edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
van Velden BrookeBROOKE VAN VELDEN (Deputy Leader—ACT): Thank you Mr Speaker. I stand on behalf of the ACT Party in opposition to a shortened select committee time. A normal select committee takes around six months. I have not heard anything today that would convince me why we should shorten a six-month select committee period down to one month.Teachers are extremely busy people and they should be respected; their views should be respected. They're teaching our children every day. They're also going home late at night often writing up report cards marking exams. There is not a huge amount of time for a teacher within one month to get their thoughts together to present them to Parliament and actually be able to have the opportunity to be heard in person if that's what they wish to do. I think this shows the arrogance of the Government trying to rush through yet again another law. We've heard from the Teaching Council. Well where have they heard from the teachers who will be affected by this? We need to be ensuring that the teachers who are the main people who will be affected by this law change who will be forking out hundreds of dollars more every three years—they need their perspectives heard.We also need to have the perspectives laid out. Do teachers believe that there will be any more benefits that they'll get from an increase in costs? Is there any point to the law? Not just the teachers' council perspective should be considered. And that is why we actually want people to engage in lawmaking. That's the only way that we have better public policy in New Zealand—that we actually engage and allow people who are affected by laws to come in here and share their perspectives. That is what we expect of our democracy: that people are able to engage in the parliamentary process and not have laws rushed upon them where they are being imposed with new costs and they haven't actually been able to have their say.That is why the ACT Party stands in opposition to a shortened select committee period. We believe it would be antidemocratic. Thank you Mr Speaker.
Sio Hon Aupito William; Mallard TrevorINSTRUCTION TO THE EDUCATION AND WORKFORCE COMMITTEEHon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO (Associate Minister of Education) on behalf of the Minister of Education: I move That the Education and Training (Teaching Council Fees and Costs) Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 16 September 2021 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions) during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House and outside the Wellington area despite Standing Orders 193 195 and 196(1)(b) and (c).The reasons for asking the House to agree to a shortened select committee process are fundamentally the same as the reasons why the bill is needed at all. First the Teaching Council is expected to be fully self-funded through the ability given to the council by the Education and Training Act 2020 to fix fees to cover the costs of its funding. Secondly the High Court judgment of February this year limited the council's ability to do this plunging it into financial uncertainty. It is essential for the council school system and the teaching profession that this period of uncertainty is brought to a rapid end—something that only the quick enactment of this bill can do and the quick turn-around.It should be emphasised that this is not new policy. The structure powers and funding of the Teaching Council were the subject of submissions when the House and the Education and Workforce Committee were considering the Education and Training Bill last year. The principles that underpin these provisions of the principal Act have therefore been through the parliamentary process and do not need to be extensively revisited. The intention of this bill is simply to put into place what the House decided last year having fully considered submissions on this issue.To enable the Education and Workforce Committee to meet the deadline that we are setting the motion also includes the usual range of permissions to meet at times outside the parameters normally allowed by Standing Orders. I want to wish the Education and Workforce Committee well in its work.SPEAKER: The question is—Nicola Willis: Mr—SPEAKER: —the motion be agreed to. Those of that opinion will say Aye; to the contrary No. The Ayes have it.Nicola Willis: Mr Speaker is this a debatable motion?SPEAKER: It is.Nicola Willis: Well I seek the call.SPEAKER: Well why didn't the member seek the call before—Nicola Willis: I did seek the call but you didn't hear me. I was on my feet seeking the call.SPEAKER: All right. I will take the member's word that she sought the call. I normally get an indication from around here if someone does as well but go for it.
Omer IbrahimIBRAHIM OMER (Labour): Thank you Mr Speaker. I rise to take this short call in support of this bill. But first can I acknowledge the speakers in this part of the House who very articulately pointed out the importance of this bill. Now previously I've heard the members on the other side of the House complaining about how many times this Minister has to make amendments. This is a hard-working Minister. When you work hard you do things you change things you amend things—that's what the hard-working Ministers that's what the hard-working people do. So just like my colleague Jamie Strange I'd like to commend the Minister for bringing this bill to the House.This bill is narrow in scope. It actually doesn't do any of the things that the people on the other side said it would because they are scaremongering. This bill validates the previous fees. It retrospectively validates the fees that existed before the court fees. This is a very important point—this is the point that they keep ignoring. It's not a retrospective fee increase. Two different things: this bill is not about addressing matters that need an urgent response. It does not attempt to resolve every possible legislative issue relating to the Teaching Council—Maureen Pugh: Point of order. Thank you Mr Speaker. I just wonder about the consistency in the rulings around reading speeches.SPEAKER: Order! Order! Is the member serious in raising that? The member knows that it is absolutely out of order and disorderly for her to do that and if she doesn't know she should read her Standing Orders.Simeon Brown: Point of order. I seek leave if the member on the other side would like to table his notes.SPEAKER: The member will leave the Chamber.Simeon Brown withdrew from the Chamber. IBRAHIM OMER: Thank you Mr Speaker. A lot has been said about this bill. I'm not going to focus on what has been said already but I just wanted to clarify that this bill does none of the things that members on the other side said it would because it's two things: it's confusing—they are playing scaremongering shamefully and I look forward to having this bill in our select committee chaired by our amazing chair Marja Lubeck. We are willing to engage with submitters because we have nothing to hide. We have nothing to be scared of. We are willing to engage with every submitter with respect. Finally I commend this bill to the House.
