edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Hipango HareteHARETE HIPANGO (National—Whanganui): E Te Māngai e mihi ana ki ngā uri o te iwi me ngā hapū o te rohe o Te Wairoa. Nau mai haere mai i tēnei wā i roto i Te Whare. Tēnei te wā o te ao hou.[Madam Assistant Speaker let me pay my respects to the descendants of the tribes and subtribes of the Wairoa district. Welcome welcome at this time into the House. It is now the new world.]I stand to speak as a new member of Parliament the elected member for W'anganui and importantly I am uri of W'anganui. My marae Pūtiki W'arenui a Tamatea Pōkai W'enua is my connection and my association to Ngāti Kahungunu. I am also of Ngāti Apa Nga Rauru and Ngāti Rangi. So I stand here today as a new member of Parliament but also as a member of the Māori Affairs Committee and tasked with the duty and responsibility now as an agent of the Crown to acknowledge within your bill—soon to be passed into law—the history the acknowledgments the apology and importantly the way forward: the future.I have limited time with this call this afternoon. However as I look upon those of our people of Ngāti Kahungunu te iwi and ngā hapū o Te Rohe o Te Wairoa gathered here today I'm heartened because I see the generations—those of us who have come from a time that has been carried through with your young here today. I am heartened by that and the hope in moving forward that this bill once it is passed into law will provide as a vehicle.It is a piece of law that acknowledges reprehension the wrongness the injustice of the history. That is outlined in sections 8 and 9 within the historical context and the acknowledgments of this bill—clauses 8 and 9; soon to be sections—the reprobation. It outlines also reparation restoration the redress relationships—the relationships that have been identified in under the cultural redress component of the bill—and then importantly revitalisation. This encompasses all of those things. I refer to clause 10 the apology at paragraph (f) and it states that the Crown seeks to restore its tarnished honour and to atone for its past failures to uphold the principles of the Treaty and with this apologises and acknowledges this in the settlement hoping to build a new relationship that will endure for current and future generations. Now is the time to focus on that future not forgetting the past not forgetting the journey that has been traversed to get here. Now is that te ao hou [new world]—a new chapter a new beginning.As said it is promising and it is heartening to see the multigenerational gathering of Ngāti Kahungunu here today. It acknowledges the efforts of all those who have gone before their aspirations to be carried through into the future with the young ones here.So I am humbled and I'm immensely privileged—and that is one of the absolute bonuses of this role as a member or MP—to be able to address the House and those who have gathered and seeing the final passage of these wrongdoings moving forward with hope into the future. I conclude by commending this bill into its final passage to be made law. Tēnā tātou katoa.
Reti ShaneDr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. Tēnā koe e Te Whare. Rau rangatira mā kia ora mai tātou.[Greetings to the House. Distinguished chiefs good evening.]It's a pleasure to take a call on this bill which I had the good fortune to speak to at the first reading on 14 March last year. The parliamentary process over that time has been timely when one considers the whole settlement process has journeyed over eight or nine years. Guiding that journey I want to acknowledge Minister Finlayson and Minister Little Office of Treaty Settlements officials the Māori Affairs Committee chairs—my colleagues Nuk Korako and Rino Tirikatene-Sullivan—and iwi and hapū negotiators. On 12 May last year I had the pleasure of accompanying the Māori Affairs Committee to Wairoa to the Wairoa Community Centre. I travelled by car with the chairperson Nuk Korako and that day we heard claimants express the importance of the settlement to their community. We heard claimants express their whakapapa to the land from the past to the present and now into the future. We heard that the non-financial elements of historical and cultural acknowledgment are just as important for the mana and integrity of the iwi and the hapū as the dollar sum being discussed. As the chairperson Nuk and I drove away later that day we were reflecting on the day. The fact is I recall I was the one reflecting because Nuk had taken the advice of locals and was devouring a pie from Osler's Bakery by himself and as the pastry settled in the car we reflected on how we could best advance the cause and settlement of this iwi and this hapū—what was our role as parliamentarians? Everything we heard resonated everything we believed everything was true—what was our role going forward? And I think the conclusion we came to was to substantiate the process of the select committee to not have any hindrance to collaborate and work with others across the House and make sure for this iwi and their hapū that their aspirations were realised. Today is that day. Today we join the hope of generations to commitments from the Crown and today we all wish the hapū and the iwi great wisdom and peace in their way forward with this settlement. Kia ora mai tātou.
