edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Finlayson Christopher; Carter DavidHon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General): On behalf of the Leader of the House can I say that the Speaker has given a very clear ruling. This is a major issue. The system has been in place since 2007. You have indicated that you are prepared to look at it urgently. It could possibly even go to the Privileges Committee on an urgent basis. We cannot be dealing on an episodic basis with a whole lot of technological questions.Mr SPEAKER: Order! I thank the Attorney-General. Just to respond briefly to the two points raised by Clare Curran. The first point—again if members would only read the ruling carefully—I make it quite clear that no official information release should ever go out with a SEEMail classification. I am suggesting that Ministers give that instruction to their departments. On the second point made I do not have a list of trigger words that might then affect such a classification.
Speaker's Statements — Parliamentary Service—Email Security Facility
Curran ClareCLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am seeking clarification on two matters—and thank you for your ruling; I will read it with interest. First of all you made reference to the fact that you can change the classification of the SEEMail. When a document is sent to you with a PDF attached whether it is an Official Information Act response or whatever it is it is not possible to change classifications from within that PDF document. The second point relates to the use of trigger words which I think you referred to in your ruling. Is Parliament able to receive a list of the trigger words that spark this blocking of documents?
Parker David; Carter DavidHon DAVID PARKER (Labour): With regard to that that is a bit pre-emptory but I will accept your ruling in the meantime. Can you assure the House that when an email or an attachment has been screened no one at Parliamentary Service the Department of Internal Affairs or the Government Communications Security Bureau has had access to the email or the attachments?Mr SPEAKER: Yes I can give that assurance and I gave it in my original ruling. I just would be grateful if members—this is a complex matter—would please take the time to read the ruling carefully. It will be further discussed at the Parliamentary Service Commission. I do invite all members to come and talk to me if they need to.
Peters Winston; Carter DavidRt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Could you explain why it is that there have been attempts to block emails in respect of members of Parliament and that later on they have been unblocked? What would be the process that has allowed that to happen in the past?Mr SPEAKER: Again I think I have covered that in great detail in my ruling if the member would have a careful look at it. It is a system for cyber-security purposes. There is a method by which a document once marked by SEEMail—or marked in confidence" etc. as I have mentioned—then becomes encrypted until it is received by another party who is also part of SEEMail. Then it is automatically unencrypted so it is available then. The issue comes when it is attempted to send it to somebody who is not within the SEEMail system. I think we are finding systems whereby we are going to be able to allow information to be freely sent. It can be as of today but it may require members to understand how to adjust their computer to do it. [Interruption] Order! I will hear from one other member—the Hon David Parker."
Parker David; Carter DavidHon DAVID PARKER (Labour): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is a different point of order. Can the Speaker assure the House that the screening of MPs' emails has not generated any reports accessible to the Government at either the Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) or the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) or elsewhere about that screening?Mr SPEAKER: I have been given an absolute assurance that the SEEMail is a setting that then involves no further scanning of the contents of email and that—[Interruption] There was an interjection I heard from somewhere. I am on my feet. If I have misunderstood the question again—again I think this is a complex matter. It is not a matter of the order of the House today. I invite members to come and talk to me about it. To the best of my knowledge there has been no scanning of information for any purposes at all.Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): You did ask whether you had misunderstood my question. It seems possible that this screening process creates or generates a report when something is confidential—or is a document that the Government has labelled confidential"—which the system intentionally scans to pick up. I have asked whether you can give the House an assurance that no report is generated by anyone that is accessible to the Government at the DIA or GCSB or elsewhere as a consequence of that screening.Mr SPEAKER: I cannot give that absolute assurance today. I will look further into the matter and make contact with the member directly upon further investigation."