Webb DuncanDr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Oh thank you Mr Speaker. I thought I would take this call in light of the fact that Te Paati Māori has chosen not to take their call and support the excellent contribution of Camilla Belich who points out that it's absolutely normal for a professional body to charge its members fully for all of the services it provides. And by a quirk of the law there are only limited functions that could be charged for here and this is a simple tidy up. I'm surprised the National Party is taking that position because it's a position which existed under its own watch. It's a simple tidy up. And as for the retrospectivity they might want to read a bit more carefully because it only relates to the ability to hold on to the money and credit it to a new fee rather than going through a complex refund process. Nicola Grigg: A new fee like a new tax?Dr DUNCAN WEBB: If Mrs Grigg were to read the bill and the departmental disclosure statement it would go a long way to improving her speeches. I commend this bill to the House.
Belich CamillaCAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you Mr Speaker. First of all I'd just like to use my short call—I think the reasons for this legislation being introduced have been clearly outlined by previous speakers including the Minister and so I'd just like to address some of the concerns raised by the other side.One of the speakers on the other side alleged that this legislation was going to introduce an unlawful tax. Now the finding of unlawful tax came about in the High Court judgment which I have also read. The High Court judgment said that it was an unlawful tax. This bill does not implement an unlawful tax; this bill allows the previous fees structure to be implemented in order to give certainty to teachers and educators and to the Teaching Council. It is not the same thing. It is not the same thing as introducing an unlawful tax. So we are not introducing an unlawful tax; we are sorting out a situation following a court case which sometimes happens. It sometimes happens. Sometimes legislation needs to be brought in after cases are brought similar to a judicial review.The other side has also said it's retrospective. It is retrospective and the Minister said that. The reason it is retrospective is because if we did not introduce this piece of legislation the Teaching Council would need to go through an extremely long lengthy period involving almost every single teacher in the country organising refunds and then asking for additional payments.Simeon Brown: What's wrong with that?CAMILLA BELICH: I'll tell you what is wrong with that. It takes our teachers away from their important work as educators and sorts out a more simple solution to allow them to continue with their work. So that is why we have that element in the bill.They've also alleged quite amazingly that it's a new tax. This is not a new tax. It is quite common for professional bodies to require a fee when they are regulating the profession that they are a part of. It happens in many many different contexts and it does not amount to a tax. And in fact the Teaching Council has been charging an amount not changed I believe since 2010. So that is why we're introducing it in that way.Also it does not allow the Teaching Council to do whatever they like and the reason is that judicial review functions exist for every single law that is passed in this House and when that is not followed—the letter of the law is not followed—they are allowed to challenge it in judicial review. And so therefore this is a common-sense response to an issue which has been raised and I commend this bill to the House.
Grigg NicolaNICOLA GRIGG (National—Selwyn): I just want to take a quick call just to re-emphasise the points made by my colleagues that the National Party stands very strongly alongside our friends in the Greens in opposition to this bill—Simeon Brown: And the ACT Party.NICOLA GRIGG: And hopefully the ACT Party too—sorry I wasn't quite listening. Look this is a tight bill as has been traversed across the House already regarding fees. I'm sure if I remember rightly when this Government was formed it said it wouldn't introduce any new taxes. Well you can call it a fee but effectively it is actually a tax. It is another cost being foisted on hard-working New Zealanders just when the cost of housing's going up; fuel's going up; electricity—if you can get it!—is going up; and I see Stats New Zealand today is also saying that the cost of food is going up.But what strikes me as utterly extraordinary is that we are here legislating—well we're not; they are—for a retrospective fee increase that a High Court declared was illegal. I mean this Government is riding roughshod over court declarations. If that's not arrogant then I don't know what is. With your leave Mr Speaker I would like to read out an email if I may that I received from a teacher in Christchurch a couple of days ago. I think Dr Webb should probably take note of this because this person is a constituent of his. Last night I received this unbelievable email from the New Zealand teachers' council who have convinced Chris Hipkins to change the law allowing them to charge the fees they want and potentially go to yearly registration. This was after the council lost in court. So now the Government seeks to change legislation fast-tracked according to the PPTA. The fees after the law change will also be backdated and additional money sought from teachers." This person goes on to say that staff across schools across New Zealand are feeling deeply unappreciated by this Labour Government. I'd also add to that teachers midwives doctors nurses farmers—SPEAKER: Order! Order! Back to the bill.NICOLA GRIGG: I beg your pardon Mr Speaker. I was actually just winding up other than just to re-emphasise—SPEAKER: Winding me up or winding your speech up?NICOLA GRIGG: I beg your pardon. I was winding my commentary up Mr Speaker. Ha! Just wanted to place on the record that this is not small change. These fees are significant. They are big. They are going from $220 every three years to $157 every year. That to us on this side of the House is totally unacceptable.SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to."