Iwi and Hapū of Te Rohe o Te Wairoa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee
Little AndrewParts 1 to 3 schedules 1 to 6 and clauses 1 and 2Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): Mr Chairman thank you. For the benefit of those in the gallery and those watching on the live stream can I just explain what is happening right now. For those of you who are used to sitting on committees this is a bit like the part of the meeting where we are amending the minutes of the previous meeting. Since the House last considered the bill that includes the Treaty settlement for Iwi and Hapū of Te Rohe o Te Wairoa we've discovered some clerical errors so we're now in the process of fixing up the clerical errors. This is a technical exercise. It will take a matter of minutes—or if we're lucky not even one minute—and then we'll move into the third reading of the bill. As I said in my second reading speech the Māori Affairs Committee reported the bill back to the House on 19 December last year and recommended it be passed without amendment. We have however found a requirement for some technical amendments. The Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that is before the committee will make changes to one clause and one schedule. The amendments are to correct two minor drafting errors to ensure clarity. The first amendment involves clause 88(2) of the bill and it removes confusion around a defined term—actually the term is defined twice and it only needs to be defined once. The second amendment is to clause 2 of schedule 6 and it updates a reference to reflect the correct Act. I commend this bill to the committee with the two changes proposed in my SOP 92. The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 92 in the name of the Hon Andrew Little be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.Parts 1 to 3 schedules 1 to 6 and clauses 1 and 2 as amended agreed to.House resumed.Bill reported with amendment.Report adopted.
Little Andrew; Rurawhe AdrianIWI AND HAPŪ OF TE ROHE O TE WAIROA CLAIMS SETTLEMENT BILLIn CommitteeHon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one question. CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be not.
Lee Melissa; Mallard TrevorBroadcasting Communications and Digital Media Minister—Email AccountsMELISSA LEE (National): I seek leave to have this question held over till the next question time when the Hon Clare Curran is available to answer questions—as an extra question.SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that? Yes there is. Does the member want to proceed? MELISSA LEE (National): I shall try.SPEAKER: Question No. 12 Melissa Lee. 12. MELISSA LEE (National) to the Minister of Broadcasting Communications and Digital Media: Does she stand by all her answers to oral and written questions?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Energy and Resources) on behalf of the Minister of Broadcasting Communications and Digital Media: Yes.Melissa Lee: What Government business has she conducted via Gmail apart from arranging a meeting with Derek Handley when she was Government digital services Minister? Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I don't have that information to hand. If the member would like to put that question in writing it will be answered. Melissa Lee: What is the Minister scheduled to be doing between 2 p.m. and 3 p.m. on Thursday 6 September 2018? Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I don't have that information to hand. If the member would like to put that question in writing it will be answered.
Lees-Galloway Iain; Brownlee GerryTHURSDAY 6 SEPTEMBER 2018The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.BUSINESS STATEMENTHon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Deputy Leader of the House): Thank you Mr Speaker. Next week legislation to be considered by the House will include the America's Cup Road Stopping Bill the Building Amendment Bill the Conservation (Indigenous Freshwater Fish) Amendment Bill the Education Amendment Bill the Education (Teaching Council of Aotearoa New Zealand) Amendment Bill the Family and Whānau Violence Legislation Bill and the State Sector and Crown Entities Reform Bill. There will be an extended sitting of the House on the morning of Wednesday 12 September. Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): Does he consider it good parliamentary practice for the Government to be calling for an extended-hours sitting to consider education bills while the Education and Workforce Committee is scheduled to be sitting in Auckland?Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Deputy Leader of the House): The business of the committee is a matter for the committee to consider. Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. SPEAKER: A point of order—the Hon Gerry Brownlee. I know it's not question time but I think it is reasonable that a better answer is given. Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: The question was Is it good practice?" My understanding is that the bills being considered by that committee at that time are all bills that the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety and Minister of Immigration is responsible for. I suggest to the member that he ensure that he has education spokespeople here in the House and addresses the matters to do with workforce relations and immigration.SPEAKER: I'm going to indicate that I do not think it is good practice for that to occur."
