edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Chen NaisiNAISI CHEN (Labour): Thank you Mr Speaker. It's quite a shame that the member who's just resumed his seat Andrew Bayly does not sit on the great Governance and Administration Committee like you yourself do. We're chaired by a really great chairperson as well. I think if he did then maybe perhaps he would be a little bit more familiar with the details of this bill. Happy New Zealand Techweek. This week I was very privileged to have time to go and attend one of the sessions at New Zealand Techweek and that session was called AI in healthcare: what do medics really think?" During that panel session I heard a lot about how AI is now incorporated into our healthcare system including during COVID times where each patient who had registered that they were COVID positive was given a risk number in the system to determine the types of healthcare that they would be getting. For instance if you had a precondition like diabetes you would be getting a call from your family doctor. You'd be getting extra support. Or for instance if you were immunocompromised you'd be getting a particular type of medicine sent to your house or through your pharmacy. I just wanted to use that story because I thought that it's a really good way of illustrating the importance of updating our data and statistics legislation. Data right now is everywhere within our lives. I talked about in the first reading—that was the week that Facebook had just announced the "metaverse". So we are in a different time where we need to modernise the way that we govern statistics and data. During the panel session someone asked one of the panel about whether we had any other overseas comparisons that we could have in terms of how we governed data the way that we used AI in medical scenarios. The panellists all replied with "Not really." Actually in fact they used the example of kidney failure after a kidney transplant. So far the only technology overseas available to us is identifying people as either black or white. You guys can probably imagine that that was from I think it was a Canadian company that had particularly developed that software. Now why I talk about that story is because New Zealand data sovereignty and information about our indigenous people is really important and unique to New Zealand. This will be a world-leading project that we will embark on through this bill. That's why I commend this bill to the House."
Boyack RachelRACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you Mr Speaker. It's a pleasure to take a call on the Data and Statistics Bill. I just want to begin just by noting that this is a comprehensive rewrite of the Act which has meant a big piece of work for the committee. And on that note I just want to thank other members of the committee the officials and submitters—and as the previous speaker noted a particular thank you to the Privacy Commissioner who gave some very helpful advice.But I do just want to comment on the changes around the census—just to correct the record here around what actually did happen in select committee—because the former speaker a member of that committee the Hon Michael Woodhouse did raise questions around what would happen for Census 2023 and as a result of that we now have this amendment in the bill to ensure that we have the flexibility required if we need to delay the census. And we came to a pragmatic flexible amendment to the bill just noting that the committee in its deliberations on a number of matters including this bill has had the delivery of Census 2023 at the forefront of its mind including an assurance that we have the resources to deliver on census so that we don't end up with the challenges that came about last time due to funding cuts made to the delivery of census by the previous Government that we inherited. It's important to put that on record because one of the reasons for the importance of this bill is to ensure that we are able to deliver on census that the census collects the appropriate data that we need.Once further comment I just want to make is around the recognition of Māori data and Māori statistics in this bill which is an incredible step forward for us and we heard from a number of Māori Statisticians who made very important and useful contributions. So this bill is a very very useful one for the delivery of the census and many other parts of our statistics framework and on that note I commend the bill to the House.
Halbert ShananSHANAN HALBERT (Labour—Northcote): Thank you Mr Speaker and it's good to be the final speaker on this particular bill the Electricity Industry Amendment Bill. I go back to listening to the last speaker and the last National speaker who I share the North Shore with. As you're driving north on the motorway of Auckland across the North Shore on the left-hand side is hope optimism and action and on the right-hand side is negativity status quo and normality and that's what I'm hearing in the House tonight. What I hear from the Opposition is no-action National. They are opposing this particular bill for no particular reason.What this bill does is it is about ensuring that our electricity is set up for our future—our future generations—and we know in a huge city like Tāmaki-makau-rau that we have to plan now in order to deliver for our future generations. I want to know based on Mr Watts says when is it a power grab from the Minister when this bill is about fairness for the electricity sector and most of all for consumers? That is not a power grab; that is enabling people to have their say. They are the consumer and they deserve that particular right. This bill is about fairness it's about ensuring that people get a better say and it's about preparing for the future. So without further ado positively optimistically and passionately I commend this bill to the House.
