edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the question now be put.Ayes 98New Zealand Labour 65; New Zealand National 33.Noes 20Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; ACT New Zealand 10.Motion agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the Minister's amendments to Part 1 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 106 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 110New Zealand Labour 65; New Zealand National 33; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 10ACT New Zealand 10.Amendments agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that Simon Court's amendments to clause 4 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 107 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 10ACT New Zealand 10.Noes 108New Zealand Labour 65; New Zealand National 33; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Amendments not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the Hon Eugenie Sage's amendment to clause 4 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 108 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 10Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Noes 108New Zealand Labour 65; New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Amendment not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The Hon Eugenie Sage's amendments to clause 7 replacing new section 77O(1) set out on Supplementary Order Paper 110 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.The question is that the Hon Eugenie Sage's remaining amendments to clauses 4 and 7 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 110 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 10Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Noes 108New Zealand Labour 65; New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Amendments not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the Hon Eugenie Sage's amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 112 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 10Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Noes 108New Zealand Labour 65; New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Amendments not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The Hon Eugenie Sage's amendment to clause 8 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 115 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.The question is that the Hon Eugenie Sage's remaining amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 115 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 10Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Noes 108New Zealand Labour 65; New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Amendments not agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That Part 1 as amended be agreed to.Ayes 110New Zealand Labour 65; New Zealand National 33; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 10ACT New Zealand 10.Part 1 as amended agreed to.
Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Part 1
Education and Training Amendment Bill — Third Reading
Mallard TrevorSPEAKER: Now I just want to check: are we breaking for kai now or are we going to have one speech? Willow-Jean Prime: One speech. SPEAKER: All right.
Rurawhe AdrianREPORT OF COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE HOUSECHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Mr Speaker the committee has considered the Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Amendment Bill and reports it with amendment. The committee has also considered the Sexual Violence Legislation Bill and reports it with amendment. I move That the report be adopted.Motion agreed to.Report adopted.
Sexual Violence Legislation Bill — In Committee—Clauses 1 and 2
Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much Mr Chair. In this the title and commencement phase of debating this legislation I've only really a couple of points to make other than to add emphasis to those points made by the Hon Paul Goldsmith. Given the genuine concerns raised outside this Parliament but also within its walls including by way of Supplementary Order Paper I think that's a very fair proposal. So I do hope that the Government will take that seriously including in a legislative programme going forward. A couple of different points that have a similar theme of timing: I note that the House as a whole is about to pass a piece of legislation that's got consequential amendments in relation to the Rights for Victims of Insane Offenders Act. That in fact was passed at its third reading last night but may or may not yet have received Royal assent some 13 or 14 hours on. That's probably more a point of interest for the legal nerds—whether or not in fact that is as we speak now today an Act or technically perhaps still a bill. In any case relating to the title and commencement of this bill I would seek the Minister's assurance on behalf of the Government that if it should be the case that a senior court determined that some of the provisions of this legislation are inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act will the Government legislate to remove such anomalies or errors in the future? So that's my final question to the Minister on that subject.
Goldsmith PaulHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): The only question I'd put to the Minister is: will he consider including in this legislation a review after three years of this legislation as a matter of course? Because we have heard through this debate very confident assertions from the Minister that everything will be fine and that New Zealanders will continue to have access to a fair trial to defend themselves against serious charges. We've outlined serious concerns about two elements of this bill with the first being that rather than having a complainant in the courtroom and cross-examined with all the facts of the court case before them—being the standard practice—with a pre-recording maybe a year before on video being rare and exceptional this legislation changes that to potentially becoming a matter of course. Now that has very real implications for the ability of a defendant to effectively cross-examine that complainant. Now we recognise the concerns raised by many people about re-traumatising victims of crime through the process but we also have to recognise that the stakes are incredibly high for the defendant as well and we also recognise that the whole point of the trial process is to determine whether a crime has been committed or not. We live in a world where not everybody tells the truth and that is the purpose of our criminal justice system. We are very much concerned about the rights of particularly young men to defend themselves. So we've heard from the Minister that there are safeguards in the system to ensure that a fair trial will continue but the widespread advice from many lawyers involved—particularly on the defence side of these cases—is that that is not the case. So we want to be assured that this won't just happen and be forgotten about but that Parliament will come back in three years' time take stock and see what the consequences have been and make adjustments if necessary. So I'd like to hear from the Minister finally on this very important topic. Will he ensure that that review happens and if not why not?