Barry MaggieHon MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore): Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. I rise to speak to the Land Transport (Random Oral Fluid Testing) Amendment Bill at its first reading and I congratulate the sponsoring member Alastair Scott for doing so much hard work in putting this bill together. I think it's a very good piece of legislation and we unhesitatingly support it on this side of the House because we believe in getting things done. We don't bellow and point and puff ourselves up like we've got something important to say—Mr Lees-Galloway and Mr Whatever His Name Was" from New Zealand First who seemed to be perpetually angry tonight but one can understand that. If one was in that party you'd be perpetually angry. That's their default position.But this is a good piece of legislation. Why? Because it's needed: 79 fatal crashes involved a driver with drugs in their system. These are issues that need to be addressed now not in the never-never when Labour puts out its 150-something committee or extra group to examine it. Have some ideas of their own get on with it.Hon Iain Lees-Galloway: Nine long years.Hon MAGGIE BARRY: So get on with it Lees-Galloway instead of bellowing like a puffball from the other side.Let's have a look at what people who actually know what they're doing say: the Automobile Association (AA); the Police Association; the Minister of Police Stuart Nash on a good day which happens every now and again; the Ministry of Transport; and the New Zealand Transport Agency all support this bill. Stuart Nash did say "If technology exists to allow for this type of roadside testing in a timely efficient reliable way we should be looking at it." Maybe his colleagues should listen to him. The AA have called drug-driving a silent killer. This is an issue that's been around for a long time. There have been a lot of logistical problems in getting it to the point where this legislation is taking it and it will take it to the point where it will prevent accidents. Ninety-five percent of AA members in the organisation surveys support introducing saliva-based drug-testing. It would seem that most people do except Labour.Debate interrupted.The House adjourned at 10 p.m."
Land Transport (Random Oral Fluid Testing) Amendment Bill — First Reading
Tolley AnneDEPUTY SPEAKER: Before I call the next speaker I do apologise. We haven't got a motion on the floor so the question is that the motion be agreed to.
Mark Ron; Bakshi Kanwaljit SinghHon RON MARK (NZ First): Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. I apologise to the honourable member. I've just heard a statement. I seek leave to make a personal statement.DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think you need to give the House a bit of an indication of what that might be about.Hon RON MARK: The personal statement is in relation to a comment to statements made by the former speaker Mr Bakshi about what I did on that select committee which are totally inaccurate. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member is seeking leave to make a personal statement about his actions on a select committee inquiry. Any objection to that?Hon RON MARK: Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. Just for the record the honourable member Mr Bakshi has just made a statement that I was on that select committee inquiry and by dint that I supported the recommendations. What the member did not say was that I voted against the findings of that inquiry and against the overwhelming majority of its recommendations because I and New Zealand First thought they were stupid. KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. DEPUTY SPEAKER: You can certainly take a point of order but we're not going to have an argument. The member's sought leave to make a personal statement; he's made that. That's where the matter rests. KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI: I said that there was a minority view of New Zealand First. A minority view is normally against the report so that was my—DEPUTY SPEAKER: That's right. That's finished.