Boyack RachelRACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you Mr Speaker. It's a pleasure to take a short call on the Electricity Industry Amendment Bill and I'd like to start by giving a little shout-out to a distributer in my region as well: Network Tasman. I must admit that it covers part of my colleague Damien O'Connor's electorate in West Coast - Tasman and a little bit of mine in Nelson but actually some of us in Nelson are just past the boundary of Network Tasman and we are a little bit jealous not able to be part of the small distributor of Network Tasman. They do an amazing job and one of the things they do is give rebates to customers regularly—which I miss out on—and regularly contribute into our community organisations. So it's an opportunity to give a little shout-out to them because as the former speaker my colleague here Angela Roberts noted this bill is around approving competition particularly for smaller operators in this industry and new entrants as well to ensure that they can get a fair go. There are a couple of things in the select committee report I wanted to point to with the first being that the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee did in my view an outstanding job. I'd just like to note the work of the chair Jamie Strange and other members on that committee. One of the changes was around ensuring that the Act appropriately reflected the definition of an industry participant" so that it wasn't limited as to who may end up potentially having a penalty if they breach the code. The other was around improving some of the enforcement provisions including increasing the maximum penalty from $200000 to $2 million and having penalties as well when people are playing a bit and are playing for time so that those people would have an extra penalty for every day that a breach continued. So there were some really good changes the select committee made and I just want to acknowledge the work that they did. This is a great bill. It's concerning to hear that the ACT Party wants to sell off our power assets again and it will interesting to hear whether National supports that or not but we sure don't on this side of the House. So I commend this bill to the House."
Roberts AngelaANGELA ROBERTS (Labour): It's my pleasure this evening to take a short call and reflect on how this is going to improve the energy market and look after the little people. It's wonderful to take an opportunity to shout out to the mighty little Lines Company in the King Country. And what they do when they discover that there's a household that's struggling to pay their bill they wrap around that household and they check in on them and they find out what's going on. And they support that household because it's a really really good indicator that you've got a household that's struggling if they can't pay their bills. But not all of the players and not all of the participants in the market in the energy market are like that.I'm really pleased to see that this will strengthen the consumer voice. It's going to clarify their regulatory powers with regards to the little guy. Those of us who especially live in quite isolated communities we're quite used to the power going out. We've got our good stock of candles and we've got our transistor radios with our batteries in them all set to go. So you know we're really aware of how important it is that the little guy gets looked after in this situation.It was great to hear from the other side of the House from ACT that they supported this bill. I was really excited and then to hear them say but they didn't like the bit where we actually looked after the consumer. And the thing about electricity it isn't just about the market and efficiency. This is really important stuff and it's failing. So we need to support everyone who's involved to do the right thing.It isn't just about consumers; it is about communities. And because of this this bill will help more of the companies to be like The Lines Company. And as a result I'm very pleased to commend this bill to the House.
Bennett GlenGLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth): Kia ora Mr Speaker. Thank you so much. Before I start I just want to acknowledge International Day Against Homophobia Transphobia and Biphobia. It's lovely to be in a Parliament and be in a country where we can commemorate those things and have our flags proudly flying on the forecourt of Parliament. So thank you to this Parliament and to this nation for your support.But as this piece of legislation is moving through this evening it's been interesting to see the jabs and the gibes and the to-ing and fro-ing and a bit of challenge a bit of fight going on—and that was just between the ACT Party and the National Party on this. They seem to have some little things going on there with each other. So it's been blissful to watch and to experience this evening.But this piece of legislation the Electricity Industry Amendment Bill is something that obviously I was part of—the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee—and it was challenging listening to many of the submissions that were made. A couple of times across the floor this evening it was talked about—why is there a need for a strengthening in the consumer voice; what's the point of doing that? When at select committee the New Zealand Council of Christian Social Services and when the Salvation Army that comes in and says we need to do this that we need to make sure that checks and balances are in place to protect consumers then I think this piece of legislation is fit for purpose.I'm glad that as we move forwards to the future—and of course technologies are changing as has been said already in this space. I come from the sunniest city—in the country—of New Plymouth.Hon Member: Oh no you don't.GLEN BENNETT: I do. As I get around my sunny city I think of the needs in terms of solar and investment in solar and ensuring the wind and offshore wind and what is coming—what is already here but what is coming. So I'm glad to support the fact that we're providing an effective regulatory framework for the electricity industry. And we need to work on—Hon Members: Regulatory.GLEN BENNETT: —English was never my best subject. But I support this legislation and I commend it to the House.
