edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Ross Jami-Lee; Mallard TrevorSITTINGS OF THE HOUSEJAMI-LEE ROSS (Junior Whip—National): I seek leave for the House to adjourn.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Is there any objection to that? There is objection.
Mahuta NanaiaHon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato): I want to thank all the members who participated in the debate and to some extent to apologise to you Mr Assistant Speaker for the broad berth with which I launched into this really narrowly defined bill. I want to respond to some of the comments that were raised through the debate.In the first instance clause 7 in the way in which it amends Schedule 1 of the Ombudsmen Act is designed to do exactly what the member Paul Foster-Bell referred to which is to address the issue of bullying and to ensure that the Ombudsmen Act and the Official Information Act can have oversight on issues such as that some of which I have referred to in my opening statements. When the Parliamentary Under-Secretary David Seymour identified that he could not understand why that is in the bill he obviously did not understand that the select committee process amended the bill to ensure that suspensions would be included but bullying would not and the financial operations of charter schools would not. In the first instance that is a response there.There were also statements made by Government members that the bill will not improve the quality of education. Well it was not designed to actually. It was designed to ensure that greater transparency and accountability could be gained through opening access to the oversight roles of the Ombudsmen Act and the Official Information Act. That in itself will give parents and students the assurance that they can ask questions when they need to gather information when they have to and that it will cover areas that currently the Education Review Office and the Ministry of Education do not cover.This has been a wide-ranging debate. I hoped that the pragmatic limited nature of the suggested amendment would ensure that charter schools would be treated equally to public schools—and why not? When we see that the range of per-student funding ranges from $9000 to $40000 in a charter school and on average $7000 in a public and State-integrated school—there is the level of difference. It is really important to ensure that when people are looking at comparing apples with apples you see the stark difference of investment in charter schools and therefore some of the outcomes there and also what is needing to be done within the public education system.I do not want to take up too much more time in responding. It is a limited amendment that is being proposed. It is one that is well endorsed and supported by the Ombudsman. I was being a little bit trite in trying to seek leave and referred to the submission of the Ombudsman to the Education Amendment Bill which was made in January 2013. But if anyone has time to read it in conjunction with the amendment proposed in my bill they will see that it is absolutely congruent with what the Ombudsman had suggested. It does not depart from the intent there. Thank you for the opportunity to put this bill to the House to be considered. I recommend that it be supported.
Films Videos and Publications Classification (Interim Restriction Order Classification) Amendment Bill — First Reading
Coates BarryBARRY COATES (Green): Mr Deputy Speaker tēnā koe. I rise to address this bill the Films Videos and Publications Classification (Interim Restriction Order Classification) Amendment Bill. One of the pleasures that I am finding as a new parliamentarian is the need to go out and do a little bit of research on the bills that come before us and I have learnt a lot about censorship in New Zealand in understanding the context for this particular bill. It is timely for this bill to be introduced. Censorship is 100 years old in New Zealand. It was introduced in 1916 in response to churches local boards education boards and social action organisations which were concerned in those days about the advent of film as well as books.There is a recent exhibition by Ngā Taonga Sound and Vision called Censored: 100 Years of Film Censorship in New Zealand and that traced the history of censorship in New Zealand back to Battleship Potemkin a 1925 film and one of the greatest films rated of all time which was censored; followed by All Quiet on the Western Front which was regarded as anti-war propaganda; followed by films such as The Wild One in 1953 starring Marlon Brando—some of us may remember that—and up to Mad Max in 1979. These are all films that were for varying periods of time censored.Our censorship laws and practices have evolved significantly since then. It has not only been films that have been censored; there have been publications that have a political nature as well. During the 1951 waterfront dispute for example it was illegal to publish material in support of the waterside strikers. So we are seeing now censorship having evolved into its current form and we have talked about the controversy around Ted Dawe's book Into the River.I will join my Green Party colleague in welcoming this bill and congratulations to Chris Bishop on having it drawn. However it feels a little bit like we are fiddling while Rome burns given that actually technology has taken over the broadcasting and consumption of images and words in a way that is very hard for us to keep up with. The changes in technology have been quite profound. These days kids can access material from around the world in real time across an amazing variety of media and we need to be aware of what dangers there are for children for adults in exposure to some of this information on the internet. I think that we have been focusing excessively on films videos books and now perhaps games without actually understanding that this is a moving picture and in fact the landscape is shifting very quickly.So the question is whether our censorship processes and laws are able to deal adequately with the modern technologies. I think that is the relevant question for us in looking at censorship issues. We need to update our legislation and we need to update our practices. I fear that this bill will not take us far in that direction. As a minor tweaking of the current law we are happy to support it but it seems like rather a shame to be spending a significant amount of parliamentary time when in fact the real challenges are elsewhere. Thank you.