Rurawhe AdrianClauses 1 and 2CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Members we come to the final debate: clauses 1 and 2 the debate on title and commencement. The question is that clauses 1 and 2 stand part.
Goldsmith PaulHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): By way of final comments on this legislation we've had a lengthy debate about it and what we've outlined on this side of the House is that there's an absolute agreement around the need for procedures that enable complainants in sexual violence cases to have their cases heard and to make the process easier for them recognising the trauma involved in these very difficult cases. Our primary concern has been in relation to two areas one being the pre-recording of videos of evidence and the concern that that makes it more difficult for defendants to effectively cross-examine and defend themselves. We do have to remember that we don't live in a perfect world and not every complainant is a victim and that is the point of the trial process: to determine whether a sexual assault or violence has occurred. By necessity it is a very difficult and traumatic experience because whatever happens the results are very high stakes for the defendant who could find him or herself behind bars for many years as a result of the outcome and therefore it should be scrutinised with the highest degree of process and done properly in the basis of a fair trial. So we're very concerned to ensure that this legislation does not lead to the inability of defendants to effectively defend themselves.So when we come to this Part 3 of the legislation—Mr Chair in terms of the commencement is it in this part or is it the next part? CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): It's in—not in this part. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Pardon? CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The commencement clause is not in this part. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: OK. So my question to the Minister in relation to this part is: where is his confidence that the defendants in this situation following the changes proposed in this legislation in terms of the proposed changes to both the videos pre-recorded videos and the inability to raise questions around a relationship with a partner or a previous relationship—how he can assure the people of New Zealand that everybody will continue to have access to a fair trial to defend themselves using all the information available in the actual case as it arises?
Rurawhe AdrianPart 3 Amendments to Criminal Procedure Act 2011 and the ScheduleCHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Members we now come to Part 3. This is the debate on clauses 28 to 33 and Part 3 of the Schedule Amendments to Criminal Procedure Act 2011". The question is that Part 3 stand part."
Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much Mr Chair. In the spirit of the previous contributions that National members have been making on the bill I obviously won't reiterate the specific arguments that relate to previous parts. But I think that as we're now entering the next phase of the debate it's probably worth just stating for the record the big picture that applies including to this part—namely that National of course as we expect all members of the House do wishes to see procedures that are appropriate in a courtroom setting in relation to those who are complaining of a sexual violence - type offence. It's appropriate for them to be heard respectfully and of course also important at the same time that a fair trial is conducted so that justice may be done and without prejudicing the rights of anyone to a fair trial not only for their sake but of course for the sake of the system more generally.So that was the tenor of the comments that we were making on the previous parts. They do still apply. We have probably a few more specific comments to make in relation to the current part but noting that our particular Supplementary Order Papers making specific suggestions previously have been voted down. We do just sound a note a caution about the desire to ensure that we have on our statute book laws that basically don't contravene that right to a fair trial. That's probably enough from me by way of opening remarks and if the Minister has any comments to make in relation to that we would be grateful to hear them. But I understand my colleague the Hon Paul Goldsmith will have some further comments to make as well.
Rurawhe AdrianSEXUAL VIOLENCE LEGISLATION BILLIn CommitteeDebate resumed from 7 December.Part 2 Amendments to Victims' Rights Act 2002 (continued)CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Members we now come to the continuation of the committee stage of the Sexual Violence Legislation Bill. Members when the committee was lasting considering this bill we were on Part 2. The question is that Part 2 stand part.
Brooking RachelRACHEL BROOKING (Labour): I move That the question be now put.
Parker DavidHon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): We're not extinguishing one development—not one. So the member need not be concerned about that.In respect of master-planned developments we're not requiring them to be built in any particular way. They can build them however they want you know subject to the existing rules that councils apply. All this legislation does is enable the underlying zoning to enable densification.
Prime Willow-Jean; Rurawhe AdrianWILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Assistant Whip—Labour): I move That the question be now put.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I'm tempted but I'll go with Simon Court thank you.
