edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 55New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.Motion agreed to.Bill read a first time.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): The question is That the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill be considered by the Social Services and Community Committee. Motion agreed to.Bill referred to the Social Services and Community Committee.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Immigration (Mass Arrivals) Amendment Bill and the Māori Fisheries Amendment Bill.
Garcia PauloPAULO GARCIA (National—New Lynn): We do need to use every tool that we have in New Zealand to increase housing supply. One of these tools is to incentivise or to encourage people with more than one house to enter or re-enter the property rental market and to increase the number of properties that are available for rent. It really boggles the mind to propose that when a good tenant has found a good home with a good landlord the landlord would want to use any opportunity willy-nilly to get rid of that tenant.The Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill focuses on that very situation where it may be that a tenant has demonstrated that they are unable to maintain the tenancy agreement that they have signed into. The Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill focuses on providing the landlord with the opportunity for no-cost terminations. Now whenever the 90-day no-cost termination is mentioned there is that reaction: that this will be used willy-nilly to get tenants out of homes. But again—if we pause for a moment—good tenants will always be in demand by persons who consider themselves landlords and offer their properties that they have worked hard to hold and offer to other people to live in. There is that responsibility to maintain that household for the tenant. Reintroducing the 90-day no-cost termination for periodic tenancies is really just providing an opportunity for landlords to exit should they need to and again it is not something that a reasonable mind would consider to be there for willy-nilly use.Also providing landlords with the opportunity to end a fixed-term tenancy without requiring any specific further reason—it's a fixed term. The term ends and the landlord can choose not to continue for another fixed term or to go into a periodic tenancy—this is restored to the landlord.The amendment bill also addresses a major issue among New Zealanders which is that Kiwi families are estimated to have around 64 percent of New Zealand households owning at least one pet and—this is very interesting—59 percent of people who don't have a pet would like to have a pet and I am probably one of those. The restrictions on having a pet in a rental property are very complex and what this bill tries to bridge is that idea of having pets in a house that may be destructive. We all know that dogs when they're very young will be trying their teeth out on everything that they can manage to find—and also cats especially who are wanting to run around. So the bill provides for pet bonds and for more people with pets to have the opportunity to find good rental accommodation alongside their pets. I commend this bill to the House.
Appropriation (2022/23 Confirmation and Validation) Bill — Third Reading
Goldsmith Paul; Pugh MaureenAPPROPRIATION (2022/23 CONFIRMATION AND VALIDATION) BILLThird ReadingHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): I move That the Appropriation (2022/23 Confirmation and Validation) Bill be now read a third time.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the motion be agreed to.Motion agreed to.Appropriation (2022/23 Confirmation and Validation) Bill read a third time.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Members with your leave I suggest that before we start the first reading of the next bill we adjourn for the dinner break and resume at 7.30 p.m.—sorry we're suspending until 7.30 p.m. Is there any objection to that? OK we'll see you back here at 7.30 p.m. Thank you.Sitting suspended from 5.54 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.
Luxton Jo; Patterson MarkHon JO LUXTON (Labour): I just want to follow up on that answer from the Minister. My question was: can he give us an update following the conversation that he had with the Minister about that particular road?Hon MARK PATTERSON (Associate Minister of Agriculture): Well that's an ongoing discussion. I can't give you an answer but I recognise and he recognises that important arterial route for the East Coast.
Patterson MarkHon MARK PATTERSON (Associate Minister of Agriculture): Right. I'll take a couple of those questions. Firstly the wool one: I thank Mr Abel for his support and yes we are going to be bringing wool back into Government buildings. That piece of work is happening now in terms of shaping up that policy. You do raise a really good point. We have got a cluster of businesses that are reaching a point where they're kind of really ready to go but it's access to capital in this country. We can start them up but how do we scale them? And one of the things—and it's not necessary Government funding that's needed for this. I mean we can use our influence within this place to help bring people together and maybe package up something for commercial—and I note your colleague—in fact one of the people I'm going to be ringing is your colleague or former colleague James Shaw who's now looking at green investments. So there could not be a more green investment than into the wool industry.So around that new wool scourer at Awatoto there's a $50 million investment there. My vision is for a big wool cluster of businesses developing out of that area—whether that happens but you can see that. In terms of some of the work around rural hubs I think a lot of that came out of the COVID and then I think in cyclone recovery. I think it's been really successful and—no it came out of the COVID money but in the cyclone it was shown to be really successful in other adverse events because there was somewhere to go there was somewhere that had connectivity there was somewhere that had a commercial kitchen. That's probably something that sits probably more in the regional economic development portfolio. I know it's something that's being looked at there but I do want you to know that I recognise the good work that has gone on there both investing in marae and community halls.And in terms of the roading thing that is a bigger piece of work and the Minister outlined some regional roading priorities earlier but I do agree that we need to put GDP and access to markets as a big weighting in terms of how we allocate our access to roading infrastructure. Thank you.