Huo RaymondRAYMOND HUO (Labour): Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. I certainly want to congratulate the member Mr Chris Bishop on having his member's bill drawn out from the ballot and thank him for advancing the best case he possibly can.I concur with Minister David Clark who spoke earlier and agree with the principle of the bill because that is something we are working to achieve but it's a little bit simplistic because we will need to have a strategy on how we deal with gangs generally. As Minister Clark said in his contribution this bill has serious flaws. I don't need to table any documents because reading into this draft bill would draw a conclusion that this bill would not deliver on the intent as outlined in the general policy statement.In the general policy statement it says that under this bill Gang members won't be able to hold firearms licences." First of all gang members are not able to hold firearms licences anyway because gang members as defined under this bill do not meet the criteria under the current licensing regime.Secondly all those legal and legitimate owners of firearms will agree with me that firearms licences per se are not the problem; it is the illegal firearm possession that is the problem but this bill does little or nothing to address the problem. As the actual number of stolen guns in circulation is unknown the Thorp report commissioned by the National - New Zealand First coalition Government in 1996 continues to be quoted. It estimated that 10 to 14 percent of guns are held by unlicensed owners and 25 percent of those are held by criminals. Between 2010 and 2014 about 2200 firearms were reported stolen in burglaries. In the same period 17429 firearms offences were committed.Thirdly searches without warrants may themselves create New Zealand Bill of Rights Act issues as Minister Clark just said in his earlier contribution. The National leader the Hon Simon Bridges was quoted as saying—as recently as May 2018—that searches should not be enforced without warrants. The intent of this bill and Mr Bridges' statement seem to contradict each other.Fourthly this is a costly piece of legislation to the taxpayer as each FPO or firearms prohibition order must be signed off individually and is likely to get challenged. Therefore this bill would demand more administration resources from police and the court—both already under-resourced by the previous National Government over the last nine years.Lastly the bill was structured on the New South Wales model but gang dynamics in Australia are very different to New Zealand. We need to have solutions to gang problems that are specific to our own environment. The existence of gangs may be just a symptom of much deeper structural problems in our society that must be dealt with through comprehensive approaches.To conclude this bill would not make New Zealand safer. We cannot support this bill to the House."
Bishop Chris; Clark David; van de Molen TimCHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South): I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The Minister in his reply said that the Government had been advised by the police that they were opposed to this bill. He's quoting from an official document and under Standing Order 376 I ask him to table that official advice.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Will you seek leave for that purpose?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): Speaking to the point of order I don't have the official document with me. I've got my own notes taken down so I'm afraid the member's a little misguided in that.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I apologise. You were making a point—you were speaking to the point of order?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Sorry I'm just saying I don't have an official document with me. I have my own speaking notes.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): You are quoting from an official document?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I was quoting from some papers I read earlier.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I apologise to the member. If the Minister is not quoting from an official document he's not required to table it.CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South): Speaking to the point of order Standing Order 376 is quite clear: [When] a Minister quotes from a document relating to public affairs a member may on a point of order require the Minister to table the document."ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): It's not an official document. That's the point.TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Speaking to the point of order under that Standing Order there is no specification around an official document. It simply states "a document". So if you are providing a new ruling it would be fantastic to get that clarification but under that Standing Order it does not require it to be an official document but simply a document relating to public affairs which this document would clearly be.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I thank the member for your contribution. I've just taken some advice. The Minister has been quoting from his speaking notes. Now within that was contained some information that was provided to the House. He is not required to table his speaking notes."