Parker DavidHon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): At the heart of this bill it is pretty simple. We're not requiring people to build three storeys but we're letting them. We think that Auckland and our other large centres need that in order to house people affordably. The ACT Party obviously disagrees with that and they're free to disagree—similar points were made in the earlier part. But that's why we won't be agreeing to the Supplementary Order Paper that would effectively render this bill ineffective by reducing substantially—David Seymour: The Government's modelling says it would be effective.Hon DAVID PARKER: Well according to the advice that I've got adopting a—3-metre or a 4-metre?—David Seymour: Has he read it? Has he read anything?Hon DAVID PARKER: —a 3-metre boundary—of course I've read it. The 3-metre 45-degree recession plane would reduce the housing outcome by 31 percent.
Sage Eugenie; Parker DavidHon EUGENIE SAGE (Green): I think I'd just ask if the Minister could further clarify that because I think the ACT Party is creating some confusion here. The Environment Committee spent quite a lot of time dealing with the provision in the bill as introduced that private plan changes that hadn't had the hearing completed by 20 February 2022 would have to be removed. One of the major recommendations was that they could go through the intensification streamlined planning process if the council decided to adopt or accept them and that they could also go through as a variation when they were re-looked at by the applicants. So could the Minister just clarify that there is scope for private plan changes to continue but that they are required to be accepted or adopted by the council or go through as a variation.Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Yes and in fact I had addressed that earlier issue. That is correct and that's preserved through the transitional provisions.
Seymour David; Parker DavidDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Oh Madam Chair so can we just get clear what the Minister for the Environment has just told the committee and New Zealand. He said that private plan changes should be fast tracked if they're initiated by councils—that's good—but they can't be initiated by private developers. For example some people may have seen in the New Zealand Herald last weekend that the first two pages in the paper were taken out by a developer with a development called Sunfield; 5000 developments that haven't been able to be fast tracked by the Government because—sorry I just have to pause and get this straight. So the Minister said that they can't allow private developers to access the fast-track planning process because they'd be too busy and they'd be overwhelmed. Now if that's seriously what the Minister's says let's just get this clear. We're here to try to make a law to make it easier to build more homes. But the Minister says that we can't let just anyone apply to build more homes because he might get overwhelmed trying to process them. I mean if that's seriously what he's saying then I think we're starting to see the wheels fall off and the serious problems with a Government trying to plan the development of property and communities up and down New Zealand. That's the basic problem. And of course there is an amendment on the Table and it should be adopted that will allow private developers to take advantage of private plan changes because hey they can build homes too. That is absolutely critical. There's quite a lot more to say but I just want the Minister to be clear that he's not going to support private plan changes being able to access the fast-track consenting process because he thinks that there'll be too many applications to be processed. Is that actually what he said?Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): The member described me as saying that private plan changes can be initiated by the council. I didn't say that. Council plan changes are initiated by councils not private plan changes. Of course private developers get the benefit of the planning changes that are caused in all of these cities by the plan changes that are required to be brought forward by the council because they can now build three storeys.
Parker DavidHon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): The Minister has no role. That's a matter that's delegated in the legislation to local government. In respect of the list of qualifying matters that's set out at new section 77G members will see that paragraph (h) to that clause says that any other matter that makes higher density as provided for by the MDRS [or policy 3] inappropriate in an area but only if section 77I is [triggered]." Section 77I then says that in respect of those further requirements it also brings some related provisions in the existing National Policy Statement on Urban Development and in effect what that does is say that for other matters like heritage a site-by-site analysis is required by the council whereas for the other listed matters they can rely on more general overlays."