Rurawhe AdrianADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour—Te Tai Hauāuru): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare otirā ki a tātou katoa i tēnei pō tēnei te mihi ake ki a tātou. [Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker but at the same time to us all this evening I commend us.]We have heard about heroes on horses and winning Lotto; I was wondering for a moment what bill we were actually debating. So how about a bit of kaupapa Māori just for the mix? I want to congratulate Chris Bishop on having a second bill drawn from the biscuit tin. I think there is some real merit to this particular bill and I want to commend him for bringing it here although I do note the contribution of others as well. I want to support my colleague Clare Curran in this respect.We live in quite a different world. The 14-year-olds of today live in a different world from the one we all grew up in I can assure everyone in the House. I think the challenges for young people around what they read are highly influenced by what happens overseas particularly on television and on the internet. In a way despite this particular bill addressing one instance that we are aware of something that has gone wrong do we honestly believe in this House that 14-year-olds are not accessing information and quite a lot of other things through the internet and through television?Even on mainstream television—and for those teenagers who have access to pay TV they get to see adverts from overseas on those particular channels that do not comply with the restrictions within New Zealand television. So they get to see things that they might not otherwise get to see on New Zealand broadcast television. I agree with Tracey Martin; I think we do need to have a wider conversation around all of these things.As I said I commend the member for bringing this bill to the House because I think it has sparked that new conversation that has to happen. I look forward to seeing the submissions that come in on this bill. I think there are potentially quite a number of sector groups and organisations individuals who will put in submissions on this bill and quite rightly so.I will not carry on for too much longer. I did start by saying that I would make a contribution around what would be a Māori world view of this issue. I kind of reflect and put this position that on these issues information is power—information and correct information—and it is really important that we make certain that all of the information around this particular bill is discussed openly and transparently. I support this bill. Thank you.
Pugh MaureenMAUREEN PUGH (National): It is my pleasure to stand in support of the Films Videos and Publications Classification (Interim Restriction Order Classification) Amendment Bill tonight in its first reading in the House. This bill seeks to amend the Films Videos and Publications Classification Act of 1993 by providing the High Court and the president of the Film and Literature Board of Review with some flexibility around making interim restriction orders. The situation arose as we have heard already tonight when the book Into the River found itself banned completely for 6 weeks after going around the circus of review and restriction review and restriction.This is a very simple amendment. The current system unfortunately is extremely black and white like a good old movie and coming to the rescue like a great hero in a black and white movie is Chris Bishop. He has recognised the simple amendment that is needed just to bring some common sense into the system. He has ridden in on his white steed and he has got the solution for us all. The only interim option currently available is to completely ban a publication or to leave it unrestricted. There is no discretion available. This bill provides for applying classifications that could restrict the publication based on age or a particular class of people such as M which is suitable for mature audiences or perhaps R14 which of course is restricted to those aged 14 and over. This simple amendment gives the president of the Film and Literature Board of Review a couple of practical tools in the available tool kit so that common sense can prevail thereby avoiding the situation that found the book Into the River completely banned for a 6-week period. I look forward to this bill making its way through to the Justice and Electoral Committee. That will be ably overseen by its chair Jacqui Dean. I congratulate my colleague Mr Chris Bishop on his initiative in recognising the need for this bill to come to this House.I will just mention very briefly the sections that will be inserted. Clause 4 will insert a new section 49A. That will allow the president of the board to restrict availability to a particular age or class of person or for a particular purpose. Clause 5 will insert a new section 67A to allow the High Court when making an interim restriction order on appeal to restrict availability to a particular age or class of person or for a particular purpose. Sometimes as we have seen in this House it just takes a little bit of common sense to bring around some very workable legislation. It is very easy for us sometimes to put it in the too-hard basket but my friend and colleague the able Chris Bishop has used this opportunity to bring this legislation into the House. I have great pleasure in supporting him and in commending this bill to the House.