Chen NaisiNAISI CHEN (Labour): Thank you Madam Speaker. It's pretty disappointing to hear the last two contributions from the other side of the House especially from two members Gerry Brownlee and Stuart Smith who don't sit on the great Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee that is ably chaired by Jamie Strange. And I do want to acknowledge our chairperson on that select committee and I want to acknowledge the collegial nature in which we work in that select committee trying to make each bill that comes through our select committee better. I am absolutely proud of the changes that we've made to this bill to make sure that we are looking after all of the consumers within our electricity market. There is one thing that I do agree with the Hon Gerry Brownlee: he's saying that history is important and I do want to go back to 2018. Back then when the Minister of Energy and Resources had commissioned the independent review of New Zealand's electricity market the electricity price review the EPR and they had come back to us with the following recommendations that I want to reiterate to the House. They suggested amongst other things the Electricity Authority's work on transmission pricing the new Interim Climate Change Committee's work on how to reach 100 percent renewable electricity by 2035 and the Productivity Commission's low-emissions economy inquiry. So they had to consider all of those things in there and then they came back with the actual recommendations to establish an interim Consumer Advocacy Council and a permanent council within 18 months and we're going to do that through this bill to ensure regulators listen to consumers and to define energy hardship. I'm proud to take a call in a week where we've just released our climate action plan and our emission targets. This bill will be another step in terms of us achieving that low emission economy that we actually on this side of the House have ambitions for and that we will deliver. So on that note I commend this bill to the House.
Strange JamieJAMIE STRANGE (Labour—Hamilton East): Thank you Madam Speaker for the opportunity to take a call on this piece of legislation at the second reading. I'd like to acknowledge the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee of which I am the chair for the work that they've done on this piece of legislation. I'd like to acknowledge the Minister the Hon Dr Megan Woods for bringing this bill to the House the staff—who work tirelessly in this place with a lot of that work unseen and I'd like to acknowledge them—and the submitters who submitted on this bill. Minister Dr David Clark in his opening speech on behalf of the Minister outlined some of the submissions that came forward and some of the changes that the committee made. The Minister highlighted that those changes were made unanimously within the committee and I confirm that that was the case. There was unanimous support for those changes across all parties. In 2019 the electricity price review found that smaller consumers struggled to make their voices heard and influence the electricity sector. Obstacles included the sector's complexity consumers' lack of resources and cultural differences and language barriers. We have a relatively small country here and with small countries and small markets there can often be a move towards anti-competitive behaviour. I believe that it is the Government's role to ensure that we have competition in all of our markets and one of those markets is the electricity sector. As a Government it behoves us to ensure that that competition is there. Our view is that this piece of legislation brings more competition to the electricity sector and that will ensure that consumers benefit ultimately from that competition. I'm not going to take too much more time but I will just touch on the aspect around technological advances. The Minister mentioned it in his speech and this bill highlights the need for more adaptive regulation as emerging technologies arise. All sectors have emerging technologies and the electricity sector has a number of emerging technologies. It's important that we can adapt to those technologies and this bill will give the authority greater flexibility to respond quickly if necessary to develop rules that can respond if existing participants use monopoly or market power deliberately or inadvertently to deter competitors from entering the market for such products and services or to disadvantage those within their market. So that just highlights one example of the importance of having that competition in the market. It is the Government's role to ensure that competition remains and basically this bill ensures that the competition does remain. Thank you.