Simpson Scott; Parker DavidHon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you Madam Chair. I'd also like to make some comments and ask a couple of questions in relation to Part 1 of this bill. In particular I'm interested to know from the Minister his thinking and the thinking of his advisers in relation to strengthening the qualifying matters that have appeared in the Government Supplementary Order Paper.Now at first reading there were provisions for qualifying matters that would enable councils to exclude from the provisions of this legislation certain areas and properties that they felt for a variety of reasons were not going to be appropriate under this legislation. I for one and I know that my colleagues on this side of the House in the National Party—we were actually quite pleased to see that there had been some movement from the Minister in this regard and I'm keen to just understand a little about the rationale and the logic behind that and what the motivations were for extending some of the qualifying matters that essentially give councils more power where they think justified to exclude from the provisions of this legislation certain properties or even areas within an urban environment that they feel—for instance in terms of heritage protection—may not be appropriate.Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Thank you for that question the Hon Scott Simpson. This is dealt with in clause 77G on page 11 of the tracked changes version of the bill with some related provisions in the clauses that follow. The member is correct that there has been some change recommended by the select committee that we've adopted. There is some express reference to other qualifying matters that weren't in the original version of the bill including for example the vision and strategy for the Waikato River / Te Ture Whaimana o Te Awa o Waikato and also matters giving effect to the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act or the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Act.Perhaps more significant are some of the changes that were made to make these provisions more practical for councils to apply which enable councils to reply on earlier work that they have done rather than having to do a separate assessment in respect of each case that comes before them. That's probably the more important change that was made at select committee.I should also say it's not the intention to allow overlays on a whole suburb that aren't related to a matter of real import. So for example if something is in a flood plain and there is a worry that a river in flood could mean that an area could be flooded that could apply to a whole area but if someone wanted to protect historic heritage it would have to be done on either a building or a group of buildings basis rather than on a whole suburb basis.
Sage Eugenie; Parker DavidHon EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Thank you Madam Chair. So while we're on the subject of master plans it's my understanding that the bill because it does apply that medium density residential zoning as an underlying zoning for any private plan changes—there's still a degree of voluntary nature in terms of whether the developer chooses to apply that. So in terms of some of the private planning and upzoning that is occurring around areas like Templeton Prebbleton and Rolleston this bill won't do anything to prevent urban sprawl. Can I ask the Minister whether he has considered Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 115 which is all about master planning? Because it picks up submissions from a number of developers and others who highlighted the change that has occurred in residential density through section sizes getting smaller across the decades. So the quarter-acre pavlova paradise" dream of a section generally provides about eight households a hectare. Then in the post-war periods we got about 30 houses a hectare. But in areas like Hobsonville where there's been a commitment to doing master planning well there are 30 to 40 homes per hectare.So the Green Party SOP in my name is about enabling those developers which have gone to the trouble of having a master plan so that you have an integrated development that recognises that you want green spaces that you want a mix of densities but a preference for more dwellings at that higher and medium density and that infrastructure considerations are also integrated. This SOP provides for a better opportunity for these master plans to proceed as a controlled activity on land that is already zoned residential in a district plan so it's not the rural to residential. But it does ensure that we get the master planning developments going ahead with a greater coherence than the bill currently enables and it makes it easier for those well-designed developments to proceed which would assist with the bill's objective of getting more houses—more medium-density houses—faster.So the bill as it came back from select committee while it certainly accommodates private plan changes does not have specific provisions which facilitate these master plan developments going ahead in accordance with the master plan.Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Thank you Madam Chair and can I thank the member Eugenie Sage. She put a lot of work in as chair of the select committee that oversaw the bill. We're not proposing having a mandatory obligation for a master plan to have a particular density in this bill; so we won't be backing that Supplementary Order Paper. That's not within the scope of what we've planned through this particular legislation. It is "enabling" rather than "requiring"—a point that I have made in an earlier contribution."
Dean JacquiRESOURCE MANAGEMENT (ENABLING HOUSING SUPPLY AND OTHER MATTERS) AMENDMENT BILLIn CommitteePart 1 Urban densification policies and other mattersCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): We come first to the Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Amendment Bill Part 1. Members this is the debate on clauses 4 to 12 Urban densification policies and other matters". The question is that Part 1 stand part."
Dean JacquiHOUSE IN COMMITTEECHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members the House is in committee on the Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Amendment Bill and the Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Bill.
COVID-19 Public Health Response Act — Continuation
Tuesday 7 December 2021 - Volume 756
Sexual Violence Legislation Bill — In Committee—Part 1
VoteDr DUNCAN WEBB (Junior Whip—Labour): I move That the question be now put.Motion agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the Minister's amendments to Part 1 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 105 be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Chris Penk's amendments to clause 14 new section 106D(7) and 106G to 106J are out of order as inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that Chris Penk's remaining amendments to Part 1 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 5 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 33New Zealand National 33.Noes 85New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; ACT New Zealand 10.Amendments not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that Chris Penk's amendment to Part 1 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 11 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Noes 75New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Motion not agreed to.Part 1 as amended agreed to.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.Ayes 110New Zealand Labour 65; New Zealand National 33; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 10ACT New Zealand 10.Motion agreed to.Bill read a second time.DEPUTY SPEAKER: I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Bill and the Sexual Violence Legislation Bill.
Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — Second Reading
VoteCHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The question is that the Minister's amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 60 be agreed to. Amendments agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The question is that Parts 1 to 4 Schedules 1 to 5 and clauses 1 and 2 as amended stand part. Parts 1 to 4 Schedules 1 to 5 and clauses 1 and 2 as amended agreed to.Bill to be reported with amendment.
Ahuriri Hapū Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee
10. Question No. 10—COVID-19 ResponseCHRIS BISHOP (National) to the Minister for COVID-19 ResponseQuestion No. 10—COVID-19 Response10. CHRIS BISHOP (National) to the Minister for COVID-19 Response: Is he satisfied with the implementation of the COVID-19 Protection Framework and what criteria if any exist for Auckland to move from Red to Orange in this framework? Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister for COVID-19 Response): Absolutely yes and I'm incredibly proud of New Zealanders who have stepped up to be vaccinated allowing us to move to that new framework: 94 percent of the eligible population have now had at least one dose of the vaccine and 88 percent of the country have had two doses. As the Prime Minister set out yesterday and today New Zealanders have shifted to the new framework relatively smoothly and it's a testament to the adaptability and pragmatism of New Zealanders who just want to get the job done. With any significant transition like this there will inevitably be a few issues that we'll continue to work through as they arise. In response to the second part of the member's question we have outlined a number of health- and non - health-related criteria that will guide Cabinet's decision on how regions may move colours in the future. Given the majority of the country's cases are still coming from Auckland being at red at this point helps to minimise the number of new cases ahead of the 15 December removal of the boundary around Auckland and therefore reduce the risk to the rest of New Zealand. As we settle into the new traffic light framework people will see that our COVID response remains one where we push forward cautiously with fewer restrictions more careful travel around the country and family and friends united. Chris Bishop: Has Cabinet settled on a number for vaccination and hospitalisations that would allow a region to move from red to orange and from orange to green and if so what is the number? Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: No in answer to the first part of the question. As with our alert level system—the one that we have just transitioned away from—there is a need to consider a balance of factors. We did not have hard and fast rules as to exactly the trigger points for moving between level 1 and level 2 level 2 and level 3 and level 3 and level 4. We made those decisions based on a balance of facts presented at the time. Chris Bishop: How can he be satisfied with the traffic light system when on Friday night the official food and drink service guidelines were changed to state that it wasn't mandatory for workers to be vaccinated—a complete contradiction from what was announced two weeks earlier? Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The main change that happened on Friday night was greater clarity for those businesses who were trying to figure out whether they would count as a food service or a retail service and so the guidelines were—basically greater clarity was provided so that for those businesses that effectively operate on a retail basis rather than people coming and dining in they had greater clarity.
9. Question No. 9—HealthDr GAURAV SHARMA (Labour—Hamilton West) to the Associate Minister of HealthQuestion No. 9—Health9. Dr GAURAV SHARMA (Labour—Hamilton West) to the Associate Minister of Health: What recent announcements has she made about testing for COVID-19?Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Associate Minister of Health): Testing remains one of the key public health measures underpinning our response to COVID-19 and our successful transition to the COVID-19 Protection Framework. Last week I announced we had passed a milestone of more than 5 million PCR tests processed. New Zealand's test positivity rate a key measure of the effectiveness of our testing system has consistently been one of the lowest in the world. That gives us confidence that we're missing very few cases in the community. I want to thank the thousands of skilled and dedicated workers who collect and process tests every day as well as the team of 5 million who have now all been tested.Dr Gaurav Sharma: What work is under way to ensure we continue to have sufficient testing capacity?Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: Last month I announced a new testing strategy to support the transition to the new framework and to help minimise the spread of COVID19. A key part of that plan was expanding our PCR testing capacity. By the end of the year we are on track to have a standing capacity for 40000 PCR tests per day and that will build to 60000 in the first quarter of next year. Nasopharyngeal PCR tests will continue to be used as the primary diagnostic test but this will be supplemented by saliva-based PCR testing rapid antigen testing and rapid PCR tests.Dr Gaurav Sharma: What role do rapid antigen tests play in the new testing strategy?Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: The health advice is to continue to have a PCR test if you have COVID-19 symptoms. However with more and more New Zealanders gaining protection through vaccinations we can now introduce a wider range of routine testing options.Chris Bishop: What a great idea!Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: Rapid antigen tests can provide a result in 15 minutes but require a high viral load and are more effective in the early stages of an individual's infectious period. The member opposite might want to listen—he might learn something. They perform well when there is COVID in the community. These tests are now available to all businesses and healthcare settings in New Zealand and from 15 December they will be available to the general public at pharmacies with tests to be administered under the supervision of pharmacy staff. For asymptomatic surveillance testing two or three times a week is recommended and a PCR test will be required to confirm any positive results.