Hayes Joanne; Tisch LindsayJOANNE HAYES (National): I stand to take a short call on this bill which really at the end of the day is basically wasting the House's time because we have already passed the bill for a transitional regional council Environment Canterbury (ECan) and I absolutely support what we have done in doing this. But what the member is trying to do in this bill is trying to usurp the current state by telling those who were democratically elected that that was a waste of their time—it was a waste of their time doing that. That is rubbish. That is an insult to the intelligence of those who actually put themselves forward for the new regional council and at the end of the day to have this bill in the House is an insult to them.We all know why the transitional Environment Canterbury bill was put in. It was because the councillors in 2010 were not living up to the responsibilities that they were given by the people of Canterbury. They were not living up to that and that is why they came to this Government and said: Please intervene. Please replace and put in a team of regional councillors who will actually do the job that we want them to do around water management planning." So we did that and yes we came to 2016 and we said: "Yes we do believe in democracy but it is going to be for this particular regional council a transitional process. It is going to be a transitional process because why throw the bathwater out with the baby. Let's keep some of those councillors from the previous council—the appointments from the Minister let's keep them there—and let's keep that continuity of the work that they have done there on that council to help the people of the region in Canterbury."I do not support this bill. I think it is wasting the time of this House to actually have it here. I think that what we currently have in place the transitional ECan bill will suffice until 2019 when Cantabrians can have their full say on that vote. Thank you.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I call Jan Logie for 15 seconds."
Scott AlastairALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa): Well unfortunately for Mr Winston Peters this bill is redundant. This bill carries no purpose it is not useful and it contributes nothing to any of the property registration—the idea of a register is completely redundant and unnecessary and I will tell you why.First of all we have for the protection of his fear of overseas people owning property the Overseas Investment Office which scrutinises investment in our land. So that is the first thing. We can talk about whether that is a useful office or not and whether it is doing an appropriate job or not but in any case that is its role—to scrutinise overseas investment. Secondly since I imagine this bill was put into the ballot there has been a lot of legislation passed that deals with some of the things that Mr Peters talks about. We have passed I think it is three tranches of legislation that dealt with property speculation essentially. Part of it was the brightline test so that brought in the 2-year time period which clarified what was taxable. We also brought in some information that was required from buyers and sellers of New Zealand land so that is already there. That is there to provide some tax information for the Inland Revenue Department and those people have to provide a bank account number with that information. So they have got to get their IRD number they have got to get a bank account number and this is to go through and protect against the possibility or the opportunity of money-laundering. Those three pieces of legislation have been passed and parts of the legislation were kicked off on 1 October last year.So in my view a lot of the concerns that Mr Peters has have been covered have been taken care of and have been looked after by the passing of those three pieces of tax legislation and as I say by the Overseas Investment Office. If we were to do what has been suggested it would create a whole level of bureaucracy and a whole lot of confusion around who has to register. So does my son who lives overseas have to register his name when he purchases a property in New Zealand?Rt Hon Winston Peters: Yeah he does.ALASTAIR SCOTT: Oh he does? Even though he is a New Zealand passport holder?Rt Hon Winston Peters: That's the law now.ALASTAIR SCOTT: So that is the point. I think there is a whole lot of information that is being made redundant or is unnecessary with the passing of time. So I cannot commend this bill to the House and I do not support this bill.
Urgent Debates Declined — OECD Programme for International Student Assessment 2015 Results—Performance of School Students
Points of Order — Pearl Harbor—75th Anniversary of Japanese Attack
Visitors — Australia—Australian Political Exchange
Carter DavidURGENT DEBATES DECLINEDProgramme for International Student Assessments—Results 2015Mr SPEAKER: I have received a letter from Chris Hipkins seeking to debate under Standing Order 389 the release of the OECD Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) 2015 results on the performance of school students in reading maths and science. The release of the results is a particular case of recent occurrence. As an OECD study there is no ministerial responsibility for the data release but the data deals with matters involving ministerial responsibility.Educational achievement is of fundamental importance and is a matter about which the public needs confidence. An urgent debate on the report on the 2012 PISA data was held in 2013. In that instance the declines in the performance across reading maths and science were larger. I note that the 2015 results reflect relatively small declines in performance when compared with the 2012 data. Given the small movement in the results and the holding of a general debate today I do not consider the matter important enough to warrant the immediate attention of the House by way of urgent debate. The application is therefore declined.