Lubeck MarjaMARJA LUBECK (Labour): Thank you Madam Speaker. It's a pleasure to be the 12th speaker in the third reading debate of the Maritime Powers Bill. First of all of course—as the person bringing all the threads of the previous speakers together—I'd like to acknowledge the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee who received seven submissions on this bill including from the Privacy Commissioner the New Zealand Law Society and the New Zealand Council of Civil Liberties. We heard my colleague Vanushi Walters discuss some of those human rights and New Zealand New Zealand Bill of Rights Act aspects that the committee considered in those submissions.I wasn't a member of this committee but it's obvious that from the previous speeches the whole committee has done a very good job in addressing some of the concerns and coming to a good consensus on this bill. As my colleague Chris Penk the previous speaker already said the details of this bill have been well traversed and then he went over them all again—ha ha!—which I won't do because I think it's been pretty obvious that the core of this bill really is that it's very important that New Zealand is able to respond to those criminal activities that have been spoken about with regards to smuggling of people; and illicit drugs arms and wildlife trafficking. And my colleague Vanushi Walters mentioned the law in the shadows" which is the first time I heard that term used.So that is exactly what this bill achieves. At the same time it adopts a very well-established clear standards of criminal procedure from New Zealand law. So as the Minister already said this bill and the way that it's drafted is fair reasonable and proportionate. Therefore I commend it to the House. Thank you."
Halbert ShananSHANAN HALBERT (Labour—Northcote): Thank you Madam Speaker. I loved the analogies around the House that my colleague Rachel Brooking mentioned this afternoon in particular to the Maritime Powers Bill that we are discussing this afternoon. What has become most apparent to me this afternoon is how much what happens out on our waters impacts our lives here in New Zealand here on land. But this particular bill that we're discussing talks about the provision to New Zealand law enforcement agencies of powers to enforce elements of New Zealand's criminal law in international waters. And what's very very important in that it stands out to me that it provides powers to respond to a range of criminal offending in international waters and some of those dark things that we mentioned earlier on are such things as the offences that take place on board a New Zealand - flagged vessel in international waters and the offences that take place on board a foreign-flagged vessel or stateless vessel in international waters for which New Zealand has extraterritorial jurisdiction and situations where an alleged offender or evidence of criminal offending is located on a New Zealand foreign or stateless vessel in international waters. Those things obviously are very very important to the protection of people in this country and our local communities.We have a proud tradition of an independent foreign policy with a focus on promoting multilateralism human rights and the international rule of law. And can I take a moment just to acknowledge the Hon Nanaia Mahuta the Minister who is responsible for this particular bill and to extend my gratitude for the thorough work that has been done by the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee. I commend this bill to the House.
Brooking RachelRACHEL BROOKING (Labour): Thank you Madam Speaker for the opportunity to take this short call on the Maritime Powers Bill. What an afternoon it's been. With the different speeches today we've heard from the Minister—she used the phrase pursue offending vessel"—and then we heard from Vanushi Walters about the "law in the shadows" and then just now we've heard from Joseph Mooney about "non-reporting dark vessels". This is an interesting topic about enforcing criminal law on international waters. This is described in the purpose in clause 3 to "(a) provide clear powers for the enforcement of New Zealand's criminal law in international waters; and (b) uphold New Zealand's rights and obligations under international law particularly the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea consistent with international human rights". So this law applies to both New Zealand boats in international waters and international boats within waters where New Zealand has jurisdiction. An interesting feature of this bill is that the consent of the Attorney-General is needed for prosecution. We've heard that the bill is consistent with both international law and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. It's always pleasing to speak on a bill where the select committee has been unanimous in its changes to the bill. So for those reasons I'd like to commend this bill this new law that enables the enforcement of existing laws to the House."