Eagle PaulPAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai): Malo e laumalie Madam Assistant Speaker. Look it's a privilege to be able to speak in this House on this member's bill. Well done to Ian McKelvie for I guess finally getting it to the stage that it is: a practical pragmatic and simple bill to address a number of concerns that have really been raised here this evening.It's easy for me to reflect on my local government experiences with our dog people who work there but before I just reflect on some experiences I think some of the issues are around the efficiencies with the court—and it's been talked about tonight. I'm a big fan of saying that where we can get efficiencies let's get them. We've heard from many that the judicial JPs can provide that service. They want to they have been through a process—we've heard that outlined tonight by several of you—so therefore it's an easy decision an easy thing to speak on in terms of saying that if we can free up the court time and utilise a resource a community resource that's been through a process of qualification then let's do that.I find also that in terms of just looking at the court backlogs I'm pleased that this coalition Government is looking at improving other efficiencies with it that go beyond the dog control regime. I know that the justice Minister the Hon Andrew Little is looking at a rewrite of Family Court reforms for example and a whole range of things that make the courts more effective more modern and proposals like this will help that.The welfare of dogs—I was thinking about Denise Lee's experiences in Auckland and I too have had the pleasure of accompanying council staff. In the electorate we have a small dog pound out there at Moa Point. You won't know it's there but it's there. It's a small area and lo and behold when you go and have a look it actually takes in quite a few animals of which most are dogs and a lot are there as part of that backlog of cases where they are simply waiting to be heard. So my vision or my memory hopefully next time I visit will be that those have gone back to their owners or wherever as per the ruling that gets made by these judicial JPs. Just that cost—and Maureen Pugh has certainly articulated that for the local authority involved the cost and the burden on that entity will certainly be reduced and the result is hopefully a happy owner.I look at some of the issues too for the bill in terms of what could be and will be hopefully addressed at the select committee level. One of them was around that capacity—I believe that that capacity's there but the select committee will work through that—and just the flow-on impact of the hearing where maybe there are other offences that could be considered by the judicial officers that maybe should be excluded could be excluded or the narrow scope of the bill allowing for other matters to be included. So I'm looking forward to—I think it's the Primary Production Committee that will take this forward and have a good look through just some of the practical putting into practice of the enactment of this and making it happen. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.
KiwiSaver (Foster Parents Opting in for Children in their Care) Amendment Bill — First Reading
Hipkins Chris; Adams Amy; Mallard TrevorWEDNESDAY 5 SEPTEMBER 2018The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.ORAL QUESTIONSQUESTIONS TO MINISTERSQuestion No. 2 to MinisterHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to raise a point of order with you regarding oral question No. 2 as set down on the Order Paper today. Originally when this question was set down there were no quotation marks in the question. When the Minister's office queried that additional quotation marks were inserted by the Office of the Clerk from will miss" all the way through to "$2 billion". When that was further queried it turned out that there was no such quotation in existence. The quotation marks now exist around the words "self-imposed" and only the words "self-imposed" and I have been advised quite clearly that the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research's report and forecast does not use those words at all. Therefore how can this question stand when the quotation marks or the quotation that is in there does not relate to the report that is the subject of the question? Hon AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn): The question was submitted by our officers. It was authenticated to the satisfaction of your office. The changes that were made were made by your office and then subsequently changes that relate to quotation marks. The question none the less has been properly authenticated and properly accepted and it should stand. SPEAKER: I understand that the authentication was a media report on the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research report—Hon Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Does that mean that in a primary question a quotation unattributed from any media commentary about the report in question can be inserted in a question with no context or no attribution? SPEAKER: No that does not mean that. I know that there was quite a lot of back and forth around the authentication on this particular question. The point that I will make to the member is that I am the final authority on this and if at any stage after I have received it—at midday or 11.30 when I see the questions right up until the time of this House—someone had come to my office and had a discussion and made a good case we would have changed the question yet again. But from my perspective actually to get to the essence of the question no quotation is necessary."
Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee
Sio Hon Aupito WilliamParts 1 to 28 and clauses 1 and 2Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO (Associate Minister of Justice): Statutes amendment bills enable Parliament to make technical short and non-controversial amendments to a number of Acts. The current bill amends about 27 Acts administered by 10 different Government agencies. Each of the amendments in the bill has been consulted on with all parties of Parliament and has received unanimous cross-party support.I've tabled for the House two Supplementary Order Papers that make urgently required amendments to this bill. The first amendment is Supplementary Order Paper 55 which was tabled on 8 August. The second amendment was Supplementary Order Paper 53 which was tabled on 7 August. These amendments are suitable for inclusion in the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2). All parties have been consulted on these Supplementary Order Papers and they support their inclusion in the bill at this stage. I'm going to briefly just go over those two Supplementary Order Papers.Supplementary Order Paper 55 on the Customs and Excise Act—this part repeals clauses 30(1) and 31(1) of schedule 3 of the Customs and Excise Act 2018. Essentially as the Act currently stands it would result in champagne being exempted from excise-equivalent duty. This Supplementary Order Paper corrects that drafting error and will ensure that imported champagne continues to be subject to excise-equivalent duty under the Customs and Excise Act when it comes into force on 1 October this year.The second Supplementary Order Paper 53 on the Food Act inserts new Part 15A into the bill to make a minor amendment to the Food Act 2014. Following the Kaikōura earthquake the Ministry for Primary Industries identified a need for the director-general to be able to delegate their power to issue privileged statements. These privileged statements are for the purpose of protecting human life public health and informing the public in the event of a food safety or suitability incident. The inability to delegate this power meant that there could be delays in providing certainty to consumers and the market during a food safety incident in the event of the director-general travelling or otherwise being unavailable.The Food Safety Law Reform Act was intended to enable the Director-General of the Ministry for Primary Industries to delegate the ability to make privileged statements relating to food safety and suitability. However a drafting error has resulted in the inconsistency in the Food Act 2014 with the effect that the director-general cannot delegate that power. This Supplementary Order Paper corrects this error.I just say that I want to acknowledge and thank all the parties for the respectful and efficient manner that you've engaged in with officials and the department as well as with officials from my office and I welcome the deliberation on this bill. The changes do not change policy whatsoever. They are routine administrative minor and technical changes simply to improve the bill's clarity. Thank you.
Allan KiritapuSTATUTES AMENDMENT BILL (NO 2)In CommitteeKIRITAPU ALLAN (Assistant Whip—Labour): I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one debate.CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.
van de Molen Tim; Rurawhe AdrianSITTINGS OF THE HOUSETIM VAN DE MOLEN (Third Whip—National): I raise a point of order Mr Assistant Speaker. Thank you. I seek leave for the House to rise early. It's been a long week. We've had extended debate throughout this sitting block and I think everyone's a bit weary so I would like to put that motion.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be not.Hon Member: Yes. Yes there is objection.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): There is objection? Sorry I didn't hear that.
Salesa JennyHon JENNY SALESA (Associate Minister of Education): Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker for this opportunity to speak on this bill. I would first of all like to thank the chair as well as the members of our select committee the Education and Workforce Committee and all of our submitters who submitted on this legislation. The legislation proposed gives us an opportunity as a Government to address the issue of democratic election for our teachers to their own body. We must give teachers back their voice their power to choose who should represent them in their own governing body.The previous Government replaced democracy for this teachers council with dictatorship and this legislation addresses it. This is not a bill that is just about changing a name. When we look at other professional bodies—let's say for instance the Medical Council of New Zealand—do our doctors have a say? Do they have a voice in choosing who should represent them? Yes absolutely. When we look at the Nursing Council of New Zealand do they choose who should represent them on their professional board? Yes they do.One of the main things that this legislation proposes is that we increase the membership on this council from nine to 13 and for seven of those members to be elected. We are proposing in this legislation that one teacher represents the early childhood sector as elected by members of that sector one teacher represents the primary sector as elected by their members one teacher represents the secondary sector as elected by their members and so forth in terms of seven of their members to elect and choose who should represent them who should be their voice on their governing board. It is disappointing that the National Party opposes this bill but our Government strongly supports this bill. I commend it to this House.