Luxton JoJO LUXTON (Labour—Rangitata): Mr Speaker thank you for the opportunity to speak on this piece of legislation. From what I've read and from what I understand it is a very small and tight piece of legislation that simply validates the fees that were previously paid by teachers to the Teaching Council. So what we heard from the Minister was that there'd been no change in the fees since 2010 and more recently the fees had been changed from what was a three-year payment that teachers made when they were renewing their registration and they did it that way then it was moved to an annual payment for teachers to pay with an increase in cost. And we know what the subsequent issues have been since then and through the findings of the court.What it does as I've said is it validates the fees that have previously been paid and it means that for those who have paid their fees since February 2021 rather than the council having to refund the additional amount of fees back to teachers and then teachers then turn around the next year and pay their annual fees it just allows them to hold on to that and I guess basically credit a bit towards each teacher's next instalment of their fees. So I don't think there's much more to say on this. It's a very tight bill so I commend this bill to the House.
Chhour KarenKAREN CHHOUR (ACT): I'm standing on behalf of ACT to oppose this bill and there are a few reasons for this. Teachers have faced many many increases and more pressure within their workloads and the things they have to do in this year with COVID lockdown and with the pressures of mental health issues within schools. More and more is expected of them and it seems they are constantly having to fight to feel valued and appreciated. And when you are adding on to the costs of them to be registered and half the teachers don't even understand what the Teaching Council is there for you can see why they resent paying this fee.I spoke to multiple teachers to ask them you know how they feel with this situation and not one of them could tell me what the council was there for and what the council did for them. And the ones that did kind of said they wished that the council would just be there for disciplinary action and registration and leave the rest out of it because to them they feel like this is giving the council an open cheque book to do whatever they like and the teachers will be there to pay the bill.I just had a little bit of a look at what the New Zealand Post Primary Teachers' Association had said. They're saying that Teachers understand the need to have a registration body that ensures the profession retains [a] high standard [but] They need their council to be cost effective and they need to trust … it will work for teachers [and] not against them." It feels like there is no stability and teachers have no idea what is going to come next. If we just allowed councils to do whatever they like and they know the teachers will foot the bill I cannot see how this is good law. So we oppose the bill."
Sage EugenieHon EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Thank you Mr Speaker. The Green Party is opposing the Education and Training (Teaching Council Fees and Costs) Amendment Bill. It has been rehearsed that the Teaching Council is the statutory body. It's an independent statutory body. Not only does it handle the certification of teachers; it investigates teachers' misconduct handles professional complaints and provides professional leadership. But this bill is retrospective. This bill will have an impact on teachers' incomes. There was a 30000-signature petition expressing some concern and there was an 11000-signature petition calling for a review of the teachers' council. I don't often agree with Nicola Willis—but her point about there needing to be some consultation with teachers and also with the unions. It is not good law when you have the Government making retrospective laws which is one of the reasons that the Green Party is opposing it. Previously because Government subsidised 60 percent of the teachers' council costs in terms of doing that work around professional misconduct and providing leadership of the profession—and then suddenly as a result of that High Court decision putting in place this bill to enable the teachers' council to receive the fees that it charged and to retrospectively validate the reception of those fees without having a good consultation exercise we don't think is appropriate. We are opposing the bill.