Luxton JoHon JO LUXTON (Labour): Thank you Mr Chair. I've got a couple of questions: one for the Minister of Agriculture and then some for the Minister for Rural Communities.So my question to the Minister of Agriculture is this: in the Ministry for Primary Industries' (MPI) annual report they said that industry transformation plans are a mechanism for building a more integrated and shared understanding of how to make the most of New Zealand's food and fibre strength maximise new opportunities and respond to challenges on the horizon. Given that all work on these has now ceased what is the Minister's plan for taking the industry forward if not with the support and understanding of the sector?My questions for the Minister for Rural Communities—the first one being this: as he will be aware since 2019 32 rural community hubs have been established with seven new ones in the last financial year; can we expect support and seed funding from MPI for these hubs to continue in Budget 2024?My other question for the Minister is that when the Minister came before our select committee for annual review we asked him whether he was actively advocating to maintain and fix State Highway 35 and keep the East Coast connected to the world. The Minister acknowledged that we needed to have roading infrastructure that was fit for purpose and that food security needs to be a factor when deciding how to divide infrastructure spending. The Minister said he had spoken to the Minister of Transport about this matter and I'm wondering if the Minister could please give us an update following the conversation that he's had with the Minister of Transport about that matter. Thank you.
McClay ToddHon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Agriculture): Mr Chair thank you. I'm going to go very quickly because there were points raised earlier I'd like to address in case colleagues have any follow-up questions they'd like. Around cyclone recovery this is something we're taking very very seriously. A lot of the things the member raised fall outside of my competence as agriculture Minister. But just to say as far as agriculture and horticulture and forestry are concerned we're looking to work with the sector and many others particularly experts that actually know what's going on on the ground; the best way to sort these things out; the harm that's been done and how to stop it in the future. I would be very open to working with anybody that has input into that.As far as the rural infrastructure is concerned particularly roading Minister Patterson has a responsibility for rural infrastructure in that area—although with that in mind he's not the Minister who gets to make the decisions as to where funding is concerned. But the rural sector now has a dedicated advocate for rural infrastructure roading and so on.Jobs for Nature also as admirable as it is—I'd like to speak at great length on it—it's not an agricultural responsibility. So unfortunately that would have to be addressed to the environment Minister.On Wai 262 that equally—the responsibility of that sits with another Minister around intellectual property. But I would say we take our responsibilities and obligations seriously. In the last term of Parliament there was a Plants Variety Rights Act that was put in place to update that to make it modern and available to the agricultural sector. Within that there was support for Wai 262 and recognition of indigenous plants and processes. So there was a say in that and that's something that's set aside that the agency responsible has to take account of.To the member for Nelson 26 votes doesn't suggest to me that the Government's going to change anytime soon.
Boyack RachelRACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you Mr Chair—pleasure to have another opportunity to take a call. My question is around the time frames that the Minister has indicated in order to develop the supposed gold standard that live animal exports will need to follow. My question really is why would industry seek to invest given that from my latest written parliamentary question the Minister has indicated that live animal exports are not likely to be reintroduced through legislation until 2025? Given that there's a high likelihood of a change of Government in 2026—certainly that's what we're hearing—Reuben Davidson: Maybe sooner.RACHEL BOYACK: It could be sooner actually. I mean it could be sooner—I think that's a very fair point Mr Davidson; it could well be sooner.Why would industry be seeking to invest in such an activity given that the Government is going to take two years since the election to actually reintroduce the legislation never mind actually reintroducing the practice? Surely the industry would be looking for some certainty from the Minister. I mean I guess is it not an element of wasteful spending—isn't that what we'd call it? We'd call it wasteful spending I guess getting officials to do work on this knowing that actually once we see a change of Government which we do expect to have I think sooner than later that it would be a complete waste of money for industry to be investing. So that's my further question to the Minister thank you.