Hipkins Chris; Carter DavidCHRIS HIPKINS (Senior Whip—Labour): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I understand your desire to discuss this further and we will certainly take you up on that offer. Can I seek some reassurance from you that in the intervening period while those discussions are taking place members will not continue to be blocked from sending emails outside the system? The issue arose yesterday when discussing the very ruling that you have just made with a journalist where the email that I was discussing the matter in was blocked to the journalist whom I was discussing it with. So I was unable to answer any questions about the matter that arose yesterday because the system picked that up and blocked me from doing so. I had to print the email and hand-deliver it in order for the journalist to be able to receive it. That is unacceptable and I want some reassurance that in the intervening period that will be stopped.Mr SPEAKER: If the member would just have a careful look at the ruling the very first solution I give to him is that he himself can remove the classification. He may need some assistance to be shown how to do it and that can be provided but he himself can remove that classification—I am assured—and send it out.CHRIS HIPKINS (Senior Whip—Labour): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: If it is a further point on this matter I have said that this is a complex matter. It is not one affecting the order of the House. I will hear from the member but I would prefer discussion on this to take place away from the floor of the House so that all members can understand it more clearly.CHRIS HIPKINS: As was explained to me any email containing the words SEEMail" and "sensitive" will be blocked so any discussion of the ruling that you have just made will therefore be blocked. We will not be able to do that via email.Mr SPEAKER: No. I will have an IT person contact the member immediately after question time—[Interruption] Order! This is a serious matter. My understanding is that it is blocked unless the member makes an adjustment to his computer setting and takes the blockage out—[Interruption] Order!—by removing the word "SEEMail" then he can send it to the journalist of his choice."
Tuesday 11 October 2016 - Volume 717
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That clause 3 be agreed to.Ayes 73New Zealand National 59; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 48New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; Māori Party 2.Clause 3 agreed to.Bill to be reported with amendment presently.
Building (Pools) Amendment Bill — In Committee
VoteScheduleThe question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 225 in the name of the Hon Dr Nick Smith to the schedule be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 73New Zealand National 59; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 48New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; Māori Party 2.Amendments agreed to.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 213 in the name of Metiria Turei to the schedule be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 14Green Party 14.Noes 107New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 32; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendments not agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 208 in the name of Jacinda Ardern to the schedule be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 58New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.Noes 63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendment not agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the schedule as amended be agreed to.Ayes 73New Zealand National 59; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 48New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; Māori Party 2.Schedule as amended agreed to.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the question be now put.Ayes 75New Zealand National 59; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 46New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14.Motion agreed to.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 225 in the name of the Hon Dr Nick Smith to Part 1 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 73New Zealand National 59; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 48New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; Māori Party 2.Amendments agreed to.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 213 in the name of Metiria Turei to Part 1 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 46New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14.Noes 75New Zealand National 59; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendments not agreed to.Part 1 as amended agreed to.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That clause 1 be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 58New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.Clause 1 agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 2 be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 58New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.Clause 2 agreed to.Bill to be reported with amendment presently.
Education Legislation Bill — In Committee (continued)
Third Readings — Bills Divided from Judicature Modernisation Bill
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Senior Courts Bill the District Court Bill the Judicial Review Procedure Bill the Interest on Money Claims Bill the Electronic Courts and Tribunals Bill the Arbitration Amendment Bill the Bills of Exchange Amendment Bill the Building Societies Amendment Bill the Children Young Persons and Their Families Amendment Bill the Companies Amendment Bill (No 2) the Contractual Remedies Amendment Bill the Copyright Amendment Bill (No 2) the Courts (Remote Participation) Amendment Bill the Criminal Procedure Amendment Bill the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 4) the Family Courts Amendment Bill the Insolvency Amendment Bill the Local Government (Rating) Amendment Bill the Property Law Amendment Bill the Remuneration Authority Amendment Bill (No 2) the Resource Management Amendment Bill Te Ture Whenua Maori Amendment Bill and the Trans-Tasman Proceedings Amendment Bill be now read a third time.Ayes 109New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 12New Zealand First 12.Bills read a third time.