Mark Ron; Carter DavidPOINTS OF ORDERPearl Harbor—75th Anniversary of AttackRON MARK (Deputy Leader—NZ First): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek leave to move a motion without notice and without debate to commemorate the 75th anniversary of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor which falls today.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Carter DavidWEDNESDAY 7 DECEMBER 2016Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.VISITORSAustralia—Delegation Australian Political ExchangeMr SPEAKER: I am sure that members would wish to welcome Mr Samuel Duluk from the Parliament of South Australia and other delegates from the Australian Political Exchange who are present in the gallery.
Tuesday 6 December 2016 (continued on Wednesday 7 December 2016) - Volume 719
Korako NukNUK KORAKO (National): Tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā. Huri noa i Te Whare nei e mihi atu ana ki a koutou katoa. Tēnei te mihi a te whanauka o Te Waka o Te Moana-nui-ā-Kiwa. Ngā mihi.[Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. I acknowledge you all throughout this House. I this kin who belongs to the canoe of the great ocean of Kiwa salute you. Congratulations.]I just want to take a brief call to reiterate what others have said. This is a very sensible bill and I am glad it has revealed widespread support in the House.We are very fortunate in New Zealand to have such wide expanses of preserved wilderness that remain as habitats for our native wildlife. We also owe a lot to previous generations of politicians who have ensured the ongoing protection of these areas through the creation of national parks and other conservation areas and indeed through the work that has been done on breeding programmes eradicating pests and protecting our remaining species.We can also be grateful for the work that the Department of Conservation (DOC) and also its rangers do to maintain and protect our precious conservation areas and native species on a day-to-day basis. So it is appropriate that we should pass this bill that we have in front of us here today and to update the powers of our dedicated DOC rangers and ensure that they can deal appropriately with offenders who could cause harm to protected wildlife.I think it is somewhat perplexing as well that in a country that values our native species and natural areas so highly we need to be dealing with the issue of people who would cause harm to those areas and also to our wildlife. However we have to face the fact that this is a real threat to our wildlife and this bill takes the appropriate steps to deal with that threat. On that note I would like to commend this bill to the House. Kia ora.
Mahuta NanaiaHon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato): In this third reading I want to reiterate Labour's support for this bill and to challenge the Minister on the Government's refusal to accept a very good pragmatic amendment from our colleague David Parker to allow honorary fish and game people to collect date of birth details.You would think it was the end of the world actually to collect date of birth details to enable prosecution to take place should an offence have taken place. This would in fact help rangers. It is a practical amendment. The Government in saying that it would not support the amendment because these people are at arm's length from the Government is a whole lot of hogwash because the extension of the power related only to the collection of date of birth details to help and facilitate prosecution should an offence occur. Although I have heard the explanation given through the Committee stage and in the third reading in this House it still beggars belief to think such an amendment has not been accepted by the Government.With that said the other matters in terms of the extension of powers to full-time rangers is something that is well overdue—60 years overdue I understand in terms of the Wildlife Act in particular. The way in which there is a limited power to arrest and the way that the committee considered these matters in line with the Search and Surveillance Act I think is practical. I know that this particular power would not really be used in a real way unless it was in conjunction with other surveillance activities undertaken perhaps by Customs or Police. I guess when people might read on paper that this is a power to arrest and ask why a ranger would want this particular power it is in conjunction with other activities. In so far as the smuggling and the illegal trading of wildlife species is concerned often at the border is where the alert is raised and you have to track something right through to the offence taking place in order for prosecution evidence to be collected.I do not want to take too long on this third reading. We have made the point about David Parker's Supplementary Order Paper identified that the extension of powers is well overdue. We would have to say in looking at the capacity of the Department of Conservation (DOC) estate and especially when you look at the regional conservancies and tracking the number of rangers from 2011 to 2015 and taking into account the restructuring that has taken place it is clear that the capacity and the responsibility put on DOC rangers has increased over time with little investment in the department. In order for good legislation to be implemented you need the capacity and capability within DOC to be able to carry out those tasks and significantly the support of voluntary organisations honorary roles and functions of groups like Fish and Game New Zealand. We support this bill to third reading.
Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Display of Low-alcohol Beverages and Other Remedial Matters) Amendment Bill — Third Reading
Pugh MaureenMAUREEN PUGH (National): I stand in support of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Display of Low-alcohol Beverages and Other Remedial Matters) Amendment Bill in its third reading here today. This bill simply makes some minor changes to the existing Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act and it is simply addressing technicalities that were causing some confusion for the licensing committees for retailers and for the general public.There were 30 submissions received in response to the Justice and Electoral Committee's work all basically in support of this bill. During the select committee process we also took the opportunity of making a minor amendment to the definition of working day" so that it brought it into line with and made it consistent with the wording in the Holidays (Full Recognition of Waitangi Day and ANZAC Day) Amendment Act 2013 which simply meant that the Monday following a weekend that Waitangi Day or Anzac Day fell on was also considered a holiday.This is a very sensible and a very non-contentious piece of legislation. It does not change the policy intent of the original Act and I commend it to the House."
Browning SteffanSTEFFAN BROWNING (Green): Kia ora. I rise to speak to the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Display of Low-alcohol Beverages and Other Remedial Matters) Amendment Bill. We are supporting this bill and it is very good to see the particular point that low-alcohol beverages will be able to be displayed alongside others. As said in the earlier readings it is very interesting to see the Women's Christian Temperance Union and the Seventh-Day Adventists who are certainly opposed to the consumption of alcohol there with industry wanting the same thing. So there is a lot of sense in that aspect to the improvements on this. One concern that we have had in the Green Party around alcohol—and of course something a lot of us in the House here across parties are really concerned with—is the binge-drinking consumption of alcohol. There would be very few in here who do not drink something but there are some who do not I gather. The advertising of alcohol has really amplified it particularly to young people and has made it into such a desirable thing. It is encouraging it in many many ways.We believe that that was something it would have been good to see changed and reduced significantly. It is always difficult when you have got local regional enterprises like the wineries in my region Marlborough to say when you would advertise and when you would not. But the massive amount of TV coverage the sponsorships and things like that that are actually encouraging and misrepresenting alcohol as a very very positive feature to be drunk in bulk has been a shame and we really pay the consequences of it socially. So we would like that changed but getting the low-alcohol option right next to the other ones to normalise it for people who are drinking is very very good.It has been enjoyable to see the move to people drinking less because of the driving laws and to see them looking for lower alcohol options at the pubs. I have said it before—at my local in Marlborough the Grovetown people are drinking a beer called interestingly Empathy. It is not sympathy but it is Empathy and they find it a very palatable drop when it is there as a low-alcohol option when they want to have the socialisation that they would normally have in that situation. The Green Party supports this bill because of the positive features and I am very happy to have spoken to this bill and to be supporting it. Thank you.
Ngaro AlfredALFRED NGARO (National): I rise to take a call on the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Display of Low-alcohol Beverages and Other Remedial Matters) Amendment Bill. It is a pity that that member who has just been speaking Denis O'Rourke has learnt the political art of the manufacturing of crisis because if that member had actually been round long enough to have been part of the process—and I was outside of Parliament when the process started around the consultation over a long period of time that engaged with communities up and down the country around the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Bill that was put in place.In those consultations and that member may not have been part of that what communities were able to gain through this legislation—OK he is blaming the Government—was the ability and the provision to allow communities to engage and consult with the local territorial authorities around the configuration of those by-laws the opening and closing of on- and off-licences and all the sales in the areas around schools and other forms of facilities in the community. Communities get to choose. And if that member had been part of that he would realise that the so-called chaos he has talked about does not exist to the degree that he has made out.So I want to say to the public out there who are listening to this that this is a very simple bill. If the member stuck to the issue—which is simply this: it gives discretion to supermarkets to be able to ensure that the supply of alcohol whether it be a low-alcohol beverage or even a non-alcoholic beverage would be placed in one single place. So therefore it would be the consumer's choice as to what they would choose. This is not the murmurings of the member to create so-called political chaos and crisis when it does not exist.Out of this has come a bill that has seen support from key stakeholders that this is critical. It is a minor bill a minor amendment but it is important. When the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Bill did go through we wanted to ensure that there were no unintended consequences. Well there were; that has happened. This Government is simply ensuring that it remedies that so it ensures that it is purpose-fit for discretion for supermarkets so the consumer can choose. That is simply what it is doing; that is simply the cause and effect of this bill.So I speak in support of this bill. It is good to see that it has widespread support right across the House because we see this is a good bill. It is important. It is a minor change but an important one that again gives discretion to those who are not only providing and trading in the sale of alcoholic and low-alcoholic beverages but also to consumers in their choices. I commend this bill to the House.