Abel Steve; Tuiono TeanauSTEVE ABEL (Green): Thank you Mr Chair. I just want to speak to Minister Patterson and say that you may find on your select committee that you have multi-party support for the wool industry and I just published an article in Canterbury Farming saying that we'd be fools to not back wool. With the scourge of plastic polluting our oceans from fibres and products and building products and carpets—even in our own schools—we certainly need to back the wool industry. One of the messages that we got in the current briefing before us at the select committee was from some of those quite inspiring operators who are doing incredible things with wool domestically. One of the strong messages was that we need to do domestic manufacturing for the industry to be viable rather than sending our high-quality product as a commodity into the global market where somebody else makes the money out of turning it into a suit. Are you—and this is my question—as a Government going to put actual dollars towards things like manufacturing plant in the wool sector so that we can build that manufacturing sector?I've got a quick follow-up question for the other Minister if that's OK. Mr Hoggard further to your point about listening to farmers about farming will you take into account the multitude of animal welfare experts who tell us time and again across the board that there is no way to do live animal exports other than in a way that is cruel? I'll quote but one of them the New Zealand SPCA chief science officer Arnja Dale who says It is very clear from the research that there is absolutely no way to achieve good animal welfare on long and complicated journeys." Will you take all of that into account and take that as the primary leader of experts in terms of your determination on proceeding with live animal exports? Thank you.CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Thank you and I just remind members to not bring the Chair into the debate."
Hoggard Andrew; Tuiono TeanauHon ANDREW HOGGARD (Associate Minister of Agriculture (Animal Welfare Skills)): Just on the two points that were raised there in terms of the custom-built boats issue. As you may have realised this is a coalition Government. We signed a coalition agreement. I am not responsible for commitments made by parties before the coalition agreement was made. As I said previously it'll be a standard. Now maybe it'll take a custom-built boat to achieve the standard or maybe it won't; the standards are what matter. That's how you drive changes on farm or anywhere in the agricultural industry—you set a standard and people have to meet it.In terms of your question around intellectual property (IP)—Hon Damien O'Connor: That's called a regulation.Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: Yeah whatever. In terms of IP you asked the question: Well are you also then saying that we should stop sending frozen semen offshore because is that not also giving away our IP?" Now it's important to realise that most of these countries we would be trading animals with will not be operating the same farm system we operate here in New Zealand. We operate a pasture-grazing system here in New Zealand—Rachel Boyack: Exactly—terrible animal welfare standards.Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: —if you wanted to listen you might learn a bit about farming—and so these animals are bred for that purpose. We're not giving away any IP because what we're sending to them are animals from a very low-disease country OK? So that's the benefit they are seeing. They are seeing good traceability and good welfare from a trading partner they can trust so I don't believe there's any IP given away. You know at the end of the day farming is pretty simple: you feed the cows; they produce milk.CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): OK thank you for that and just to highlight as well that this debate—despite the times that I've told you—will end at 5.51 p.m."
Maipi-Clarke Hana-RawhitiHANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE (Te Pāti Māori—Hauraki-Waikato): I'm still seeking an answer from both Ministers or any Minister on the Wai 262 claim and whether or not they have been working alongside Minister for Māori Development Tama Potaka in making sure that this claim gets picked up with this Government. Are there any time lines? At any point are they going to meet with the claimants of the Wai 262 claim?
Abel SteveSTEVE ABEL (Green): Thank you Mr Chair. My question is to the Associate Minister of Agriculture. Really I'm interested in Jobs for Nature. The Minister has said that the tools that farmers need are things that the Government can provide. My enduring experience living on a farm and working in the community was that farmers want to do the right thing. Jobs for Nature has provided rural jobs has helped build that community has helped families grow in our rural communities and it's such a successful programme. Will the Minister commit to continuing and expanding the Jobs for Nature programme? Thank you.