8. Question No. 8—FinanceHon SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) to the Minister of FinanceQuestion No. 8—Finance8. Hon SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement in his Budget speech earlier this year that wage growth will outpace inflation meaning more money in Kiwis' back pockets"?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Can I first congratulate the member on his new role. I stand by my statement in the context that those were the Treasury's Budget forecast at the time. But as the member might appreciate more than most sometimes events can move quickly and numbers can shift around.Hon Simon Bridges: Very good. Does he accept the Government has failed to deliver on his Budget promise considering inflation is now nearly 5 percent more than double wage inflation of just 2.4 percent?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Those were the forecasts at the time and I can assure the member that wage growth continues to be forecast to be strong as it is at the moment around 3.5 percent. Inflation has risen but the member will be aware that is a global phenomenon.Hon Simon Bridges: Well does he accept that if wages are growing at 2.4 percent inflation is growing at 5 percent and house prices are growing at 30 percent then New Zealanders are going backwards in real terms under this Government's watch?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No. What I do accept is on this side of the House we have had an economy that has grown faster than most others in the world through the COVID pandemic that has unemployment at 3.4 percent and that Standard & Poor's lifted our credit rating on. Yes of course a high inflation environment is challenging and I look forward to the member's support for things like a minimum wage increase.Hon Simon Bridges: Does he accept the view of ANZ economists who said last week that "All households are seeing cost increases but for low-income Kiwis who spend the bulk of their income on essential goods and services it's particularly hard to make ends meet right now; and for low income houses in this environment the choice quickly becomes 'Do I have lunch this week or pay the rent?' "Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What I do accept is that yes low-income households are affected more by inflation increases which is why it's so disappointing that the National Party has opposed the benefit increases that this Government has put in place.Hon Simon Bridges: Isn't it now becoming obvious that this Government's economic management is failing New Zealanders because the cost of living is outstripping wage growth $2 to $1?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No. What is obvious is that this Government has invested in making sure that New Zealanders keep their jobs; has seen an unemployment rate of 3.4 percent; and that Standard & Poor's an international rating agency gave us a credit uplift. I'll tend to listen to them."
7. Question No. 7—WomenGINNY ANDERSEN (Labour—Hutt South) to the Minister for WomenQuestion No. 7—Women7. GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour—Hutt South) to the Minister for Women: What progress has she seen on the $2 million COVID-19 community fund for women and girls?Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister for Women): Funding from the $2 million COVID19 Community Fund for women and girls has now been allocated to 160 successful applicants. Funding will support organisations helping wāhine and kōtiro in Aotearoa New Zealand affected by the pandemic. This is the second time we have run this highly successful fund and it is a proven model to reach our most vulnerable.Ginny Andersen: How will this funding make a difference in the lives of women and girls?Hon JAN TINETTI: This fund is supporting grassroots organisations that work with women and girls who have been detrimentally affected by the pandemic. This fund can help safeguard women's wellbeing. Successful applicants from this fund range from support for mental health services safe houses for women and children experiencing family violence support for retraining and upskilling for women who have lost their jobs as well as increased support for volunteers that support women and girls and essential supplies such as food nappies and sanitary products for marginalised women and girls.Ginny Andersen: What other work is under way to support women and girls following the nationwide COVID-19 lockdown?Hon JAN TINETTI: We have a large number of projects under way that will help support women and girls following the nationwide COVID-19 lockdown. First we are identifying and minimising barriers for women in employment through our Women's Employment Action Plan. We have seen welfare reforms ranging from lifting incomes for families and reducing sanctions on mothers. We've seen a reduction in both the unemployment rates for women and the Public Service gender pay gap and we continue to see the free period products roll out across New Zealand for all students. But I would like to make a special mention of Minister Davidson and her launch this morning of Te Aorerekura the country's first national strategy to eliminate family violence and sexual violence.