Genter Julie AnneJULIE ANNE GENTER (Green): The Green Party will be supporting this bill. We have supported it the whole way. It is not a controversial bill at all. It makes perfect sense. At the moment low-alcohol beverages be they beer wine or other low-alcohol beverages are not able to be sold in the part of the supermarket where wine and beer are sold. They had to be placed in the same area as non-alcoholic beverages which was quite strange and a bit of an oversight. So this bill just fixes that problem. Overall the Green Party's goal would be to minimise the harm caused by overconsumption of alcohol and to that end we would like to see more done in the area of minimum price restrictions on advertising and availability.The sudden appearance of low-alcohol beverages on the market is probably a good thing. As one of my colleagues who spoke previously said the evidence does seem to be that people are replacing full-alcohol beverages with low-alcohol beverages. I know that last year the Auckland City Limits Music Festival a music festival at the end of summer actually ran the festival entirely with low-alcohol beverages. So it worked with a local company in New Zealand that developed a whole range of low-alcohol cocktails—I guess you would say they were somewhere between cocktails and mocktails—and low-alcohol beers and wines. Apparently that was quite a success because it gave people the opportunity to enjoy themselves to have a tasty beverage but without the excessive consumption of alcohol which we all know can lead to so much harm here in New Zealand. The Green Party is supporting the bill. Cheers.
Naylor JonoJONO NAYLOR (National): It is a pleasure to now at this third reading stage talk about this bill. It has been a full process that we have been through and I think a good one to highlight a particular issue that was causing a number of companies particularly supermarkets some concern. On this side of the House and I think right around the House we are concerned about reducing alcohol-related harm. So to make it more difficult as it was under the old regime or the current regime for people to be able to find low-alcohol beverages in places like supermarkets really did not make any sense at all.If we look at the original intent of what it is that we are trying to do by having supermarkets sell low-alcohol products this bill absolutely supports the intent which is that people will be able to more easily walk into the supermarket find a low-alcohol product that is similar to a product they might normally have consumed that had higher levels of alcohol in it and therefore be able to drive more safely when going home—and actually other alcohol-related harm would be reduced. We did hear from a number of different people along the way. We had some good robust discussions about things like what mead is. We had some interesting conversations about how it is that we should define low alcohol. But I think we arrived at the right spot where we said actually if somebody is marketing something as beer or wine or mead it should sit alongside those other alcoholic beverages that people associate with those products. This is a sensible bill. It is great that it has had such widespread support from around the House. I look forward to it coming into legislation shortly. Thank you
Wagner NickySALE AND SUPPLY OF ALCOHOL (DISPLAY OF LOW-ALCOHOL BEVERAGES AND OTHER REMEDIAL MATTERS) AMENDMENT BILLThird ReadingHon NICKY WAGNER (Minister of Customs) on behalf of the Minister of Justice: I move That the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Display of Low-alcohol Beverages and Other Remedial Matters) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. I am speaking on behalf of the Minister of Justice the Hon Amy Adams. The Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 was a substantial reform to alcohol laws in New Zealand and this bill makes three amendments to that Act to clarify and to correct issues that have arisen over the last few years as it has been put in practice. The amendments are minor the amendments are non-controversial and they do not change the policy intent of the reforms passed in 2012. They are very useful amendments to the bill and they will strengthen the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act. In particular the bill changes rules around the single alcohol areas in supermarkets and I think it will have substantial benefits. It is the main amendment under this bill and it allows for the display of non-alcoholic or low-alcohol beer wine or mead in a single alcohol area of supermarkets or grocery stores. Under the wording of the current Act supermarkets and grocery stores cannot place low-alcohol or non-alcoholic beverages in the same areas as regular strength alcoholic beverages. This bill corrects that unintended consequence because it does make sense that these low- and non-alcohol substitutes for beer and wine are in the same place as regular strength alcoholic beverages. The single alcohol area is where most people will intuitively look for these products and so this amendment makes sense for supermarkets for grocery stores and for the general public.The second amendment in the bill is to clarify that a company can hold an alcohol licence under the Act. It is not explicit in the Act at the moment that a company can hold that licence and it was causing some confusion. So it is good to see that the bill can clarify that issue by including company" in the relevant section of the Act.Finally another useful amendment was added to the Act during the select committee stage and I do want to thank the Justice and Electoral Committee for reporting back on this bill. When the committee did that it reported back a change to the Act's definition of "working day". That is in response to the Mondayisation of Waitangi Day and Anzac Day. This change means that "working day" no longer includes the Monday after the weekend containing Waitangi Day or Anzac Day. This amendment will make the Act consistent with the changes made to the Holidays Act in 2013.I was very pleased to see that there has been unanimous support for this bill received from the parties as it has passed through the process and I hope again that Parliament will support the bill going forward. These are very minor they are non-controversial and they are useful changes to the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act. I wish that these can come into force as soon as possible. I commend this bill to the House."
