for a seismic strengthening fund for integrated schools.Rt Hon John Key: Does she agree with me that she has been an outstanding Minister and she will be sadly missed?Mr SPEAKER: It seems the Minister does not—Hon HEKIA PARATA: Can I say that I think the Prime Minister is a magnificent decision maker.
5. Children in State Care—Age of EligibilityMELISSA LEE (National) to the Minister for Social DevelopmentChildren in State Care—Age of Eligibility5. MELISSA LEE (National) to the Minister for Social Development: What recent announcements has she made regarding young people in State care?Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Social Development): This morning I announced that Cabinet has agreed to raise the age of State care. This means that young people will no longer have to leave care at 17 years and will be able to remain in or return to care up to the age of 21. As part of the radical overhaul of care and protection and the establishment of the new Ministry for Vulnerable Children Oranga Tamariki young people will also be able to receive transition support and advice up to the age of 25. This Government is committed to addressing the long-term trauma and poor life outcomes that can occur for young people who have been in State care.Melissa Lee: Why has the Government agreed to raise the age of State care?Hon ANNE TOLLEY: The evidence tells us that children with a care placement are more likely to end up on a benefit have poorer educational outcomes are more likely to get involved in the criminal justice system and repeat this cycle with their own children unless they are well supported into adulthood. The decision to raise the age of care was based on the recommendations of the independent expert panel and it was also informed by the views of young people who were either in care or have been in care. These young people expressed feelings of uncertainty about how they would support themselves when leaving care and described experience of struggling to meet essential needs. This cannot be allowed to continue. These young people deserve the support that they need to thrive and to go on to lead successful independent lives.Melissa Lee: How will the Government ensure that caregivers are supported to handle this change?Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Of course it is essential that we have support not only for young people but also for the caregivers who open up their lives and homes to our most vulnerable children. Financial assistance will be provided to the caregiver particularly for pastoral care taking into account the young person's individual circumstances. The Government is committed to ensuring that caregivers have the support and resources they need to continue to provide a stable and loving home as these young people develop into their late teens and twenties.
Smith Stuart; Mallard TrevorSTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Well I cannot agree with very much that was said—in fact I do not think I agree with anything in that last speech. What I do not get is that 2500 or over 2500 schools—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): I regret that I have to interrupt the member so early in his speech. The time has come for me to leave the Chair. Someone will resume the Chair at 2 o'clock tomorrow. The House will be adjourned until then.Debate interrupted.The House adjourned at 10 p.m.
Financial Assistance for Live Organ Donors Bill — Second Reading
Seymour DavidDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I rise on behalf of the ACT Party in support of the Financial Assistance for Live Organ Donors Bill as it is currently called. I want to start by saying what a great initiative it is by Chris Bishop to put a bill in the ballot that is substantive and that will make a profound difference to many New Zealanders' lives and I think that that is a tribute to him. It must be one of the most profound gifts that a human can give to another human when they donate an organ to somebody who finds their life severely limited by organ failure—yet that can be fixed if another person is willing to give that gift. It is also an absolute miracle of medical technology and we are very lucky to live at this time. But of course as we know and as we have heard often the incentives do not align. It is difficult for people to take the time off work out of their day-to-day routine to actually give that gift. So I want to commend the Health Committee members who have clearly worked very very hard through the course of the last few months to improve this bill. In particular to move from the concept of an 80 percent ACC-type payment—which was a good concept: that you should be compensated at the same rate as somebody who has a workplace injury at least—to actually go further and acknowledge that this is not an accident when someone gives an organ; it is a gift and it should be cost neutral. So that is another real tribute to the select committee and the work that it has done. But I just quibble with one small amendment that I hope might emerge in the Committee stage which has not been added into the bill by the select committee and that is a practice that occurs in countries elsewhere where a person who gives the gift of an organ—and usually an organ of which people have two—finds themselves in a position where they are more vulnerable to failure in their remaining organ because they no longer have two of them and what is being done in countries elsewhere is that under law people who give the gift of one of their organs will find themselves at the top of the priority list should they ever need to receive the gift that they have given. So I do not properly understand why the committee did not make that change but I do hope that in the Committee of the whole House stage after this reading and before the third reading the Committee of the whole House will consider making that amendment to prioritise people who have given an organ and so you might say have a positive in their account of giving. But they also have vulnerability because they only have one of their organs remaining. Aside from that minor quibble I think this does show Parliament at its best. I think Parliament and the committee have acted much in the same way that many generous individuals do when they gift an organ. So with that and with nothing more to say I commend this bill to the House on behalf of the ACT Party. Thank you.