3. Question No. 3—HousingGLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth) to the Minister of HousingQuestion No. 3—Housing3. GLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth) to the Minister of Housing: How has the Government's public house build programme supported young people into skilled jobs? Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): The Government is committed to addressing New Zealand's housing crisis by increasing the supply of houses across the country including our own booming Government-led build programme. Recently I announced that over 500 apprentices and cadets have been placed in work across the country through Government house-building projects. This represents hundreds more builders carpenters electricians painters drainlayers and scaffolders who are part of building upgrading and maintaining the nearly 70000 public houses across New Zealand. Our investment in apprenticeships is about creating jobs and opportunities for young people stimulating local economies and creating an ongoing pipeline of work that is building more houses than any Government since the 1970s. Glen Bennett: How is the Kāinga Ora cadet and apprenticeship programme supporting young people into work? Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Through its cadet and apprenticeship programme Kāinga Ora works with training and pastoral care providers build partners and subcontractors to help budding tradespeople into apprenticeships. Employers of Kāinga Ora apprentices are eligible for the Government's Apprenticeship Boost subsidy of up to $12000 for first-year apprentices and $6000 for second-year apprentices. Apprentices also receive a $1500 tool kit grant to get them started. While these apprentices and cadets have been part of the Government's build programme they have helped deliver over 6800 newly built public homes in the past 3½ years. The skills and trades learnt will benefit the wider building sector as they carve out a career in this sector. Glen Bennett: How is Kāinga Ora changing its procurement approach to support employment for apprentices and cadets? Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Kāinga Ora is changing the way it contracts with build partners to provide more opportunities for apprentices and cadets. New multi-year agreements which will replace most project-by-project build contracts require that at least 5 percent of skilled work has to be undertaken by apprentices and trainees within the first six months of training. This increases to more than 15 percent of skilled work in year two of the agreement. This is just another way that we are supporting young people into skilled jobs while delivering a record number of public houses.
Salesa JennyREPORT OF COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE HOUSECHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Mr Speaker the committee has considered the Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Bill and reports it with amendment. The committee has also considered the Sexual Violence Legislation Bill and reports progress. I move That the report be adopted.Motion agreed to.Report adopted.The House adjourned at 9.57 p.m.
Penk Chris; Faafoi Kris; Salesa JennyCHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much Madam Chair. Can I acknowledge the Minister for taking the trouble to set out that philosophy behind the victim impact statement method of presentation being alternative.I have a question in relation to a new section 28D—D" for delta as it will be—which is headed "Court may be cleared when victim impact statement read or otherwise presented to court". I just wonder if the Minister can explain whether it's his understanding that that is already able to be the case under the current law and whether this bill is really essentially affirming that or providing a bit of a guideline or if it's more in the fact of it being something that creates a new right that isn't you know essentially on the statute book or by way of case law or perhaps practise of various court jurisdictions.Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Justice): Clarifying that it is not a right for that to happen in that manner at this stage. If the judge declares that doing it in that manner would cause undue stress to the person giving the victim impact statement they can ask for that to be done. My understanding I believe although I might need to be clarified of this is that while you can clear the court I think the media might be able to be present in the court at the same time.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members the time has come for me to leave the chair to report progress.Progress to be reported."
Salesa Jenny; Penk Chris; Faafoi KrisPart 2 Amendments to Victims' Rights Act 2002CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members we now come to Part 2. This is the debate on clauses 18 to 27 in Part 2 of the Schedule Amendments to Victims' Rights Act 2002. The question is that Part 2 stand part.CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much Madam Chair. I think it's always a significant matter when we are considering ways that we can make the lives of victims easier and so it's commendable that Amendments to Victims' Rights Act 2002 are contemplated by Part 2. So I just wonder if the Minister can give us some explanation for the sake of the record in relation the victim impact statements. So we see in new clause 22A as it will be within that Act to do with the presentation of such statements to accord in some other manner. So if the Minister can give the House some kind of explanation about the thinking behind that and the way that he believes that that will be helpful I would greatly appreciate it.Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Justice): Can I thank the member for the question because I think this is something that the whole House will agree on in terms of victims being able to have the right to use the same methods in which they would give evidence at a trial to make the victim impact statement post trial usually at the sentencing point of the process. They can use video recordings. Again if they want to be in court but not to see the defendant—or the person who's been prosecuted at this stage if they're giving a victim impact statement—they can also use that means. I guess this is giving the right of flexibility for victims to be able to give their victim impact statement in a way that suits them and I think the ability to do that again will give some safety to the victim and a sense of closure and the ability to bring closure in a way that they would like to happen as opposed to in an open court with a defendant present looking at them directly. So I think again this is a good thing as part of the process for victims.