Te Awa Tupua (Whanganui River Claims Settlement) Bill — Second Reading
Hayes JoanneJOANNE HAYES (National): Tēnā koe Mr Deputy Speaker. E rere kau ana mai Te Awa nui mai i Te Kāhui Maunga ki Tangaroa ko au te awa ko te awa ko au.[Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker. The big river flows from the National Park to the sea I am the river and the river is me.]I begin my korero with this whakataukī because I have a short story to tell about my journey to understanding what that whakataukī has meant to me. Many in the House will not know this but I went to school in Whanganui at Whanganui Girls' College. I was in Wickham House at the time and Wickham House was in the city and the college was over the river. For 4 years I walked over that bridge to school and back from school and to sports and back to the hostel. I remember looking down into the river as I crossed it—into the murky depths of the river; it seemed like that all the time—but back then I did not realise the deep connection that I had to it. Years later my work career brought me back to Whanganui working first for the district health board and then for Taumata Hauora Trust and Ngā Tai O Te Awa. This time I arrived back in Whanganui understanding my whakapapa but trying to understand whereabouts I fitted into Te Awa o Whanganui.I want to mention here a man whom I came to respect and admire—albeit some of his ways left me scratching my head a bit as I am sure I did the same to him at times—and his name is John Maihi and he sits up there in the gallery today. I say kia ora to you John because you helped me see what Whanganui whānau had been seeing most of their lives which I did not see: a regard for a body of water that flowed from the mountain to the sea just like the blood that courses through the whānau veins like the air they breathe like the life they live and have lived. The stories John shared with me without him ever realising it told me many things that my Whanganui w'ānau went through to retain their rights to their awa. From times when w'ānau lived solely from the spoils the river produced to the way the river was used and abused over time to the settlement along its banks where the door to the whare faced the river and to today the infamous annual te Tira Hoe Waka.My realisation of the meaning of those words in that whakataukī came when I stood on the river bank at Pūtiki Marae a few years ago at 5 a.m. listening to the karanga and the karakia starting puanga and I began to understand what those words Ko au ko te awa; ko te awa ko au" really meant. For me they represent the past the present and the future. They are life itself. The karanga that morning crystallised why the awa holds so much mana and in many ways why I have not yet journeyed along this sacred taonga of Whanganui.Today is only the second reading of the Te Awa Tupua (Whanganui River Claims Settlement) Bill but for me it is more than that. It is an acknowledgment that Whanganui iwi were right all along. This is not about giving back; it is about righting history of what has always been. Tēnā koutou katoa."
Borrows ChesterTE AWA TUPUA (WHANGANUI RIVER CLAIMS SETTLEMENT) BILLSecond ReadingMr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Tēnā koutou ngā Iwi o Te Awa o Whanganui karanga mai mihi mai aku rangatira; tēnā tātou katoa.[Salutations to you the tribes of the Whanganui River call and accord a tribute hither my esteemed ones; accolades to us all.]I just want to say—as the Deputy Speaker I do not get to make a speech—that I want to welcome you here as members from my patch. Thank you for your attendance today. We look forward to this historic day. I just want to also add my congratulations to my beloved cousin and the work that he has done and the creative response he has to this long-running issue.