Strange JamieJAMIE STRANGE (Labour—Hamilton East): Thank you Mr Speaker. The previous member appears to be a little bit confused. She appears to be blaming the Minister for this bill whereas I stand to commend the Minister for bringing this bill to the House. Look I think both sides of the House would acknowledge that there has been a legislative failure in this area. The Minister has brought an elegant solution to the House you know bringing about a solution that I expect our teachers will be very happy with.On the topic of the fees as we heard from the Minister the Teaching Council decided to change the registration structure from a three-year to a one-year and we heard that the fees would change accordingly. While visiting staffrooms across my electorate as the MP for Hamilton East over the past few months I certainly heard feedback from teachers who were not happy with the teachers' council's resolution. The teachers' council is independent of Government so I think that's an important aspect for the previous speaker and others just to be aware of. Now the teachers' council made that decision. The teachers quite clearly expressed to me their disappointment with that decision. As a member of Parliament I fed that through to various channels that I thought needed to hear it but it was a decision for the teachers' council.Now as we've heard—and I don't want to relitigate that—there's been a court ruling and so this piece of legislation is here to basically bring about a solution. The Minister outlined the solution. I'd like to finish by acknowledging the leadership of the Minister the excellent Minister of Education in bringing a solution to the House which I expect as a former teacher teachers will be happy with. I commend this bill to the House.
Lubeck MarjaMARJA LUBECK (Labour): Thank you Mr Speaker. It's a pleasure to take a call on the Education and Training (Teaching Council Fees and Costs) Amendment Bill. It's an absolutely narrow bill and there will be very little to add to the speech that we've already heard from the Minister but I would like to elaborate a little bit more on what the Minister spoke about: the work that we did in our previous term with regard to giving teachers more independence when it comes to representation on their own body the Teaching Council as it now is. Our Government did that work and of course as the Minister already foreshadowed more of that work will be continuing in the next few months that we have ahead with regards to the way that the council operates as the Minister outlined because as they did previously the teachers raised a really legitimate point when they brought up these points.Now there are some facts and figures involved that I don't want to get wrong so I will be referring to the numbers as they were added up because I don't want to get that wrong. So prior to the change to the fees increase these fees had not changed since 2010 and when they were changed in February 2021 the amount really changed from $220.80 for a three-year certificate to what became an annual certificate of $157. So that meant that a teacher would pay $471 over the period in total of annual fees where of course previously it would have been $249.20 for the three years. Now the recent High Court decision did challenge that decision has brought it back to what the fees were previously and that is exactly what this bill does.So it is important to understand that this bill is not validating the quashed practising certificates but what it does is it validates the payments that were received since 1 February 2020 because it would be quite a ludicrous exercise in fact if we were to get the teachers to pay a certain amount and then having to refund and then the teachers having to pay a top-up on top. So this bill is really common sense. It saves a lot of time. But what I do look forward to as chair of the Education and Workforce Committee that will be hearing submissions and working with my team on this bill is that we hear from a wide variety of submitters on their views on this bill and I commend this bill to the House. Thank you Mr Speaker.
Mallard TrevorPETITIONS PAPERS SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLSSPEAKER: No papers have been presented; no bills have been introduced. Petitions have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation.CLERK: Petition of Brenda Tairi requesting that the House reinstate Jesus' name back into the parliamentary prayerpetition of Lydia Tait requesting that the House urge the Government to build a new secondary school in Christchurch's southwest area of Halswellpetition of the New Zealand National Party requesting that the House urge the Government to provide for 500 MIQ spaces each fortnight to bring skilled migrant workers before the commencement of calving season.SPEAKER: Those petitions stand referred to the Petitions Committee. Select committee reports have been delivered for presentation.CLERK: Report of the Education and Workforce Committee on the petition of Jo Bethellreports of the Health Committee on the petition of Diana Ayling and the petition of Marsha Mackiereport of the Regulations Review Committee on the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Vaccinations) Amendment Order 2021 the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Air Border) Order (No 2) Amendment Order (No 7) 2021 and the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Air Border) Order (No 2) Amendment Order (No 8) 2021.SPEAKER: The report of the Regulations Review Committee is set down for consideration.
Hipkins Chris; Bishop ChrisBUSINESS STATEMENTHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): Today the House adjourns until Tuesday 24 August. In that week the Estimates debate will continue with appearances by three Ministers. Legislation to be considered will include second readings of the Water Services Bill and the Education and Training Amendment Bill and the committee stage of the Health (Fluoridation of Drinking Water) Amendment Bill. The remaining stages of the Ahuriri Hapū Claims Settlement Bill will be completed on Thursday 26 August and Wednesday 25 August will be a member's day.CHRIS BISHOP (National): Thank you to the Leader of the House for that update. Bearing in mind that we now have just 18 Government bills on the Order Paper and that number 18 is the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary Bill are we to expect that the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary Bill will soon receive its second reading in the House?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): Of course the member doesn't count the bills that are currently before select committee that are due to be reported back.