11. Mt Eden Corrections Facility—Serco's PerformanceKELVIN DAVIS (Labour—Te Tai Tokerau) to the Minister of CorrectionsMt Eden Corrections Facility—Serco's Performance11. KELVIN DAVIS (Labour—Te Tai Tokerau) to the Minister of Corrections: Does she still believe that Serco should be operating Auckland South Corrections Facility; if so how given she described them as failures in their management of Mt Eden?Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Corrections): Yes; because I have sought and received assurances from the Department of Corrections chief executive Ray Smith that the Auckland South Corrections Facility is running well.Kelvin Davis: Were Labour and the Corrections Association of New Zealand right in 2013 when they raised concerns about Serco's mismanagement of Mt Eden prison or does she stand by her predecessor's statement that both Labour and the Corrections Association of New Zealand were making things up."?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I obviously do not have the detail of any allegations made at that time but I can tell that member that I have often found him "making things up".Kelvin Davis: Why is she hiding responsibility for the mess at Mt Eden when the Prime Minister recently said of her decision to give Serco the contract in 2010 that "clearly they were the wrong choice."?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I actually lost track listening to that very long question. Could he start it again?Mr SPEAKER: Order! Would the member please repeat the question.Kelvin Davis: Why is she hiding responsibility for the mess at Mt Eden when the Prime Minister said of her decision to give Serco the contract in 2010 that "clearly they were the wrong choice."?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I am not.Kelvin Davis: Does she have a responsibility to know what is going on in her own department or is she going to keep blaming her officials for withholding the reports on Serco?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I would have thought the member must know that the report has in fact been released.Kelvin Davis: Would a weak Minister choose to blame the unions the prison monitors the prison inspectorate the chief executive officer Ray Smith—everyone but herself—for the mess at Mt Eden or will she front up and admit she made a mistake?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I certainly would not know because I do not know any weak Ministers."
10. Native Birds—Kiwi Recovery PlanSARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill) to the Minister of ConservationNative Birds—Kiwi Recovery Plan10. SARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill) to the Minister of Conservation: What announcements has she made on wild kiwi recovery?Hon MAGGIE BARRY (Minister of Conservation): Last week I released the draft 10-year Kiwi Recovery Plan for consultation. The plan sets out how we intend to turn a 2 percent annual decline into a 2 percent increase with $11.2 million from last year's Budget. Our goal is to have 100000 kiwi in the wild by 2030—that is up from 70000 kiwis. A 2 percent increase is indeed achievable. Rowi and Haast tokoeka populations which once numbered fewer than 200 each have now more than doubled to more than 400 birds each thanks to intensive pest management.Sarah Dowie: What are some of the challenges identified by the plan?Rt Hon Winston Peters: Rats and stoats.Hon MAGGIE BARRY: The usual suspects. That member was correct—rats and stoats; he is surrounded by them. They are the main killers of kiwi which is why this Government has invested in Battle for our Birds New Zealand's largest predator-control operation—800000 hectares—as well as Predator Free 2050 one of the most ambitious conservation projects in the world. The Department of Conservation trials in Tongariro show that aerial 1080 drops are very successful in protecting kiwi. Before these operations kiwi chicks had a 25 percent chance of surviving to 6 months of age; following the operations kiwi chick survival was twice as high. Maintaining genetic diversity is absolutely crucial. Preventing dog predation is also crucial which is why we have programmes for dog aversion around kiwi. All of these things are challenges but we will overcome them.Sarah Dowie: How will the plans support community groups working with kiwi?Hon MAGGIE BARRY: More than 80 groups are already working specifically with kiwi recovery. We are investing $3.5 million over 4 years through Kiwis for Kiwi. For example Rainbow Springs' Kiwi Encounter hatched 101 kiwis last season celebrating its 1500th chick overall. Kiwis for Kiwi supported 38 projects last year—including community conservation groups iwi research and captive institutions—with over $500000 in funding. Strategies planned specifically to make Wellington Picton and other parts of New Zealand predator-free will be formulated. Advice self-resetting traps and other things will also be available through funding.