Paraone PitaClause 11 Section 14 replaced (Powers of Board to sell or lease lands)PITA PARAONE (NZ First): I think it would be remiss of me to not take a call on this particular clause because it does carry the issue regarding what the board can do in terms of the selling and leasing of land. Given that this probably forms a major part of the assets of this trust I think it is only fair that we should be quite clear just what those lands are. It talks about the Clareville land the Papawai land and the Kaikokirikiri land". It says the board may sell the land in terms of Clareville but not the Papawai or Kaikōkirikiri land and if it is to sell it it has to be "by public auction or by private contract and on the terms and conditions that the Board thinks fit with power to buy in or rescind or vary any contract of sale." I think the trustees themselves are very clear as to their responsibilities in regard to land retention but obviously they think that the Clareville piece of property ought to be offloaded for want of a better word and it will be very interesting to see what they do with the proceeds as to whether they invest in further land or just use it to benefit their beneficiaries.Clause 11 agreed to.Clause 12 agreed to.Clause 13 agreed to.Clause 14 agreed to.Clause 15 agreed to.House resumed.Bill reported without amendment.Report adopted."
Papawai and Kaikokirikiri Trusts Amendment Bill — In Committee
Paraone PitaPITA PARAONE (NZ First): Tēnā koe Mr Chair. I will be talking to clause 4 of the bill in terms of the repeal of the definitions of Church of England" and "financial year". By way of explanation I should say that I am not a member of the Anglican Church although I was born into the faith.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Both sides are happy about that are they?PITA PARAONE: Ha ha! The only one I am concerned about who should be happy is the Almighty. Back to the clause. Obviously the Church of England has had some changes in its make-up. As I understand it it has four bishops: one Bishop of Te Tai Tokerau and Bishop Kito Pīkaahu holds that position; then we have the Bishop of Te Upoko o Te Ika and I understand his name is Bishop Walters; and the church has recently as I understand it made an appointment for the Bishop of Te Waipounamu and his name is Bishop Wallace. This clause actually identifies which bishop will be responsible and who will sit on this trust board. The financial year as the bill articulates is a period of 12 months but it does not say what day it begins or what day it ends. It just says that it is for a 12-month period. Perhaps there should be some identification of what that period should be. In terms of "tangata whenua of Wairarapa" we all know that that is part of the confederation of Ngāti Kahungunu and those of us who know our history know that Kahungunu came from the north. In the absence of the naming of the "tīpuna rangatira" one could easily assume then that we are referring to Kahungunu himself. That is just an assumption. I am not saying that that is the case. But if that assumption is correct then that opens up the entitlement to be a beneficiary to a lot of my relatives from the north including myself. I would not for one moment presume that I should be entitled to the benefits of that trust but it does beg the question in the absence of the name not being articulated in the clause. I just want to make that point. The other thing is that the fact that the trust has decided to identify its beneficiaries in this way I think indicates the benevolence of the trustees themselves. That is why I think they have put it in the way that they have asked for in the bill. Kia ora.Clause 4 agreed to.Clause 5 agreed to.Clause 6 agreed to.Clause 7 agreed to.Clause 8 agreed to.Clause 9 agreed to.Clause 10 agreed to."