Salesa JennyTHURSDAY 12 AUGUST 2021The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.KARAKIA/PRAYERSASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Ke tau lotu. 'E 'Otua Māfimafi kuo mau taa'i mālie 'i ho'o 'ofá mo e ngaahi tāpuaki hono kotoa. 'Oku tuku homau lotó ka mau hū atu ke ke malu'i ange mu'a 'a e Kuiní mo tataki ange 'emau fua fatongia 'i he Fale Aleá 'aki 'a e poto Faka-e-'Otua 'ofa pea mo e 'ulungaanga malū ko e 'uhí ko e mo'ui mo e melino 'a e fonuá. 'Oku mau kole atu 'a e ngaahi me'á ni hono kotoa 'i he huafa ho 'aló pē 'e taha ko Sīsū Kalaisi ka ko homau fakamo'uí 'Emeni.
Tuesday 21 September 2021 - Volume 754
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Social Security (Subsequent Child Policy Removal) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.Ayes 77New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Motion agreed to.Bill read a second time.
Social Security (Subsequent Child Policy Removal) Amendment Bill — Second Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Water Services Bill be now read a second time.Ayes 85New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; ACT New Zealand 10.Noes 35New Zealand National 33; Te Paati Māori 2.Motion agreed to.Bill read a second time.
Water Services Bill — Second Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Land Transport (Clean Vehicles) Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 2 February 2022.Ayes 75New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Noes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Motion agreed to.
Land Transport (Clean Vehicles) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Select Committee
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Land Transport (Clean Vehicles) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 77New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Motion agreed to.Bill read a first time.Bill referred to the Transport and Infrastructure Committee.
Land Transport (Clean Vehicles) Amendment Bill — First Reading (continued)
Counter-Terrorism Legislation Bill — Second Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Bill be now read a second time.Ayes 98New Zealand Labour 65; New Zealand National 33.Noes 22Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Motion agreed to.Bill read a second time.
12. Question No. 12—ConservationANGELA ROBERTS (Labour) to the Minister of ConservationQuestion No. 12—Conservation12. ANGELA ROBERTS (Labour) to the Minister of Conservation: What recent announcements has she made regarding Jobs for Nature projects in Otago and Southland?SPEAKER: The Hon Kiritapu Allan—I doubly apologise.Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Conservation): Mr Speaker! As part of our COVID recovery on 16 September I announced a package of nine Jobs for Nature projects across Otago and Southland. The projects represent an investment of more than $17 million into nature and the community and they're collectively expected to create more than 200 jobs through protecting threatened species making a well-known lake swimmable and supporting areas hit by the downturn in international tourism.Angela Roberts: What projects will be delivered in the Queenstown lakes district?Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: As we all know the Queenstown lakes district has been impacted by the downturn in international tourism as a result of COVID. And the key focus of Jobs for Nature is providing investments into these communities: $4.45 million is being provided to a project to rehabilitate Arrowtown's Lake Hayes which aims to make the lake swimmable again by working with community groups to undertake native planting wetland restoration predator control and installation of sediment traps; $2.98 million is being provided to the southern lakes sanctuary project assisting more than 80 local predator control initiatives across 150000 hectares of the southern lakes region to protect 23 threatened and at-risk wildlife species from invasive species.Angela Roberts: What projects will be delivered in Fiordland?Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: More good news. A range of projects in Fiordland are receiving funding coming at an important time for another beautiful region for which international tourism is a key part of their local economy. These include bringing the park to the people through trail enhancement: $973000 for the Fiordland Trails Trust to protect threatened bird species; Tamatea Restoration has received $700000 for the Pure Salt cruises to develop and use new technologies to eliminate predators within the Tamatea/Dusky Sound region; the Routeburn Dart Wildlife Trust predator trapping project has received $4116 for additional predator control in the Routeburn Dart and nearby valleys; and the Big Bay/Awarua ecosystem restoration has received $383000 to establish a trapping network at Big Bay /Awarua and Waituna Lagoon to help protect vulnerable native birds such as fernbirds bittern rail and kākā.