8. Electricity Market—Electricity Authority Distribution Charges ReviewFLETCHER TABUTEAU (NZ First) to the Prime MinisterElectricity Market—Electricity Authority Distribution Charges Review8. FLETCHER TABUTEAU (NZ First) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes.Fletcher Tabuteau: Does he stand by his statement: In principle what they're trying to do the Government agrees with."? This is with regard to the Electricity Authority's decision to change electricity distribution charges across New Zealand.Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I do stand by that statement which really just reflects what the Electricity Authority's mandate is to do.Fletcher Tabuteau: Can he then "in principle" agree with former National Minister John Carter who said: "Economically [these changes] would be a disaster. We seriously can't let it happen."?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I think it would be better if I did not comment because ultimately the decision is the preliminary decision as I understand it from the Electricity Authority. It is independent in making that decision. It is highly likely that once it goes through its review process there will then be further input and potentially litigation that involves this area. So it is not something the Government directly influences; the Electricity Authority is independent in making those decisions.Fletcher Tabuteau: Is he prepared to front up to the people of Northland and the people of Kawerau and the Bay of Plenty and tell them their job losses make sense "in principle" as big business shuts up shop in our regions because of these huge price hikes?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: As I said earlier it is important I think to understand that firstly the Electricity Authority is independent in terms of making these decisions. It obviously tries to have a degree of equity in terms of its decision making. Secondly these things are going through a process as I understand it where there is a review. Thirdly they may well be subject to litigation. Clearly the country needs an electricity system that works well and is appropriately funded and the Electricity Authority has that responsibility.Fletcher Tabuteau: Does he think his apathy and lack of intervention on these price hikes are good for New Zealand business decision makers and long-term investment or does he think changing core fundamentals like this willy-nilly is just fine "in principle"?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I accept that the member is part of a caucus where they do everything that Winston tells them to do but we live in a political party—Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order!Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister cannot answer like that. I have seen the latest National Party polls and I know he is panicking but he cannot behave like that. [Interruption] Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member is half right. It is not helpful to answer the question that way Prime Minister."
7. Homeownership—HomeStart Grants and KiwiSaver AccessibilitySIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki) to the Minister for Building and HousingHomeownership—HomeStart Grants and KiwiSaver Accessibility7. SIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki) to the Minister for Building and Housing: How many New Zealanders have been helped into homeownership with the KiwiSaver HomeStart grant scheme since it was introduced and what increases have there been in the grants and withdrawals under the scheme?Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Building and Housing): There has been huge growth in the number of people using KiwiSaver and HomeStart to purchase their first home following the Government's changes last year. The number of people accessing KiwiSaver for purchasing a first home has more than doubled from 15000 to over 31000 and the contribution towards a deposit has grown from $214 million last year to $486 million this year. The number of people accessing a HomeStart grant has increased rapidly from 5000 per year up to nearly 14000 per year and $65 million has been paid out in grants for a first-home deposit. So in total from both KiwiSaver and HomeStart over $550 million has gone towards home deposits in the last year.Simon O'Connor: What changes has the Government made that have enabled more New Zealanders to get support in buying a first home?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: We have made four changes: firstly we enabled people to be able to access more of their KiwiSaver funds to buy a first home; secondly we increased the income and house price caps to a more realistic level to improve access; thirdly we provided double the HomeStart grants for new builds as compared with existing homes and provided for higher caps; and fourthly we changed the rules to make the scheme more accessible for people buying townhouses and apartments. All these changes have proved successful as seen by the more than doubling of the number of people using those schemes.Phil Twyford: When the average renter in Auckland is $160000 short of the deposit they need for the average home how does he expect a $10000 or $20000 grant to make any kind of meaningful difference?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I dispute the member's figures but under KiwiSaver the average Kiwi family in KiwiSaver for a period of 5 years plus the Government HomeStart scheme is able to secure $80000 towards the deposit of a home. This Government is giving more support for homeowners being able to get their first home than any Government in a generation.Simon O'Connor: What has been the impact of the changes made on 1 July 2016 to the rules around access to KiwiSaver for second-chance homeowners?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The significant change we made on 1 July was removing the income caps for people wanting to access their KiwiSaver for buying a home when they had previously owned one but lost it through a separation a business failure or some other reason. The removal of the income cap has seen the numbers double. Previously about half of those applications were declined. The scheme is now helping 500 families a month or 6000 a year get into homeownership.
4. Housing—Homelessness and Emergency HousingDr PARMJEET PARMAR (National) to the Minister for Social HousingHousing—Homelessness and Emergency HousingDr PARMJEET PARMAR (National): My question is to the Minister of Social Housing. Has she received any reports supporting the Government's housing plan? [Interruption] Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am just going to ask the member to repeat that question. There was a little too much interjection coming from one particular quarter.4. Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National) to the Minister for Social Housing: Has she received any reports supporting the Government's housing plan?Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Housing): Yes I have. The cross-party report on homelessness released yesterday strongly endorsed the work this Government has been doing over the last couple of years to address the problem of homelessness. For example the very first recommendation of the group was to roll out Housing First as a primary response to chronic homelessness and I announced that roll-out to three Auckland locations in July—a full month before the cross-party group even got kicked off. So while the Opposition has still been going out there trying to find the problem the Government has been working to fund and source more emergency housing places to secure new short-term housing options and of course to help people find those suitable long-term permanent options. Dr Parmjeet Parmar: How much funding has the Government put into emergency housing?Hon PAULA BENNETT: The Government has put more than $50 million into funding emergency housing places and support products both to support existing providers that have never ever had support before and to add new beds to the supply. The fact that this is the first time any Government has directed funding directly to emergency housing providers shows its commitment to this issue. There are more social houses being secured all the time we have got new builds going on we have got modular homes happening and we have got permanent new social housing but we are equally also doing something around emergency places as well.