Tinetti JanJAN TINETTI (Labour): The fact that we get a speaker that says If it ain't broke why fix it?" when we've got teachers that have had nine years of absolute frustration—and I know what that frustration is—and are actually probably one of the most broken professions that we have out here in our country at the moment goes to the lack of understanding from that side of the House. Everything that this bill the Education (Teaching Council of Aotearoa New Zealand) Amendment Bill does goes some way to fix that broken profession—and they are broken.What I am really upset about is the mistruths that have been told here today. Thirty-six submissions—we've heard that over and over—pooh-poohed laughed at; 36 submissions so there's nothing in those 36 submissions. I've just taken four of those groups who submitted. They equate four groups four large groups: New Zealand Principal's Federation.Simeon Brown: Unions?JAN TINETTI: No not a union. New Zealand School Trustees Association on behalf of all of the parents on the boards of trustees. All of those people equate to 61432 people—that's a bit more than 36. Maybe the other side should have done their homework and read those submissions a bit more closely. Not all of them actually presented to the Education and Workforce Committee. I wonder how many they actually read of those other submissions.Then we heard about the 12000 teacher-aide hours. Now I think teacher-aides are incredible but let's break that down. How many teacher-aides is that in reality? The average full-time teacher-aide works 27½ hours a week. That is eight teacher-aides. Which schools are we going to put those into?Hon Member: Crocodile tears.JAN TINETTI: "Crocodile tears" is exactly right—eight teacher-aides.Now we wouldn't actually have to be spending that money if the former National Government hadn't changed it in the first place. They went and put a whole lot of money into changing this and actually spent more money on rebranding than what we're looking at in taking it back to the Teaching Council.The other point that I want to make is that they carry on about the name of the council: "Oh it doesn't matter. We've heard all this about teaching isn't important. The word 'teaching' isn't important." Well actually I wonder if they read those submissions on behalf of those 61000 people. Every single one of them said that the word "teaching" is incredibly important to them. This is about identifying our teachers and helping them raise the status of this profession. We want to raise the status of the teaching profession and we will raise the status of the teaching profession. Whether that side thinks that this is a small bill or not it is absolutely not to teachers and I feel quite offended by the fact that they believe that this does not matter to teachers. It absolutely does matter to teachers and for that reason I commend this bill to the House."
Luxton JoJO LUXTON (Labour): Well I for one am absolutely stoked to be standing up here and taking a call on this Education (Teaching Council of Aotearoa) Amendment Bill and I ask the members opposite: what is so wrong with democracy? Are you suddenly allergic to democracy? Because this is about giving people the right to vote for the people they want to represent them on their council. Teachers pay registration fees to this council. They don't have a choice to do that so they should be able to elect those that they want to represent them in their sector. I'm absolutely stoked also to see that early childhood education is really going to be represented especially by having an early childhood education service leader on this committee.We hear that there are already teachers within those that are on the council currently but those people were appointed. They were not elected by their peers just as those who are lawyers nurses etc. get to elect their representatives. I think that it is shocking that in the past that has been taken away from teachers—absolutely shocking. It is no wonder that when I talk to teachers they feel so downtrodden because of the way they were treated by the previous Government. They felt that they couldn't be trusted because all that was taken away from them. But now they've got a Government who is absolutely willing and ready to listen to their concerns and put motions in place to make positive changes for teachers.The other thing that I really like about this particular bill is that the Minister of Education when he is appointing people will go out and consult with parents with communities and hear their opinions on who they think will be appropriate to be elected to this council.I also just want to finish off by saying—Simeon Brown: Finish? Finish?JO LUXTON: —that I absolutely endorse this bill—absolutely endorse this bill. Yes look I don't need to say anything more because the Minister said it. Speakers on this side of the House have said it because we are so pleased to commend this bill to the House.