10. Question No. 10—WomenBARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) to the Minister for WomenQuestion No. 10—Women10. BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) to the Minister for Women: What support is the Government providing for women and girls adversely affected by COVID-19?Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister for Women): As the Minister for Women I have announced a $2 million community fund to support vulnerable women and girls adversely affected by COVID-19. We know from the last nationwide lockdown that women experienced disproportionately adverse effects including job losses loss of income increased unpaid care work and additional barriers to those seeking to leave violent and abusive situations. This Government has acted quickly to ensure we take rapid and effective action to reach women during the current lockdown and safeguard their wellbeing.Barbara Edmonds: Why is this type of community fund needed?Hon JAN TINETTI: Last nationwide lockdown we established the same fund which allocates funding through established community groups and organisations at grassroots level. All evaluations found that this is a highly effective way to reach vulnerable women as there is an existing relationship with this cohort. The fund supported 155 organisations and over 10000 women and their families. While there are other Government supports available to vulnerable New Zealanders including women through schemes such as the wage subsidy we know there are additional gender-based needs—examples include help with leaving an abusive partner culturally appropriate support networks for migrant women mental health support for rainbow women and a lack of access to basic toiletries.Barbara Edmonds: How will the $2 million be allocated to community providers?Hon JAN TINETTI: The funding is to support organisations who (1) work to improve outcomes for women and girls and (2) are seeing an increased demand for services and/or reduced resources because of COVID-19. The three objectives of the fund are: to prioritise grassroots investments making sure funds are spent to improve outcomes for women and where they are needed most; support women in all their diversity who face intersectional challenges within their communities such as women in Māori Pacific rural and migrant communities; and supporting the Government's priorities such as ensuring healthy and safe communities reducing family and sexual violence and improving child wellbeing. Each organisation can apply for up to $50000 of funding and applications are currently open until 1 October and organisations can apply on the Ministry for Women's website.
8. Question 8—Research Science and InnovationIBRAHIM OMER (Labour) to the Associate Minister of Research Science and InnovationQuestion 8—Research Science and Innovation8. IBRAHIM OMER (Labour) to the Associate Minister of Research Science and Innovation: What recent announcements has she made about helping New Zealand's COVID-19 response and preparedness for future pandemics?Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Associate Minister of Research Science and Innovation): On Sunday I was pleased to announce that the Government is investing in a new Infectious Diseases Research Platform. New Zealand's response to COVID-19 has been informed by science from the beginning and as a result we have saved lives but the lack of a dedicated infectious diseases research fund has been a longstanding gap in our domestic science capabilities. When the pandemic hit scientists either volunteered time to support the COVID-19 response or received ad hoc grants for small pieces of research. To address this we are investing $36 million over three years in the new programme of research to sustain the contribution of cutting-edge scientists to the COVID-19 response.Ibrahim Omer: What will the major research focus be?Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: The first priority area is improving prevention and control including through better understanding of disease transmission and future vaccine research. The second is improving our management of infectious diseases—for instance through diagnostics surveillance and therapeutics. Reducing the impact of infectious diseases on Māori and Pacific people will also be a key focus. That work can only be done here in Aotearoa New Zealand. I also see this research platform as promoting the development of our next generation of pandemic scientists. This work will not just help with our current response to COVID-19 but also help prevent future pandemics. Ibrahim Omer: What reaction has she seen to the announcement of the Infectious Diseases Research Platform?Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: I've been heartened by the positive reception of local experts. Arindam Basu associate professor of Epidemiology and Environmental Health at the University of Canterbury described the announcement as an excellent and welcome move" saying "additional infectious disease research funding focused on COVID-19 will be immensely beneficial to everyone." Epidemiologist Dr Amanda Kvalsvig from the Department of Public Health University of Otago Wellington also welcomed the announcement saying it "has the potential to make a huge difference [to] the lives of New Zealanders." and immunologist Professor Graham Le Gros director of the Malaghan Institute of Medical Research and programme director of the Vaccine Alliance Aotearoa New Zealand said "This is very good news and a much needed investment in the skill-sets and technologies that will be needed to protect New Zealand against the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.""
5. Question No. 5—PoliceGINNY ANDERSEN (Labour—Hutt South) to the Minister of PoliceQuestion No. 5—Police5. GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour—Hutt South) to the Minister of Police: What recent reports has the Minister seen regarding Police's efforts to disrupt organised crime?Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Minister of Police): I've seen reports that police will continue to relentlessly target gangs and organised crime with the extension of the successful Operation Tauwhiro. Already as part of Operation Tauwhiro police have seized 987 firearms seized $4.99 million in cash and charged 865 people with firearms offences. This is a fantastic result. We have never been more active in cracking down on gangs and organised crime and we'll get gang leaders off our streets. With the extension of Operation Tauwhiro this Government is continuing to take action to make sure New Zealanders and their families are kept safe.Ginny Andersen: How is the Government continuing to support Police's efforts to disrupt organised crime?Hon POTO WILLIAMS: This Government has put a record number of police on the front line including those with a specific focus on organised crime and the result of this investment continues to pay off. In the last four years alone police have seized $500 million in cash and assets from organised crime. We are also committed to introducing the firearms prohibition orders to protect the public from firearms harm and to hit gangs where it hurts—their pockets—by amending the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act to give the police new powers to seize assets from organised criminals.