Hoggard AndrewHon ANDREW HOGGARD (Associate Minister of Agriculture (Animal Welfare Skills)): OK so just firstly on wallabies—yes I had a briefing not so long ago. The programme at this stage is focused on the boundaries. The wallabies have expanded past the boundaries where we'd want them. We aim to get them back over those boundaries and once that's achieved then it's a case of squeezing them down and eradicating them.I was intending to be down in the South Island and helping out with some wallaby eradication. Unfortunately I had to have eye surgery instead and I probably wouldn't hit a wallaby in the future. Hon Mark Patterson: You might have a better chance. Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: Well I might have a better chance now yeah. Going back to the livestock exports and the mention of the Al Kuwait boat what I would say is that when it was in Cape Town it was carrying 19000 head of stock; when it last left New Zealand it was carrying 11000. So that is part of the problem—you know our standards were for much fewer animals on the boat. Those were our old standards and we will obviously be updating those standards. In terms of specifics the member asked around what those might be. That is all still being worked on. When it is out then we'll be able to discuss those updated standards and whether or not everyone believes they are good enough and make suggestions around whether further improvement is needed. But at the moment I can't go into the details because they're still being developed.
Luxton JoHon JO LUXTON (Labour): Thank you Mr Chair. I want to move now to the issue of wallabies. Wallabies in South Canterbury are a massive issue and it's something I keep harping on about in our select committee. The eradication of wallabies and the destruction that we're seeing from wallabies with our crops and the devastating impact that that would have if they were to cross into mid-Canterbury. We've heard from the Ministry for Primary Industries that they are just sort of focusing their work on pest control for wallabies around those outer areas but it is really concerning that that's pretty much all that they are focusing on at the moment because as we know hunters can't quite keep up with the rate of wallabies that we are seeing being born and continuing to procreate. So I would like to know what the Minister's plans are for ensuring that the wallaby population doesn't get out of control and what mitigations they are taking to ensure that they do not cross into that mid-Canterbury area because as I've said that would be completely devastating for the arable farmers in that area.
O'Connor DamienHon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Labour): Look thank you very much Mr Chair and I'll just take a couple of short questions. Regarding the live exports the Ministers have spoken about gold standards and spoken about ensuring that high standards of animal welfare in market will be met. So the question is how will they be met and how will New Zealand oversee those high standards in market when the animals arrive?And the second is if the current area allowance for a 300 kilogram animal over three weeks on a boat is 1.2 square metres and for a 500 kilogram animal it is 2 square metres for three weeks does the Minister consider that adequate and will the gold standard be an increase in the area on a boat if he's indeed to reinstate live exports?
Tangaere-Manuel CushlaCUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Tēnā koe Mr Chair and I appreciate the answers to date. I'd like to ask some questions now about cyclone recovery. It was really good in the report to see the acknowledgment of the value that marae and community halls had during the cyclone. That said a lot of marae are now still affected by the cyclone and do not fit any current Government funding criteria so it's good to see and hear the acknowledgment that they need to be brought into scope. Will the Minister commit to meeting with all the marae still affected and their hapū directly to discuss their needs and their recovery requirements given the value that they have not only in cyclone recovery but as a community hub and as just serving across their whole communities?The second thing is about infrastructure. Obviously it's great news; everyone wants to hear about their road getting fixed but in smaller communities such as the East Coast the supporting infrastructure that is required to help people get into those communities and fix those roads is very fragile if non-existent. So what commitment will the Minister make to investing in infrastructure that can support these roads of significance being built?
Willis ScottSCOTT WILLIS (Green): Thank you Mr Chair and thank you Minister for speaking on the live exports. I have a few more questions in that regard please. Those images that we showed at the select committee to Minister McClay were from a vessel called the Al Kuwait which has operated under a different name from our shores before we banned live animal exports here. Those are images of animals in Cape Town existing in the miserable conditions of their own filth. Will you rule out that ship the Al Kuwait which is a purpose-built live export ship a relatively new ship I think built in 2016 and yet it still has these miserable conditions on it? The South African SPCA investigators who went on to the ship described the unimaginable stench the gruesome conditions of animals forced to live in their own faeces and exposed to dangerous levels of ammonia rough seas extreme heat stress contaminated drinking water and exhaustion.Further in light of recent decisions in both Australia to phase out live sheep exports and the United Kingdom which has just passed legislation to prohibit live animal exports have you taken into account the opinions of those other nations who have also recognised the inherent cruelty of live animal exports? I want to draw your attention to a couple of quotes from the British Parliament from conservative members there. The long journeys caused intolerable stress injury and exhaustion and the case studies we heard were harrowing. Once animals leave [these] shores there is no control over how they are kept or slaughtered. Thus it is important that we stop this practice once and for all." Another Minister said "The figures I have seen on live exports are absolutely horrendous. I cannot believe that people actually thought it was okay to treat animals like this—subjected to journeys of"—wait for it—"over 2000 miles lasting 70 hours." The British parliamentarians were distressed at journeys of 60 hours from the UK to Spain or journeys of 18 hours from the UK to Europe and here we are talking about journeys of weeks at sea the inhumane crowded exhaustion dehydration long stressful journeys.Is it not correct Minister that we have reached a time in our history where it's no longer acceptable for us to treat animals so poorly? It is fundamentally miserable for those animals. Reputation aside income aside it's about the cruelty to those animals and the world is moving away from live animal exports. Will you consider changing this Government's position and committing to keeping the ban on live animal exports in place?"