2. Economy—Weekly Earnings Wages and Household IncomesCHRIS BISHOP (National) to the Minister of FinanceEconomy—Weekly Earnings Wages and Household Incomes2. CHRIS BISHOP (National) to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on weekly earnings?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Statistics New Zealand reports that in the year to June median weekly earnings as defined at the broadest definition of it increased by $44 to $924 per week. That is an increase of 5 percent in median weekly earnings the biggest annual increase since 2007. First people are working more hours each week. Average hours of work increased. Average hours of all part-time and full-time work have increased by 1 hour to 37 hours a week and workers are being paid more for each hour they work. Median hourly earnings for wage and salary earners increased by 3 percent in the year to June to $23.49.Chris Bishop: What do the labour market statistics say about wage and salary movements during the year?Hon BILL ENGLISH: To track changes in the weekly median earnings Statistics New Zealand monitors the incomes of wage and salary earners and the self-employed. In the year to June median weekly earnings from wages and salaries increased by $55 or 6.2 percent a week to $937. This is the biggest annual increase since the series began in 1998 and shows that workers are getting ahead.Chris Bishop: How does the growth in median weekly incomes in New Zealand compare with trends elsewhere?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Comparisons are difficult because of the different ways that countries collect statistics but it is possible to compare trends in New Zealand with trends in the US. In the United States the real value of household incomes has not risen since 1998. Over the same period in New Zealand household incomes have improved by 43 percent as opposed to zero in the United States. Incomes in New Zealand are still considerably lower than in the US but we are making progress in closing the gap. [Interruption] Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member can have a supplementary question if he wants one later.Chris Bishop: What other reports has he received on wage growth?Hon BILL ENGLISH: OECD reports show that New Zealand has since 2008 had the fourth-highest level of real wage growth in the developed world. Our average annual rate of real wage increase has been 1.4 percent which is almost twice that of Australia and the US and is considerably better than in the United Kingdom which has seen real wages fall by 5 percent.
1. Refugee Applicants—Prime Minister's StatementsRt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Prime MinisterORAL QUESTIONSQUESTIONS TO MINISTERSRefugee Applicants—Prime Minister's Statements1. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements; if so how?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes; and eloquently.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does he stand by his statement on 17 August regarding the total number of approved visa applicants who subsequently applied for refugee or protection status once in New Zealand?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I would have to look at the particular statement that the member is meaning.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why did he say on 16 August: But what I do know on the advice of the Minister of Immigration is that the numbers are considerably less under this Government than when that member was a Minister."?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Because I believed it to be correct—I think it is correct—but I should have added the word "proportionally" as I said and corrected the next day.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is it not a fact that an urgent request was sent to Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment (MBIE) officials at 8.35 a.m. on 17 August for figures on refugee and asylum claim numbers "as far back as they go" despite his assertion on 16 August that he had been advised on that by the Minister of Immigration?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes and the reason for that is that we knew the member was challenging it and so we were making sure the facts were correct. But I was advised in the House before I answered the question by the Minister of Immigration.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is it not a fact that when he arrived in the House on 17 August seeking to clarify a statement he made 24 hours earlier that information was not available until 3 hours before question time on 17 August and that the information did not exist on 16 August—which is hardly "eloquent"?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No. The member needs to go and pull the tape. Go and have a look at the visuals and the member will see the Minister of Immigration being over here advising me before I answer the question.Rt Hon Winston Peters: No no. Caught out son.Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Go and look at the video. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! Question No. 2—Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In my enjoyment I forgot to seek leave to table a document which is an Official Information Act answer from MBIE dated 4 October 2016.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that Official Information Act response. Is there any objection to it being tabled? There is none. It can be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House."