McKee Nicole; Faafoi KrisNICOLE McKEE (ACT): Thank you Madam Chair. Minister I commend you for the work that has been done on this bill. One of the things that the ACT Party are really focused on is making sure that victims are at the centre of our justice system. We have supported this bill through this process the first reading and the second reading and I must admit Minister when we got through the select committee and the recommendations that came back we were actually considering not supporting it because we had similar concerns to our colleagues in the National Party. We're very pleased to see your Supplementary Order Paper 105 because it addresses those issues that we had. In saying that I just want to let National know that their member's bill—there's one of them that we will not be supporting purely because we believe it's already been addressed in the Government's Supplementary Order Paper. But Minister one of the concerns that we did have at the time—and you actually have addressed it already when you've stood and spoken—is that while we want to put our victims at the centre of the justice system of course there was that balance that you talked about earlier where we had defendants possibly being the subject of some vexatious complaints. I believe that you have balanced that out and we congratulate you for that. Where my question comes is if we have a victim who has given video evidence before the trial and there is a need for that victim to be cross-examined later on is there any support that's been put aside for those victims if they do have to come back within that system? Because while we're saying we do need to protect them we also need to look after them to make sure that we don't give them an opportunity and then ultimately revictimise them in a way that enables a defendant to have the ability to be able to defend themselves as well. So it's about support for the victims if we're going to change the way that they give evidence. And I just wonder if there is anything there for those victims. Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Justice): Can I thank the member Nicole McKee on two fronts: obviously for continuing support for the legislation; we do appreciate that. And also I think it's a fair question to ask if a complainant is going to go through the process twice. They will still have the flexibility of arrangements that are available to them either existing or that come through this piece of legislation. They will have the option of either giving their evidence or responding to questions which have to be set out via video recording. I think there's also the ability if they are choosing to be physically in the courtroom at the time to have a screen available as well so they don't see the defendant. And also they will still continue to have a court victims adviser available to them to be able to walk them through what will no doubt be—unfortunately they would have experienced some of it—a foreign experience to them. So again I think the components of this legislation the flexibility in this legislation but also the safeguards will have a flow-on effect if someone were to have to experience the questioning twice.
McAnulty Kieran; Salesa JennySEXUAL VIOLENCE LEGISLATION BILLIn CommitteePart 1 Amendments to Evidence Act 2006KIERAN McANULTY (Chief Whip—Labour): I seek leave for all parts to be taken as one debate.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection. The question is that Part 1 stand part.
McAnulty Kieran; Salesa JennyKIERAN McANULTY (Chief Whip—Labour): Point of order. I seek leave for all parts to be taken as one debate.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Is there any objection? The question is that Parts 1 to 6 Schedules 1 to 3 and clauses 1 and 2 stand part.The question is that the Minister's amendments to Supplementary Order Paper 59 set out in Supplementary Order Paper 104 be agreed to.Amendments to the amendments agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the Minister's amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 59 as amended be agreed to.Amendments as amended agreed to.Parts 1 to 6 Schedules 1 to 3 and clauses 1 and 2 as amended agreed to.Bill to be reported with amendment.
Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Bill — In Committee
Salesa JennyBIRTHS DEATHS MARRIAGES AND RELATIONSHIPS REGISTRATION BILLIn CommitteeParts 1 to 6 Schedules 1 to 3 and clauses 1 and 2CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): We come first to the Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Bill. The question is that Part 1 stand part.
Salesa JennyHOUSE IN COMMITTEECHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members the House is in committee on the Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Bill and the Sexual Violence Legislation Bill.