Hoggard AndrewHon ANDREW HOGGARD (Associate Minister of Agriculture (Animal Welfare Skills)): Thank you Mr Chair. I'll just respond to a couple of those questions. Firstly on livestock exports: in terms of the updated standards at the moment the advice is still coming. The work is still being done within the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) team on developing what that may be before going to Cabinet and then consultation. The member asked whether this trade is worth it. It was worth $305 million—so it's $305 million or nothing. That's an extra $305 million that New Zealand needs right now so I think that is important.In terms of reputation if you can do something better than everyone else in the world that is lifting the reputation. That is showing the rest of the world how we can do this job much better. Also there is a reputational risk in terms of We'll just sell you our milk and nothing else." We have a role in terms of getting these free-trade agreements often in terms of helping these other countries develop their dairy industries. So I think there is a win-win there.In terms of the photos now I didn't see what you saw in front of the select committee but I have seen lots of photos recently and I'd point out that—man my eyesight is not the best at the moment so there's not much chance I can see that photo from here. But do they have a New Zealand National Animal Identification and Tracing (NAIT) tag in their ears? That would be my question if you know what one looks like because there's good chance that most of the photos I've seen do not have New Zealand tags in their ear and they are from offshore. They are not from the standards we're used to doing in New Zealand and we will be updating those standards.In terms of the ships the member asked about we will be putting standards in place. Now whether or not people build a new ship to meet those standards or renovate a ship to meet those standards they will need to meet the standards. The standards are the standards.In terms of biosecurity the focus will be on delivering outcomes. I've seen a lot of what the teams are doing. There is a lot of preparation going on right now for making sure we are ready for disease outbreaks if they ever do come and hopefully they never do. The focus for the team is on being ready and achieving those outcomes so I have full faith in the MPI team in terms of delivering that.There was a question around what we're doing in terms of biodiversity. So this is putting my other hat on as the Associate Minister for the Environment—if I'm allowed to do that—we are looking at biodiversity credits. I'm seeking advice on that and it will be a way to help farmers improve their biodiversity."
Luxton JoHon JO LUXTON (Labour): Thank you Mr Chair. I just want to move now to live exports. Unfortunately I was away sick when we had the Minister come to the select committee and I was unable to ask him the questions that I wanted to. Given that animal live exports have accounted for 0.2 percent of our primary sector revenues since 2015 and the industry is now worth over $50 billion is the Minister concerned that returning to live exports could potentially damage our free-trade agreements or any ability to negotiate our future free-trade agreements?We hear a lot about this gold standard that will be adhered to and I would like to know what the Minister sees is the gold standard because there is no definition. We don't have a definition here of what a gold standard is. So I'm interested to know what his view or vision for a gold standard is.I would also like to know if the Minister has put his mind to the cost to our exporters of moving to this gold standard. In regard to the ships is the expectation that we will have ships that will be brand spanking new purpose-built to meet these gold standards or does the Minister see that boats that are simply I guess renovated will do? There's been no real information out there as to what that gold standard would look like.Given some of the horrific photos and evidence that was shown to the select committee when we were looking at banning the live-export-by-ship legislation how can the Minister 100 percent guarantee that the images that we saw would not be repeated should he undertake to have whatever this gold standard might look like?