EventMEMBERS SWORNRobert Barry Hobson Coates was presented to the Speaker made the affirmation of allegiance required by law and took his seat in the House.
Logie JanJAN LOGIE (Green): I rise to take a short call for the Greens on the Policing (Cost Recovery) Amendment Bill in the Committee stage. We are opposing this piece of legislation. I remember when it was first introduced so hot on the tail of the vulnerable children's legislation having passed and the requirement having been introduced into legislation at that time for increased police vetting for people working with children in our community. And then nek minnit" we got this piece of legislation that was saying community organisations would need to pay and sports recreation—a whole range of organisations would now have to pay to get that vetting done. It is a testament to the community organising and the organising by certain members in this Chamber whom I am looking at at the moment that an amendment we have been promised will now be made into regulation so that charities will not have to pay for that but I do think it is important to remind people of the process that happened. We are still even with that exemption that we have been promised in regulation opposed to this piece of legislation because although the rationale that has been put forward for it is that there is some kind of private benefit to be gained from the vetting of people we argue that the primary benefit is public safety. If the purpose is vetting to approve somebody's safety for doing a job then the ultimate benefit has got to be surely safety. We believe therefore that that should be a core police function and should not able to be put out and charged for and that increasing the complexity of the systems within the police and charging the public for functions like this will actually have a detrimental impact on the entire organisation of the police. That is not something that we can support. There was almost universal rejection by submitters of the proposition that charges for demand services should be applied to police vetting of individuals who may be working in a paid or voluntary capacity and we have seen that exemption for charities. We are concerned at the scope of this and although the initial fees have been set at a low level there is almost always creep in these matters and it could well end up—The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. The time has come for me to report progress.Progress reported.Report adopted.The House adjourned at 9.56 p.m."
Bindra MaheshMAHESH BINDRA (NZ First): I would like to take this opportunity to speak to the Policing (Cost Recovery) Amendment Bill on behalf of New Zealand First but before I do that I would like to acknowledge the contribution that has been made by the Hon Phil Goff to this House and in particular to the Law and Order Committee which I have had the privilege of being a core member of with Phil Goff. I also wish him good luck for his future endeavour which is the role of the Mayor of Auckland City. So coming to this bill policing has always been the basic function and duty of a Government. Ever since there have been democratic governments formed policing has been the basic responsibility of a Government and the cost is recovered basically from the general taxes that the public pay. However this bill according to us is double-dipping and we cannot support it. It makes me angry to know that after this bill is passed citizens will have to pay twice to get a basic service. They will have to pay through their taxes and in addition to that they will have to pay for the basic functions of policing which could be when getting a Ministry of Justice clearance or background checks. So this will be borne by schools this will be borne by the voluntary organisations and this will be borne by the charitable organisations. They should not have to bear the burden of basic policing function. It is the duty of the Government to provide protection for its citizens and the police have already been funded for that. They have been funded through general taxes. We think that this double-dipping is unfair and we cannot support this bill. Thank you.