Walters Vanushi; Salesa JennyVANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour): Thank you Madam Speaker. In some human rights circles when we talk about the law of the sea we talk about the law in the shadows. The reality is that it's the law in the shadows because in many parts of the world that's where human rights abuses often occur. We read about it when in 2018 Greenpeace published a report about those employed on fishing vessels off the coast of Taiwan. And the truth is that the shadows exist here in New Zealand as well because we simply lack the ability to exercise all our enforcement powers at sea.I do think that a lot of people assume that offences don't happen in New Zealand's waters but in my first reading speech on this bill I referenced the case of the Shin Ji and Oyang where crew members alleged in New Zealand courts that they were subject to physical psychological and sexual abuse and that they were subject to inhumane treatment. That case led to the passing of the fisheries amendment Act in 2014 and changes to our courts' jurisdiction over crew members of foreign vessels. And there are other examples of serious offences occurring at sea. I note that in 2020 the Ministry for Primary Industries conducted a report into the treatment of observers—those with observer status—and the potential unlawful conduct against them.So we know this is a gap we know this is an issue and I would like to thank the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee for their work. I understand that there were a modest number of submissions in relation to this bill but they contain some meat to them including the New Zealand Council for Civil Liberties' submission and the New Zealand Law Society submission both of which concerned the treatment of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. And where I land is similar to where the select committee landed in regards to those New Zealand Bill of Rights Act issues—that the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act governs its own application into other pieces of legislation so there is no need for it to explicitly be there and by doing so it would call into question the applications of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act to other pieces of legislation as well.So just again I say that I do believe this is a critical bill. It is wonderful to see it after its substantial journey through the House and being hopefully passed today. I commend this bill to the House.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the motion be agreed to.
Omer IbrahimIBRAHIM OMER (Labour): Thank you Madam Speaker. I rise to take a call on the Maritime Powers Bill in its third reading. The Labour Party has a proud history of promoting independent foreign policy with a focus on multilateralism human rights and international rule of law. This is clearly set in our manifesto. And these values are then consolidated.We are living in the era of globalisation where people and goods move around quite easily and this often causes a lot of damage and poses a significant threat to the national security of the nations. New Zealand is not immune to this. So we are a trading nation with a significant growing marine economy and a domestic market increasingly reliant on the connectivity that the sea provides for global supply and the value change through the shipping routes.Therefore this bill will allow New Zealand to respond to criminal activities on our shores and our oceans and beyond the New Zealand territory including our exclusive economic zone such as for example the smuggling of people illicit drugs and arms wildlife trafficking including trafficking of our taonga which is our native reptiles and human trafficking. We see from the police reports that millions of dollars of drugs are being seized from criminals. So this bill couldn't come in the right time. So to be able to do their job obviously our law enforcement agencies such as police the New Zealand Defence Force and Customs need the proper tools to be able to do their job properly and to protect our maritime territory.So the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee received seven submissions on the bill including one from the Privacy Commissioner and the New Zealand Law Society and the New Zealand Council of Civil Liberties as well. The four submitters expressed their support for the bill through their evidence. So obviously this bill is consistent with our rights and obligations under the international law particularly the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and international human rights obligations. So I'd like to thank the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee for the good work that they have done scrutinising this bill and I'd like to thank the Minister for bringing this bill into the House. It's a good bill. I commend it to the House.
Leary IngridINGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): It is a pleasure to take a call on this as a member of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee who did sit through the submissions on this bill. And I can tell this House and you Madam Speaker that we shared the same interest in looking at the powers around search stopping seizure detaining without warrant and also actually the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. I think there was a deal of consensus on the select committee about wanting to get assurances on those elements and I can assure you that we are in agreement that those assurances are there and that the legislation is safe in those respects.So just recapping really about what this legislation is which is about ensuring that New Zealand can act to disrupt criminal activity before it reaches our shores. Looking at the other legislation where powers to stop search seize and detain are present that is the Maritime Crimes Act Customs and Excise Act Fisheries Act Wildlife Act Trade in Endangered Species Act and in particular the Customs and Excise Act Schedule 5A that went through this House in 2018. So that's an example of recent legislation where detaining and so on without warrant has been found to be acceptable and it recognises that there are risks at sea around personal safety around particularly the presentation of evidence and the ability of somebody on board a ship to be able to simply throw it overboard and get rid of the evidence. Also what was told to us in the select committee was that in these types of situations often it's not just one enforcement agency that's acting; it can be several in concert and that's what we would expect.In terms of the oversight the courts will play a significant role as well in oversight because these powers will be used presumably to prosecute cases and so the enforcement agencies will want to get that right. They are not cheap operations to execute and they will want to ensure that their evidence is accepted. Also all the enforcement officers who use these powers will be required to report to the Secretary of Foreign Affairs and Trade. So on that note I can assure you that we shared a similar concern for human rights for making sure that the legislation is within what is acceptable when warrants are not required. We feel very strongly that this piece of legislation does meet that threshold and therefore I commend it to the House.