Tangaere-Manuel CushlaCUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Tēnā koe e te Heamana nāku te whiwhi ki te kōrero i runga i tēnei rīpoata arā annual review of the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI). He mihi hoki ki te Minita kua tae mai i tēnei wā. Heoi anō māku he tautoko i ngā mihi aroha ki tō mātou nei tiamana ki a Mark Cameron me tōna whānau i tēnei wā pouri rawa atu e te hoa mahi e te tiamana tēnei te tangi aroha ki a koutou ko tō whānau i tēnei wā pouri.[Thank you Mr Chair. It is my honour to speak to this report the annual review of the Ministry for Primary Industries. I would like to also acknowledge the Minister here today. And so I would also like to share my loving support to our chairman Mark Cameron and his family during this very sad time. Dear friend dear chairman I share my sincere condolences with you and your family during this sad time.]As a member of the Primary Production Committee it's my pleasure to be here to be part of the annual review of the MPI.My first question relates to forestry. The report notes that forestry export revenue is forecast to decrease by 9 percent to $5.8 billion in the year to 30 June 2024. MPI considers boosting domestic processing as one way of reducing reliance on the export market and that there are opportunities for new innovative engineered wood products. Will the Minister take heed of this and if so what specific actions or investments will be made?Furthermore obviously land use is a major topic of discussion not only with regard to forestry but throughout the report it's raised in other industries such as the wool industry. What progress is being made there?Of course slash and woody debris clean-up continue to be a major concern for Aotearoa Whānui but in particular Ikaroa-Rāwhiti and flood affected areas. So can we have an update on the commitment to maintained investment in that and how work will continue.
Maipi-Clarke Hana-RawhitiHANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE (Te Pāti Māori—Hauraki-Waikato): Tēnā ra koe e te Māngai o te ra tēnā koe te Minita. I've got a series of questions. The first question that I have is in relation—I seek an update from the Minister on his work with Māori development Minister Potaka on progressing the issues arising from the Wai 262 claim and if there's any updates from the coalition Government in taking up on that claim.The second pātai is whether the Minister can confirm that the Māori partnership and investment business unit with the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) has not been disestablished as a result of public sector cuts and if so how the Minister intends to build the capability and support through the delivery of MPI's Treaty settlement commitments and ensure advice to Ministers reflects these commitments.Te pātai tua toru the third question is: I was a part of—alongside my whānau—the first ever project or pilot project with MPI through māra kai. So we're the first ever project on our whenua to develop māra kai programmes with schools with mātauranga Māori and I'm wanting to get reassurance from the Minister if those programmes will still be carried out under this new Government.The fourth pātai is on genetic engineering technologies. I seek an update on the Minister's intentions if any on progressing regulations that foster research and innovation regarding genetic technologies. Tēnā ra koe.
Luxton JoHon JO LUXTON (Labour): Thank you Mr Chair. Minister the Māori agribusiness team at the Ministry for Primary Industries plays a significant role in ensuring that Māori land owners are supported to access funding expertise and advice that is available to them. Can the Minister guarantee that these services will not be cut; if not how is the Minister going to ensure that Māori land owners are aware of and accessing the support available to them? Can the Minister also guarantee continued funding for Māori-led and Māori-designed projects to help achieve emissions reduction in agriculture through the Climate Emergency Response Fund when his Government has plans to divert those funds in order to help pay for tax cuts?
Willis ScottSCOTT WILLIS (Green): Thank you Mr Chair and thank you to the Ministers again for fronting up and talking to us about the review. I'm very proud to be part of a nation that has always had farming at its roots from the first human contact. And we have also had biosecurity risks but what we also have at this point are climate risks and I'm really interested in hearing what support the Government is giving to farmers to diversify farm income and decarbonise particularly through electrification. And we have had Mike Casey from Rewiring New Zealand talk about the potential and the opportunity there is to decarbonise rural Aotearoa. So will the Government for example refresh and expand the Community Energy Fund to enable farmers to host wind and solar farms with Māori and community partners? This seems like a really simple way to both diversify farm income and support rural communities and ensure that we decarbonise at the same time.And I'm also interested in why this Government seems intent—at this point in time but you could change track—in hanging farmers out to dry by not supporting farm-emissions reduction not supporting biodiversity restoration not supporting energy farming to provide resilience for remote communities not supporting our farmers to adapt to the 21st century. Perhaps I've got it wrong perhaps you are going to do all those things but I'd like to hear some answers please.