Korako Nuk; Borrows ChesterNUK KORAKO (National): Kia ora e Te Kaiwhakahaere. What I would like to do in this call is just to clarify a couple of points that have been made particularly by Rino Tirikatene first of all—e whanauka—and around the interpretation of tangata whenua. I am actually looking at the submission from the Papawai and Kaikokirikiri Trusts Board and for a number of points that have been brought up here within the bill itself this is what the Kaikokirikiri Trust wanted. This was their aspiration. This is what they wanted. So when we look at the interpretation around tangata whenua of Wairarapa and looking at the original part of this—there was also a comment by Peeni Henare particularly around that relationship and how it was actually implemented and how they saw it actually happening within this bill. Well the first thing was that they wanted to have more of a robust kind of process where they could actually determine themselves the make-up of what the board was going to be and then also within that make-up of the board it was going to be more collaborative particularly around those who actually whakapapa to the Wairarapa and then also bringing in Rangitāne as well. The other part of it though is that it was around having a fairer distribution of the funds as well because it was quite wide and there were a lot of people they believed who actually did not understand the whole structure of who the people were who actually qualify to be able to apply for those funds for scholarships. So the other part was actually facilitating the long-term development particularly around their lands. That was an important part as well. But I want to come back to the actual interpretation of tangata whenua and actually just quote from what the Papawai and Kaikokirikiri Trusts Board actually said in its submission. Basically it was quoting the Act of 1943. Section 12(4)(a) refers to scholarship provisions for children of British subjects children of islands in the Pacific Ocean but with preference to children of the Ngāti Kahungunu tribe then other Māori or descendants of Māori from the East Coast of the North Island of New Zealand then Māori or descendants of Māori of any part of New Zealand. So you can see that originally that was very very wide. One of the important parts of this bill that they actually did want to change was that the board believe that Māori who do not whakapapa to Wairarapa should not gain any benefits from income derived from the Wairarapa lands. That was a really important part of distinguishing between the really wide scope that the original Act had and pulling it back so that they could actually identify particularly around the Wairarapa lands and the money that was coming from that those recipients of those scholarships who actually came from the Wairarapa. The other part in regard to Wairarapa iwi the 1943 Act refers to the preference—The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): I am sorry to interrupt the member—it is tragic. However the time has come for me to leave the Chamber. The Committee will resume again at 7.30 p.m.Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.
Rurawhe AdrianClause 3 Principal ActADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour—Te Tai Hauāuru): Tēnā koe e Te Heamana o Te Komiti o Te Whare otirā ki a tātau katoa tēnā tātau. I wanted in particular to speak to clause 3 Principal Act". It occurred to me that I should go through it quite carefully. Interestingly this principal Act has been amended some eight times. It was amended firstly in 1946. I had a look at that and it is quite similar to what we are debating today. After 3 years of operation they went back and had a look at this principal Act and made some amendments to it.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): We are discussing these amendments of course.ADRIAN RURAWHE: Pardon?The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): The question is about these amendments to the bill.ADRIAN RURAWHE: Yes but clause 3 says "Papawai and Kaikokirikiri Trusts Act 1943 (the principal Act)" and I think that if we are discussing the principal Act which is referenced in this amendment then surely it is relevant to speak about the amendments as they relate to the current amendment bill. That is the point that I am trying to make.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Yes and the point that I am just making is that the principal Act is as it has been amended those eight times since then—so you are talking about these amendments and the way that they amend the principal Act as it now is. There might be an aside one might make about a historical context but we should be discussing and debating these amendments.ADRIAN RURAWHE: Thank you Mr Chair for that clarification. Well my point then is that the principal Act which is being amended by this Act taking into account the eight amendments that have already happened over that time is relevant I believe. And that is my contribution on that clause. Kia ora.Clause 3 agreed to."
Ross Jami-Lee; Borrows ChesterJAMI-LEE ROSS (Junior Whip—National): I seek leave for the remaining clauses to be voted on as one question.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Leave is put for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Paraone PitaPITA PARAONE (NZ First): I think that the last Labour spokesperson Peeni Henare made a very good point. Probably what should be articulated in the bill is that it better defines the relationship between the parties: (1) when you talk about who the beneficiaries are it articulates who they are—that is tangata whenua of Wairarapa; and (2) it describes the changes that have been made within the Anglican Church and therefore it identifies which of the three Māori bishops within the Anglican Church at the moment will be responsible for the trust. I think that the third one is the appointment of trustees—articulating who they are. But I think the member does make a very valid point and I suppose that if we really wanted to make that change it might be an opportunity to put forward a Supplementary Order Paper but I will leave that up to the member in charge of the bill. Kia ora.
Korako NukNUK KORAKO (National): Kia ora Mr Chair. Just quickly—to respond to Peeni Henare the last speaker. In fact there were actually a lot of goals that were set. There were four main goals that were set which were pretty much about empowering whānau and hapū. Another one was also to make a positive contribution to the education of tamariki which empowers whānau and the other one was to be a good steward of taonga tuku iho and to operate in a manner that upholds the high expectations and aspirations of their tīpuna. Kia ora.