Muller ToddTODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you Madam Speaker and it's a great pleasure to rise and say a few words on the Maritime Powers Bill this afternoon at our third reading. And can I acknowledge at the outset the considered response from the Minister in her legislative statement outlining I think a fair assessment of the points of contention that existed around the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee as they reflected on the detail of this bill. I did not sit in the committee but have had conversations with those who have and it became very clear that there was pretty strong support around the table for the changes that were suggested in the first reading particularly creating a jurisdiction over any ship in international or foreign waters and allowing essentially New Zealand to apply its territorial law in its exclusive economic zone. Where it became pretty easy to agree was the role of enforcement officers such as police and customs officers. Where it became more difficult was in the space of the Department of Conservation rangers and endangered species officers. So as I'm sure a number of my colleagues will talk to in more detail shortly the National Party members on that committee sought assurances essentially on the use of those powers from officials and there were a number of technical amendments that were made. And I think it is useful just to reflect on some of the Minister's very explicit comments in the legislative statement with respect to safeguards—that they need to be fair and reasonable and proportional—that the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act needed to apply as you would expect; that there needed to be a clear evidential threshold for any action from New Zealand law enforcement authorities in this context; that there needed to be at its core a test of reasonableness; and what was important for us is that there was a transparent obligation on enforcement agencies around the use of their powers in terms of reporting each time that they did to relevant individuals such as the Commissioner of Police and of course the consent of the Attorney-General should any further action in terms of those arrests be pursued. So overall we are in a position now to support this. It clearly provides an opportunity for our law enforcement agents to protect New Zealand's interests in our exclusive economic zone more effectively. Of course this is just one part of the story. The other part is the actual technical capacity of law enforcement to actually be out in the appropriately spec'd vessels to be able to keep pace with and actually apprehend those that they have concerns about and that is the part of this which is a critical test of the Government—their commitment to ensuring that actually there is the appropriate personnel and vessel capability to be able to ensure that these powers can actually be applied in any meaningful sense. So I look forward of course to the contributions of other colleagues who sat through the committee to perhaps speak in more detail of those technical amendments that give us the comfort now to support this legislation at the third reading stage. Thank you.
Sosene Lemauga Lydia; Salesa JennyLEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour): I rise in the House and thank you for the time to make a contribution to speak to the bill. I want to thank Minister Parker for his summary last week and chair the Hon Eugene Sage for the Environment Committee. I do want to thank the staff involved in drafting and putting together the amendments and my appreciation to the members of the committee and all the submitters that took the time to put forward their thoughts raising concerns through submissions to be considered on elements of the bill.As I have just joined the Environment Committee recently I've been reading quickly to understand the purpose of the bill and why it is important to have a much clearer position on the proposed legislation to help clarify and empower those involved in the work. The bill makes improvements to the Act in the three main categories: one enabling the Environmental Protection Authority otherwise known as the EPA to make better use of information from international regulators; two making other improvements to the reassessment process; and three to make technical amendments.The amendments proposed are needed in this bill to enable and allow these changes. The Environmental Protection Authority otherwise known as the EPA is the regulator responsible for making decisions on whether to approve new hazardous controls and new organisms and to manage the risks and safeguard our people in the environment from approved hazardous substances. This transition allows the Government a fair and equitable process as we must think forward in the future of our people and prioritise this bill. The current system is time-consuming and resource intensive and not fit for purpose. The amendments will improve a simplified process.To conclude the bill will improve the efficiency and speed up the measures of assessment and reassessment of hazardous substances and in particular the EPA will be able to publish a work plan for reassessments to increase transparency and improve the wellbeing of New Zealanders. I commend this bill to the House.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the motion be agreed to.Motion agreed to.Bill read a second time.
Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Hazardous Substances Assessments) Amendment Bill — Second Reading
Muller ToddTODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you Madam Speaker. It's a great delight to be standing up here speaking on this bill. Hon Scott Simpson: An unexpected delight. TODD MULLER: An unexpected delight and I'm sure David Bennett will be listening intensely. Look I'm only going to speak for a few minutes. Clearly this has a lot of support around the House. The Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) has a critical role again ensuring that science is applied to challenging hazardous organisms and that it is done in a way that gives the community confidence but also allows appropriate chemicals to be used. If there are—as there are—global regulators with significant repute who have gone through a process of assessment in a way that the EPA feels comfortable with then we should be able to use that data in a more efficient way to reach one would assume pretty similar outcomes. So the efficiency that is embedded in this is positive from the National Party perspective. It has taken of course far too long for this to be prioritised up frankly a pretty thin Order Paper and for it to meander its way through select committee and now of course we have to endure Government speeches all speaking in earnest support of it. But frankly this is the sort of thing that a Government could put a shoulder to the wheel and get progressed far quicker than has been the case. Not this Government of course; that Government takes over in October next year. But we do support it and I guess a parting comment is that one does hope that as the EPA brings these new efficient processes to its deliberations it remains focused on ensuring that science and the truth that is inherent in science and data informs its decisions and that it doesn't get captured by the democratisation of science that appears on most Facebook feeds that come across my path—or they certainly did when I was the climate change spokesperson—that seem to suggest that we're all experts in our own lunchtime when it comes to interpreting science. The EPA have a critical role in ensuring that chemicals and other hazardous substances are effectively monitored but can be used in certain circumstances and science and data must sit at the core of their deliberations. This bill will one would hope make those deliberations just that much more efficient. I commend the bill to the House.
Coffey TamatiTAMATI COFFEY (Labour): Dull but boring" is what the MP for Coromandel said about this bill and there is an element of truth about it. But the Environmental Protection Authority did bring it before the committee they did talk to us about how there are lengthy and very costly processes involved in the assessment and reassessment of chemicals. This amendment is about making sure that we're not having to reinvent the wheel every single time that we can actually rely on those international regulators that obviously they've got similar systems to us that we can compare but also that they have information that we can readily access. And "we" being the EPA—the Environmental Protection Authority. They do a great job. We hope that passing this bill and the support that it's getting around this House is going to enable them to be able to get on with the job of assessing and reassessing those substances. And we heard at the committee that in some of those instances some of the chemicals that they're reassessing are actually better safer chemicals than the ones that we've got at the moment. So we need to streamline that process. They talked to us about the lengthy delays; hopefully this is going to do away that. I commend it to the House."
Leary IngridINGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): This bill is all about efficiency and as other speakers have said is about improving the chemical assessment processes by the Environmental Protection Authority. The hazardous substances are classified in that way looking at their properties but also looking at the level of hazard that they entail. I'm told there are 3500 individual approvals currently before the authority.What this legislation is really doing is saying that there is good data out there and where that data can be verified and where there are good international comparatives let's efficiently use that information to make some quick assessments so that resources can be put appropriately into investigating the areas that might require more examination—where perhaps there is less data available where there are conflicting stories around that data or perhaps where there is different scientific analysis of the data.So it's a bill that's about efficiency; it's also one that enables us to move as the science moves. It enables the authority to take into account latest scientific data. So it's a good piece of legislation. It's a good way of getting the best out of taxpayer money and it's also going to contribute to the wellbeing of New Zealanders because obviously we don't want New Zealanders exposed unnecessarily to hazard from hazardous substances. So I commend it to the House.