Hayes Joanne; Tisch LindsayPOLICING (COST RECOVERY) AMENDMENT BILLIn CommitteeJOANNE HAYES (Third Whip—National): I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one question for the purposes of this debate with a vote on each question.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
Health Practitioners (Replacement of Statutory References to Medical Practitioners) Bill — In Committee
Logie JanJAN LOGIE (Green): I rise to take a short call on behalf of the Greens at the Committee stage of the Health Practitioners (Replacement of Statutory References to Medical Practitioners) Bill. This is my first time speaking in the House since the valedictory of my colleague Kevin Hague who was our health spokesperson so I would like to start my contribution by acknowledging him. He has followed this bill through Parliament up to this point and he was a huge asset to this Parliament and somebody who I think was generally well respected for his knowledge of health in a community setting as well as for having been the chair of the West Coast District Health Board. He has assisted many pieces of legislation in terms of grounding them in reality and he will be well missed including by me. We are supporting this bill. There are several reasons for that and some of them have been traversed already. One is I guess that as we have an ageing population the demands on our health system and financial demands are growing. As the technological supports around health actually also become more advanced we have another cost pressure on our health system. So we need as a country to be innovative and part of innovation is looking at where we can save money and be more efficient. At the moment it is pretty clear to most people—and I think it was the rationale behind this bill in part—that there are inefficiencies in our system as we have doctors on a very high pay rate spending a lot of their time doing paperwork and signing off things that could be done by somebody on a lower pay rate who has the skill. I think that is probably a driver for this bill and it is a driver that we support. We want our health dollar to be used as effectively as it can possibly be used. I have worked in a youth health organisation and I know that this is a very important area of health. It is one of those system-wide things whereby now that we have student loans it is actually quite difficult to get young doctors working in those services in the communities—they are needing to look for the higher paid jobs to be able to pay off their loans. Nurses traditionally play quite a significant role in our community-based services. Being able to give them additional functions as this bill does actually serves the delivery of services in many of our diverse communities and makes sure that they get accessible and affordable healthcare. We absolutely support that. I remember that Kevin Hague noted that in a rural setting where we have nurse specialists many of those nurse specialists are already fulfilling a lot of those functions and again this piece of legislation aids that work and aids our rural communities. The Green Party is very happy to support this piece of legislation. It is sensible and promotes efficiency of a precious resource where we would like to see more money going in and being able to be used for more significant health outcomes. Thank you.
Wall LouisaParts 1 to 7 schedules 1 and 2 and clauses 1 and 2LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you Mr Chair. I appreciate that. I am rising to support the Health Practitioners (Replacement of Statutory References to Medical Practitioners) Bill in this the Committee stage. What I wanted to highlight was that of the 28 submissions that we received only two were opposed. They are not that surprising—well the first one is not because it was the Association of Salaried Medical Specialists. Their major opposition was that health practitioners should be doctors in undertaking statutory duties. In fact that is the whole thrust or intent of this piece of legislation. It is to recognise scopes of practice that health practitioners who have the required competencies and knowledge should be able to perform those statutory functions. Why did we as a select committee or why has the Minister proposed this legislation? Actually it is pretty simple. It is because we want to maximise the skills and competencies of our workforce and particularly as my colleague Jenny Salesa intimated within a context of shortages. Those shortages have actually been highlighted by the 2015 Voluntary Bonding Scheme where general practice has been highlighted as a shortage with general surgery pathology psychiatry and rural hospital medicine. So these changes are actually very good changes because they are trying to create a fit for purpose health system that recognises such qualifications as nurse practitioners who will be able to sign sick-leave forms death certificates take blood also authorise optometrist certificates and all those sorts of things that currently only doctors can undertake.There was one other person who was opposed to this piece of legislation and it was a person called Tamblin Davenport. It was interesting because their primary opposition was in relation to the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992. The changes that were proposed to that specific Act in this legislation they said would affect their civil rights. Now obviously there were advisers to the select committee and we have not as far as I know made any amendments that specifically address this but it was just interesting to note that that is where the opposition came from.In terms of those who supported the submissions of the submitters were nurses and nursing organisations—Nurse Practitioners New Zealand the Nursing Council of New Zealand neonatal nurses and mental health nurses; 100 percent of them support this piece of legislation. There was also good support from the pharmacy sector from physiotherapy and also the Public Service Association. So I think having sat on the select committee during the beginning of this process and during the hearings from the submitters generally most people agree that this legislation is about time. Some people have been waiting for it for a long time but it is good to see that the Minister and the Government have introduced a piece of legislation that we can stand up and support. Really I do not have anything more to add. Thank you.
Hayes Joanne; Tisch LindsayJOANNE HAYES (Third Whip—National): I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one question for the purposes of this debate with a vote on each question.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection. Then the question is—Louisa Wall: Mr Chair—The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): You will get a call but this is a matter I have to deal with. So the question is now that Parts 1 to 7 schedules 1 and 2 and clauses 1 and 2 stand part. Louisa Wall you can talk about anything within the bill now.