Naylor JonoJONO NAYLOR (National): Tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā ngā mihi ki a koutou ki Rangitāne e Te Iwi nau mai haere mai ki Te Whare Pāremata. E ngā mate haere haere haere atu rā.[Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker and acknowledgments to you collectively Rangitāne welcome to you the tribe and come forth to the House of Parliament. To you the deaths go forth depart and journey on indeed.]It seems entirely appropriate to me to particularly acknowledge at the beginning of this speech those who have passed on. There has been a lot of talk about that this morning but I specifically do this as something quite poignant reminded me this morning: Ruth Harris who started this process has passed on. Then I think also of Pōtaka Tāite who was to be a part of the final part of this process on the post-settlement board who has also passed on and of course many others in between. I just want to acknowledge them.Much has been said already with regard to this bill and this settlement and I do not want to dwell on that further but I feel incredibly privileged to have received a letter in the last week or so from Danielle Harris who has been the principal negotiator on behalf of Rangitāne in this settlement. She has asked me whether I could read out this short message because they wanted their views to be able to be noted in this House. So Mr Deputy Speaker with your indulgence and the indulgence of the House I will now read this in terms of an acknowledgment to Mr Finlayson and his work here.These are the words of Danielle Harris: Minister Finlayson as you are aware Rangitāne o Manawatu over their 19 years of negotiations have worked with a number of Treaty Ministers from both sides of the House. Without doubt you have been by far the most genuine committed reliable and focused Minister we have dealt with. We are aware from time to time you have faced challenges with progressing our claim but you always honoured your words and persevered over the many obstacles to enable us to be here today. New Zealand and iwidom are extremely fortunate to have such a person of your calibre in this crucial role as we settle our past to move forward as a nation. On a personal level it has been a true pleasure and honour to work with you and you shall always be held in very high regard by all the people of Rangitāne as it has been under your stewardship we have all settled our Treaty claims. We sincerely wish you well for the future wherever your path takes you."I would just like to now quickly raise a point of order in order to table this letter in the House. I seek the leave of the House to table this letter from Danielle Harris.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is put for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.JONO NAYLOR: Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker. With that I would like to conclude my speech on this and to say congratulations to Rangitāne. I look forward to continuing to work with you. I have always enjoyed working with you in the various roles that I have had in our community and I now look forward to seeing Rangitāne prosper even further within their rohe. Thank you.Bill read a third time.Waiata"
Rangitāne o Manawatu Claims Settlement Bill — Third Reading
Tuesday 6 December 2016 - Volume 719
Children Young Persons and their Families (Advocacy Workforce and Age Settings) Amendment Bill — Third Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Children Young Persons and Their Families (Advocacy Workforce and Age Settings) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.Ayes 75New Zealand National 59; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 45New Zealand Labour 31; Green Party 14.Bill read a third time.
Health (Fluoridation of Drinking Water) Amendment Bill — First Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Health (Fluoridation of Drinking Water) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 107New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 31; Green Party 13; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 12New Zealand First 12.Bill read a first time. Bill referred to the Health Committee.
12. Women Employment—Science Technology Engineering and MathematicsMELISSA LEE (National) to the Minister for WomenWomen Employment—Science Technology Engineering and Mathematics12. MELISSA LEE (National) to the Minister for Women: How is the Government encouraging more young girls and women to pursue career opportunities in science technology engineering and maths?Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Women): The Government is making good progress in encouraging more students to gain qualifications in science technology engineering and maths or STEM. However women are particularly under-represented in the highest growth areas such as digital technology so I have made it a priority to find new ways of sparking their interest. Today I have announced the launch of the STEM Directory which is an online tool developed by the Ministry of Women that makes it easier for young girls and women to connect discover and learn about the opportunities and ensure that women are not left behind in a constantly changing workforce.Melissa Lee: What other work is under way to further support women and girls in education and training?Hon LOUISE UPSTON: The Ministry for Women is working across Government to ensure that women and girls have greater opportunities in high-demand areas. Ministry officials are working with the Ministry for Primary Industries to better understand the barriers to pursuing careers in the primary sector. Earlier Minister Parata announced the opening of a new round of scholarships to encourage graduates wanting to become secondary teachers in STEM fields and we are advancing work under the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment's (MBIE's) national science strategy A Nation of Curious Minds and through the Make the World public awareness campaign to increase STEM graduates. Ultimately though it is about recognising and backing fantastic role models like 25-year-old Kellie Hobbs an offshore well engineer featured in today's Taranaki Daily News. She is working with girls as young as 11 in workshops that are funded by MBIE through the Nation of Curious Minds fund to show the next generation of women that they absolutely can and must succeed in STEM.