Luxton JoHon JO LUXTON (Labour): Thank you Mr Chair. It's a pleasure to stand up and ask the Minister some questions with regard to our annual review. But first can I just acknowledge all the Ministers for making themselves available to come to our select committees. I know that you're very very busy and so it is really appreciated that you do take the time to come along and answer our questions. I just want to acknowledge my fellow committee members and in particular Mark Cameron our chair of the select committee who does a really good job.As the member who has just spoken Miles Anderson has just mentioned we looked at various entities within the agricultural sector but it was really great to be able to do an in-depth review of the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI). We had them for several hours and at one point when we were deciding on the time we were going to have them in for we wondered if we'd be able to fill that time. But it was absolutely incredible to have them there for that time and we managed to fill that time easily and we could well have had them in there for a bit longer.I think I'll just cut straight to questions because we are on limited time. The Minister guaranteed that reductions have not been made to MPI's front-line services and statutory staff such as veterinarians; animal welfare fisheries and food compliance officers; and biosecurity at the border. But can the Minister guarantee—absolutely 100 percent guarantee—that as part of MPI's 10 percent reduction in staff they will not be making cuts to those teams who plan and prepare for potential biosecurity incursions?
Tuiono Teanau; Anderson MilesAgricultureCHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The Minister of Agriculture is now available for one hour to respond to members' questions. Miles Anderson (Deputy Chairperson of the Primary Production Committee): I'm very very privileged to be able to give the annual review of the Ministry for Primary Industries on behalf of the select committee. I'd like to thank all the committee members for the hard work that they did. In particular I'd like to acknowledge Mark Cameron our chairperson and also let him know that our committee is thinking of him at this time. I'd also like to thank the Office of the Clerk—they were sterling in the work they did for us—and also the Office of the Auditor-General and the briefing they did for us and we found them particularly high-class in what they did.The Ministry for Primary Industries provides policy and regulatory advice; market access; trade services; and manages the major regulatory systems for biosecurity food safety forestry fisheries management and animal welfare. It has five customer-facing business units: Biosecurity New Zealand Fisheries New Zealand New Zealand Food Safety Te Uru Rākau - New Zealand Forestry Service and agricultural and investment services.Now a summary of the various areas that our committee looked into this year would come under various headings. In the agriculture space we spent quite a bit of time on cyclone recovery increasing the value of exports work to reduce greenhouse emissions Māori agribusiness and measuring the success of grant funding. In the horticulture space we focused on the spray-free orchard programme building the horticulture workforce and work to detect biosecurity threats. In forestry boosting domestic wood processing and reducing forestry slash were the two main areas that we addressed; in biosecurity we reviewed the Mycoplasma bovis programme; and in pest management we focused on wallabies and the management of other pests as well as wilding pines. We also looked at Government - industry agreement for foot and mouth disease. In the fisheries sector we looked at the amendment of the Fisheries Act on-board cameras and temporary closing of fishing area for restricted fishing and also looked at the honorary fishing officers and bottom trawling.Then we were fortunate enough to have the various Ministers in for comment and review. In the cyclone recovery space—[Interruption] Is that all? Ha ha! So when we had the Ministers in for review we heard from the Minister of Agriculture and Minister of Forestry about his ambitions for our primary industries in New Zealand. The Minister for Rural Communities talked about rural connectivity—Hon Member: And wool.MILES ANDERSON: Reviving the wool industry was a big focus whereas with the Minister for Biosecurity Minister for Food Safety and Associate Minister of Agriculture live animal exports biosecurity to prevent threats from the horticulture sector and response to the foot and mouth disease were the major areas of focus. So I'm very happy to present this report to the House.CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Cameron Luxton—Jo Luxton.
Belich Camilla; van Velden BrookeCAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you to the Minister. I look forward to hearing some further responses to some of my other questions with the time that we do have remaining. I also wanted to ask the Minister about her reform of the law relating to contractors but also relating to the definition of employee" within the Employment Relations Act. I know that this is an area of work that the Minister has been investigating and I wanted to get an update from the Minister in relation to this work on how that was progressing and how if she decides to limit the rights of workers to have their employment status upheld or not by the relevant court or authority there will be able to be natural justice for those people who are wrongly considered to be contractors and don't receive employment rights but wish to have the authority of the court determine that they are an employee and thus receive the employment rights which they are entitled to. And I wanted to know how she has progressed with that line of work and if she has any advice to the committee on what she intends to do in that area.CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Just to note that we're down to the last couple of minutes so if there's contributions to be made—Camilla Belich.CAMILLA BELICH: Just while the Minister is getting her answers together just some of the more salient questions that I would quite like an answer to if the Minister is able to. The questions around pay equity: how will the Government protect pay equity when it's disestablished the unit? My question around pay transparency: is the Minister going to go forward with this work? My question around modern slavery: will this Government be taking its international obligations seriously and implementing modern slavery legislation like social groups like workers' rights organisations like what businesses have advocated for? Can we please have an answer to those important areas? New Zealanders are waiting to hear.Hon BROOKE van VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Thank you Mr Chair. Look on the issue of the pay equity taskforce that's not actually a responsibility under my purview so that's not really something that we can ask about. But the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment does provide advice to all employers about pay equity. That's very much available on their website. Anybody can find it.When it comes to the question of pay transparency I just want to also note that this is a review about 2022-23 and there wasn't progress under that Government.CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Members our time with the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety has ended. The Minister of Agriculture is now available for one hour to respond to members' questions but we'll just move the tables around."