Ardern JacindaClauses 1 to 3JACINDA ARDERN (Labour): I want to take a very brief call on the preliminary clauses. Really the only thing that I want to speak to at this point is the commencement date. These provisions will come in as early as 1 January. I understand that there is certain consultation that is currently going on around this bill particularly around how the inspectors outside of territorial authorities might be appointed and the fact that stickers will need to be applied to the top of spa pools—things that ultimately feel to me like they might really be Band-Aids on what could become a much wider problem if this bill as it is about to pass comes into force.None the less a lot of these other provisions will come in without the scrutiny of the House and I think really I would just say to members that I think it is incumbent on us to be aware of some of that consultation and some of those additional processes that will go on before this bill comes in to force. But ultimately the commencement date being 1 January 2017—I would ask the Minister for Building and Housing whether it is possible that the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment (MBIE) commits to keeping quite rigorous oversight of this bill in its early implementation stages; that we check that councils and those tasked with inspections are equipped and ready to up their inspection regime because for many councils it will be an increase in what they have previously had and can they demonstrate they are doing that; that retailers who are going to carry obligations are ready to pass on to those who are purchasing pools or spa pools that they understand their obligations; that MBIE is ready to be the overseer of the new rules around heated pools; and that we say in 12 months' time do a re-assessment as to how we are tracking with both the inspection regime and also with the substantial changes to this Act.We have expressed our concerns with the loosening of these provisions and we want to make sure we keep a close eye—that if they are not working we know about it sooner rather than later. So even though the commencement date is obviously very very soon I would seek an assurance from MBIE and from the Minister that he will be keeping oversight from the day that it is implemented to ensure that ultimately we achieve the aims that I know this side of the Chamber is focused on and that is that it is not about compliance costs; it is about clarity of rules. It is about people knowing their rights and their responsibilities. But ultimately for us it has always been about reducing drownings. No one in this Chamber wants to see drownings happen surely? So it is incumbent on us that we keep very close oversight of a bill that ultimately this side of the Chamber has not been able to support.Clause 1 agreed to.Clause 2 agreed to.
Whaitiri MekaMEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Tēnā koe Mr Chair. Otirā e ngā mema o Te Whare nei tēnā tātou katoa. Thank you Mr Chair. It is a pleasure to take a call on the Building (Pools) Amendment Bill in the Committee stage. I want to focus my contribution particularly on clause 6 of the bill and perhaps the Minister in the chair Nathan Guy could give some clarity around clause 6. Clause 6 particularly clause 6A which amends section 11 of the Building Act talks about enforcing compliance with manufacturer and retailer notice. No issue there but when you read the particular clause there it states that the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment (MBIE) particularly the chief executive will be the person responsible for ensuring that anybody who manufactures sells or offers for sale any pool product designed for swimming wading or bathing supplies a notice summarising the responsibility of owners pool operators and occupiers in terms of restricting access. So as I read it we have got enforcement of the manufacturing and the retail notice as the responsibility of the chief executive of the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment. Then we go to clause 6B which amends section 12 of the Building Act and which identifies that the responsibility of ensuring pool barrier requirements sits with the territorial authority. So if I could just paint that picture: manufacturer notice is MBIE but ensuring compliance with pool barrier requirements sits with the territorial authority. Then we come down to the waivers and modifications" and in there is clause 6C which inserts new section 67A and amends section 188 of the Building Act. When I read this particular clause it allows territorial authorities and the chief executive of the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment the right to grant waivers and modifications of the pool barrier requirements as set out in clause 7 which inserts new subpart 7A of Part 2. I guess the question I have is obviously one of coordination between territorial authorities and MBIE given that we have got one chief executive of a substantive ministry and of course we have got numerous numbers of territorial authorities. So it just for me raised a question around ensuring that—for want of a better word bureaucracy or defining each other's role—we do not end up having a tragedy of a loss of a young life simply because the left hand is not coordinating or speaking well with the right hand. I do want to come back to other parts of the bill but it was important that I just address clause 6 in terms of defining the respective roles between the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment and the territorial authorities to ensure that if we are going to waive pool barrier requirements there is a coordination between those particular organisations. It is a question that I just put on the floor and the Minister might be able to respond. Thank you very much."
SpeechThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): I just want to make a point before I take a further call and it is that in the Committee stage we should be talking about what arose in the select committee and the submissions that were made. We should be articulating those in this Committee stage of the debate and we can be talking about the Supplementary Order Papers that have been put up by other members. In Part 1 we are talking about the Minister's amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 225 Metiria Turei's amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 213 and the submissions that were made before the select committee.