Simmonds PennyPENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): Thank you Madam Speaker. I'm very pleased to rise and speak in support of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Hazardous Substances Assessments) Amendment Bill. This bill of course has been to the Environment Committee and they have come back with a number of very sensible amendments to it. The purpose of the bill is a very worthwhile objective: to improve the assessment and reassessment of hazardous substances by the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA). The EPA of course is the regulator of some 150000 hazardous substances so it's not an insignificant role by any means that the EPA undertakes.National supports this bill because it's a very sensible bill. It's looking for efficiency. It's looking to save time. It's looking to save money. It's looking to reduce duplication and to produce better outcomes. Those listening could be forgiven for thinking the Labour Government has turned over a new leaf because being sensible looking for efficiencies saving time and money and looking for better outcomes has not been a feature of this Labour Government. But before we get overly excited about this turning over of a leaf I should mention that it actually was the EPA that initiated these changes and initiated this bill. The EPA understood that it's in everyone's best interests that our hazard classifications are accurate and up to date. The EPA realised that to simplify the process to update the hazard classification of substances and the corresponding controls based on information from international regulators was a good thing to do. The EPA realised that they should try and gain greater efficiency to our assessment and reassessment processes for hazardous substances. National understands entirely the rationale that it does seem to be a practical solution a practical proposal in this legislation to do all those things. We know that in other jurisdictions where information has been gathered where money and resources have been spent and where we align with and recognise their scientific credibility it makes absolute sense not to duplicate the work that has already been done but rather to contextualise it and to cut out some of the duplicated process here in New Zealand. This bill has somewhat unkindly been dubbed dull but worthy and so with that I commend this bill to the House.
Kanongata'a-Suisuiki AnahilaANAHILA KANONGATA'A-SUISUIKI (Labour): Kia ora e te Mana Whakawā. Always an honour and a privilege to make a contribution in the House—yes very briefly today on the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (Hazardous Substances Assessments) Amendment Bill. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Minister the Hon David Parker. We always appreciate it when he visits the select committee—the way he conducts himself and he allows us to have our opinions raised. So I want to acknowledge the Minister on his leadership.As the Minister has said this bill improves the way chemicals are assessed or reassessed by the Environmental Protection Authority. I would like to acknowledge also the chairwomanship of the chair Eugenie Sage. She always does a really great job and involves us all making great inputs. As we've heard from members about the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act (HASNO Act) 1996 can I remind the House that the purpose of HASNO Act 1996 is to protect the environment and the health and safety of people and communities by preventing or managing the adverse effects of hazardous substances and new organisms.I want to acknowledge the 28 interested groups and individuals who made submissions but I acknowledge the submission made by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. He did make seven key points in his submission but I'd like to conclude by acknowledging that he did make key points on new provisions to be published. What the bill does is it will provide efficiency and speed of assessments and reassessments of hazardous substances. The bill will also improve transparency in particular by requiring the Environmental Protection Authority to publish a work plan for assessments. I commend this bill to the House. Mālō.
Ministerial Statement — Climate Change Response Act 2002—Statutory Emissions Reduction Plan
Shaw JamesHon JAMES SHAW (Minister of Climate Change): Yeah thank you Mr Speaker. It is with great pleasure that I rise to exercise right of reply. So I'd just like to start by addressing some of the concerns raised by Scott Simpson in his address before. I've always found it slightly confusing that the National Party are against corporate welfare for industry but for it when it comes for agriculture. So I'm looking forward to hearing what their alternatives are there. He criticised the strategies and the policies and decisions that have yet to be made and the actions that are in the emissions reduction plan. There are 300 different actions policies and strategies in the emissions reduction plan which is precisely 300 more than we've heard from the National Party over the last several years.I completely agree that it is within the—in fact the remit of Parliamentary democracy is to test the quality of the decisions that the Government and its agencies are making and I welcome that. But as the Hon Dr Woods said if you're going to sign up to the targets you have to have an alternate plan if you don't agree with this one. So far we haven't seen anything.The ACT Party is now proposing climate change policies so that they can pretend that they're not climate deniers whilst also pretending that they are. So one of my favourite policies that they've proposed is the idea that you can reduce emissions in line with 1.5 degrees by changing the Parliamentary sitting calendar which is perhaps the least credible idea I have ever heard anyone ever propose for how you could cut emissions and reduce the chances of catastrophic climate change. But at least they're in the game. At least they're in the game and proposing ideas which is more than we have actually yet heard from the National Party over the course of this debate.I do want to thank Te Paati Māori for their stance and being one of the voices for actually going further and faster than we have yet done as a country. And I want to assure the member for Te Paati Māori that actually the plan does address the concerns that she's talking about and I'm very happy to sit down with her at some length on that. It's not job done. The plan by itself will not cut emissions; that is the job that we have yet to do but at least we are now in the game.