Edmonds BarbaraBARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana): Thank you Madam Speaker. It's good to have an omnibus tax bill before the House because what I appreciate about omnibus tax bills are the remedial matters that are in the bill. At this point I'd just like to bid a happy birthday to the member across the House. It is these small tweaks and fixes that help to keep the lights on in our tax world and help keep the tax system working efficiently. Remedial matters are sometimes brought to the attention of IRD officials by the private sector. They are generally niggly matters that don't meet the policy intent and sometimes have adverse impacts on taxpayers. For example I can see in clause 155 of the bill it provides that a commissioner's decision to reopen a time-barred GST return is treated as a disputable decision. At face value this is a good amendment as it allows a taxpayer the ability to challenge the commissioner through the disputes process rather than through a judicial review. Quickly I just want to touch on one other policy matter and that is the inclusion of 11 charities to Schedule 32 of the Income Tax Act. These charities have probably been waiting a long time and have been looking forward to this day. They would have been subject to some vigorous scrutiny by IRD officials and tonight they are one step closer to obtaining donee status for their donors. I look forward to scrutinising this bill at the select committee and I commend this bill to the House.
Webb DuncanDr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you Madam Speaker. The other side of the House seems to be having a field day on outdated economic theories. The idea that tax doesn't have an effect on behaviour is pretty much debunked. Look I'm really looking forward to being part of a select committee that will dive deep into these various tax policies including the cryptocurrency. It is an indication of the fact that the tax law has to keep up with new technologies and dealing with cryptocurrency as quasi-money will be interesting. Of course if you're trading in it like any dealer you'll pay income tax on profits. But look it's a substantive bill making some useful updates. I commend the bill to the House.
Strange JamieJAMIE STRANGE (Labour—Hamilton East): Thank you Madam Speaker. I rise as the final speaker on the second reading of this bill. This bill is not about encouraging dependency; it's about supporting children and whānau and families. It's important that we take a long-term view of the full effects on a person's life of those first 1000 days. My wife and I had four children under five years which I probably would not recommend to anyone in this House but there you go. I see that Nicola Willis fits in that club as well. Look we were fortunate in our case that my wife was able to stay home for around six or seven years. It was very tight on the income but being able to do that had a significant impact on the start of our children's lives. Now I know that's not possible for everyone but I'd just like to share a personal story in terms of the importance of that first 1000 days and this bill supports that. I commend it to the House.
Sharma GauravDr GAURAV SHARMA (Labour—Hamilton West): I rise in the House second time today to speak on another fantastic bill by another fantastic Minister from the Labour Party. I just want to thank first of all Minister Carmel Sepuloni as well as the Social Services and Community Committee for considering this bill recently. It is my understanding that of all the submissions that came through the select committee the majority were in favour of this bill which helps reset a lot of the issues that came about when the National Party made a few amendments a few years ago.The bill specifically addresses concerns around the current subsequent child policy which affects child development. As my colleague Glen Bennett mentioned it disproportionately affects Māori and our wāhine. What a great bill it is to help our wāhine to be able to look after their subsequent child the same way they can do with their primary or first child. So I would like to support this bill to move further in the House. Thank you.
Webb Duncan; Dean JacquiDr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Kia ora Madam Speaker. I have never heard such a lot of pernicious vile utterly foundless tripe. That comes straight out of 1970s neocon. The idea that people go out there baby farming so that they can live off the back of the State is not only false; it's possibly been disproved and I cannot believe that in New Zealand today there's a political party even that far-right political party that would repeat that absolute nonsense. It's vile it's false and it's misogynistic—Hon David Parker: It's Victorian.Dr DUNCAN WEBB: —because all it does is punish women. Absolutely Mr Parker. It's Victorian. So to suggest that to reduce child poverty we deprive children of support absolutely defies logic.This bill is getting rid of a punishment for having children—an effective financial sterilisation of a woman and I'll have no part of that. I'm proud to be part of a Government that's getting rid of it and part of a Government that is making meaningful steps to address child poverty. I absolutely commend this bill to the House.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Nicola Grigg—a five-minute call.