Belich CamillaCAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you Madam Chair. It would be good to hear some of the responses to my previous answers in relation to health and safety when the Minister seeks to take a call. But I do have some further questions in relation to that particular part of her portfolio. We traversed during the annual review debate with the Minister and also with WorkSafe the advice that the Minister has received in relation to engineered stone and the relating very concerning silicosis disease that can come from engineered stone. At the time of the hearing the Minister said she was receiving advice on that and subsequently has publicly said that she has received advice on that and I'm wanting to know from the Minister if there's been an update in relation to the advice on her work in relation to this very concerning area. We know that there are people in New Zealand receiving medical treatment as a result of their exposure to engineered stone and I'd be very keen to hear from the Minister on what the content of her most recent advice is that she announced on Q+A that she'd received that week which—I can't find the exact date of that interview—was probably about a month ago.I would also like to ask the Minister for an update in relation to the priorities for mental health in the workplace. During our annual review the Minister helpfully said that she was looking at her strategic priorities in relation to workplace mental health and I wanted to ask the Minister if she had an update in relation to her work in that area.Another question related to a question I had asked in an earlier call was in relation to the front-line inspectors. At the annual review it was confirmed by the Minister that front-line inspectors for WorkSafe had not been affected by the job cuts to date—the strategic baseline review that had been conducted within WorkSafe. There has been reported to be further job cuts at WorkSafe and I wanted to ask the Minister in relation to the strategic ability of that organisation to uphold its duties to protect New Zealanders' workplace health and safety whether there had been any other decisions that had been made and whether the statement still stands that front-line WorkSafe inspectors will not be impacted by the cuts to WorkSafe's budget.Just while the Minister is receiving advice I also had some questions in relation to the regulations that hadn't yet been modernised under the Health and Safety at Work Act and so they are namely the plant and structures project hazardous substances and also hazardous work regulations. These have been singled out by officials as key regulatory instruments that need to be looked at by the Minister and a key way of making the Health and Safety at Work Act better meet the needs of New Zealanders. So I'm interested to hear if there has been an update on whether the Minister is progressing those particular modernisation work plans in that line of work. Thank you.
Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) (Overseas Travel Reporting) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Clauses 1 to 3
Tuiono TeanauHouse resumed.CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Madam Speaker the committee has considered the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) (Overseas Travel Reporting) Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment. I move That the report be adopted.Motion agreed to.Report adopted.
Boyack Rachel; Tuiono TeanauRACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): I move That debate on this question now close.Motion agreed to.Clause 1 agreed to.Clause 2 agreed to.Clause 3 agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): I will report this bill without amendment.
Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) (Overseas Travel Reporting) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Part 2
O'Connor GregGREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): Oh thank you Mr Chair. Again I refer to the good work done by the Justice Committee on this because this is a matter I know they considered seriously. They also heard from the police advisers in making the decision that in creating almost two classes of offenders—which that would do—could impact seriously on the intention of the bill which of course is to protect potential victims. So the application the retrospective application is only for people who are registered offenders so the offending before 14 October 2016 of course which is when the bill was passed. So again the balance—and again I thank the good work done by the committee there that agreeing with the concerns in considering the bill should apply retrospectively and propose the amendment that the member has spoken from which is to ensure that it makes this intention explicit.
Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) (Overseas Travel Reporting) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Part 1
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That debate on this question now close. Ayes 34New Zealand Labour 34.Noes 83New Zealand National 49; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Motion not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): So I really want some relevant calls here because just remember that the Chair can also make closure motions. They need to be new questions about the enacting of Part 1.