Bennett GlenGLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth): Kia ora Madam Speaker. I rise in support of this piece of legislation and I want to thank the Hon Carmel Sepuloni for her work in ensuring that our welfare system our people are well cared for. Now a previous speaker—thank you for reminiscing about the weekend with your kuia friend on the porch. This piece of legislation as it stands disproportionately impacts Māori by around 56 percent. This piece of legislation disproportionately impacts on women by around 86 percent. So I hope that that conversation on that porch over the weekend was around that disparity. As a member of the Social Services and Community Committee and listening the Ministry of Social Development did modelling on this legislation which was brought in in 2012 and they found no strong evidence to suggest that this policy has been effective in reducing time on the benefit. Therefore I support this piece of legislation and I commend it to the House.
Warren-Clark AngieANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Thank you Madam Speaker. It's a real pleasure to stand and talk about the Social Security (Subsequent Child Policy Removal) Amendment Bill. I'm really delighted to do that because this is a bill that essentially was predicated on an assumption that I feel is wrong. That assumption is that people who are on benefits have children to stay on benefits. That is not the case. We know that people have more wishes hopes and dreams for their families than living on benefits.We heard from 31 submitters: 17 individuals 13 organisations and one Crown entity—81 percent of those submitters were in support of the removal of this policy. I want to read very quickly from the Child Poverty Action Group We must acknowledge and support women in their unpaid labour as child carers. Raising children has long been undervalued despite its crucial contribution to society. Children's experiences in their early years are a strong determinant of their social and health outcomes later in life highlighting the importance of parenting both for the children themselves and for society at large." This piece of legislation gives the opportunity and the choice for those beneficiaries those people on benefits to stay at home with their children when they need to but it also gives them the choice to go out to work just like everyone else in this country. I commend this bill to the House."
Warren-Clark AngieANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Thank you Mr Speaker. It's a real pleasure to stand and take a very short call. I want to mihi to the Hon Nanaia Mahuta for this very sound piece of legislation and also to the select committee who heard from a lot of people in regards to this matter and rightly so. Water is incredibly precious. I recall back in the day when we could travel travelling to Ethiopia on a Speaker's delegation and all water needed to be drunk out of a plastic water bottle. It was a nightmare for me. I ended up on a plane. It was not pleasant I can tell you. Luckily there was medical assistance available and I could take a whole pile of drugs to keep me alive. What we know with the Havelock North situation is that was not the case for some of our older people. Therefore I'm really really pleased that we've actually got a regulatory system that is going to support and help our people to drink healthy water in this country. I commend this bill to the House.
Roberts AngelaANGELA ROBERTS (Labour): I'm really pleased to take a short call. It's great to hear all of those around the House acknowledging the many around the country who provide in good faith to their neighbours and their communities with small water supplies. I want to thank and acknowledge the select committee for acknowledging their concerns and ensuring that the support is there to ensure that they are able to continue to improve the supply of water to their neighbours and their communities.We were asked what the problem is that we're trying to solve: 37000 people who get sick from drinking water—completely unacceptable. We're told to back the people by leaving them to it. We're not going to do that. We're going to back our rural communities and our small suppliers by ensuring that Taumata Arowai and the local councils help them to do what they need to do to make sure that those of us who live in small communities are able to access safe drinking water. I commend the bill to the House.
Lorck Anna; Rurawhe AdrianANNA LORCK (Labour—Tukituki): As a private bore owner myself that supplies two households I have been watching this legislation with interest. I also lived through the Havelock North water crisis and my daughter was one of the first to get sick. In fact the only thing that saved her was drinking from my bore and not from the poisoned water in Havelock North. No one knows more than the people of Hawke's Bay the consequences of not looking after water infrastructure assets. This is why I see a real need to make sure how we do this for the hundreds if not thousands of private bores to meet these new drinking-water standards must be realistic affordable and practical. Already we have Taumata Arowai working alongside small water-holders to make sure we develop these solutions—acceptable solutions—which could just be putting a simple UV filter at the point of entry to your house. This is a practical solution. I won't need to do anything more than that—safe drinking water is a right for everyone to ensure people do not get sick.I commend this bill to the House.DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a split call. I call Matt Doocey.
Utikere TangiTANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Tēnā koe Mr Speaker. I'm happy to take a brief call on this particular bill because following my maiden statement this was the first proposed piece of legislation that I had the opportunity to make a contribution on in the House at first reading. So while my memory of that serves myself quite well actually I none the less had a look back at Hansard to see actually what comments I had made at the time. For me it was around the importance of water supply and safe water supply to communities up and down New Zealand but also that we were brought into line with international practice and also that this would also provide some certainty and confidence for the community. Having reviewed the Health Committee's report on this particular bill I can see that they have taken a sensible approach to the consideration of it that they have come back with some sensible recommendations as a result that the Minister has touched on and on that basis I am delighted to be able to commend this bill to the House.