Strange JamieJAMIE STRANGE (Labour): Madam Assistant Speaker thank you for the opportunity to make a positive call on this bill. That last speech from Dr Parmjeet Parmar was very negative but we have a Government who are making positive changes within the education sector and I appreciate the opportunity to speak on the Education (Teaching Council of Aotearoa) Amendment Bill. I'd like to ask the Opposition members: what is so bad about democracy? What is so bad about having elections where people—[Interruption] Look I appreciate that for the Opposition things didn't go well last year but democracy is what we have in our country and this is an example of teachers being able to democratically elect their council. I am particularly excited about the fact that we will have teachers from the early childhood education sector and this is the first time in history that we will have representation on the Teaching Council or the Education Council—it's had different names over the years—from that sector. It's a very important sector because the first five years of a child's life absolutely set that child up for the future and I'm particularly proud of that aspect. I'm not going to take too much time because the Minister of Education clearly outlined all of the aspects in the bill but I'd just like to highlight the fact that this is about teachers having a voice on their council. This is a Government who for nine years listened to teachers and teachers told us We want to have representatives on our council. We don't want National Standards. We need more support for special needs." There is a lot of work to do but I'm proud that this Government has started undoing some of the very disappointing things that the previous Government did around education. So this coalition Government is getting on with the job. We're listening to this sector we're working with this sector and we're bringing about positive change. I commend this bill to the House."
Coffey TamatiTAMATI COFFEY (Labour—Waiariki): I'm just so confused by the faux outrage that is coming from the other side of the House because you'd think that that speech by Louise Upston was a speech from somebody that was going to absolutely vote against this particular bill. But I hear that actually they're going to be voting in favour of this particular bill. So while she stands there and talks about how disinterested I am and makes accusations at me that particular member is on our side because we're all going across the line together on this particular bill.So for all those people that are listening and if they're watching out there know that this is a good bill and for that reason the Opposition despite being the Opposition are actually backing us on this one so I would like to thank the Minister for the great job that he's gone and done on it and the officials. This particular bill has been talked about at every angle that you could possibly think of today so I've got nothing left to say. I commend this bill to the House.Bill read a third time.
National Animal Identification and Tracing Amendment Bill — Third Reading
Webb DuncanDr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā. Well done to the Opposition. You're not doing a bad job—that sort of faux outrage when you know that we need this bill. Thank you for supporting this bill because you know you must.Farmers want this bill; the farmers need this bill—that's what we're hearing. I'm surprised I know member Carter—he's going to be very happy to have me on to his farm and he knows that when something's going wrong on his farm we absolutely need people to be able to get in there find out what's going wrong without having to go and get a warrant. Two or three days can be very important here because it is a crisis. This is urgent. We need to fix up this legislation and that's what we're doing. This is a short bill but it is a technical bill. It's fixing up some much-needed gaps so that we can address the crisis that is immediately before us.So look well done to the Opposition. You're doing your job but this bill must pass it will pass and thank you for your support for it. I commend this bill to the House.
Faafoi Kris; Rurawhe AdrianHon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Civil Defence): Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. I think I've got a meeting soon—sorry. I'm not going to take a long call but for those members of the public who may have stumbled upon Parliament TV and are wondering what's going on right now let me explain the context of what is happening. We are amending the National Animal Identification and Tracing Act which was introduced by the previous Government in 2012. That Act was brought in to introduce a system so that if farmers wanted to move livestock from one farm to another or within their farms if they managed them in a certain way we would know where that stock would be and where certain stock may have moved over a certain amount of time. That is important given the context of M. bovis which the previous speaker Stuart Smith said we were introducing this piece of legislation under the veil of.If that piece of legislation and the implementation of the 2012 Act had been effective the crisis that we faced with M. bovis and the management of it would've been much easier for the Government to deal with—and potentially the previous Government—if it had been effective. Unfortunately it has not been effective because the previous Government didn't do a good job of introducing the legislation that we are amending or the enforcement of it therefore requiring this piece of legislation to be introduced. It would've been much easier if the Government had done a good job back in 2012 but we are here amending this legislation in order for the current Government to continue its strong leadership in biosecurity to take this issue seriously.One more point I would like to make with the previous speaker: he said that history will judge us as we pass this piece of legislation. Unfortunately for the previous Government now the Opposition New Zealand is already judging it because of its poor performance on biosecurity which was enacted via the 2012 Act necessitating this change here. History has already judged the previous Government. The agriculture sector has already judged the previous Government because it knows this piece of legislation is necessary to deal with a crisis that it left us.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Five-minute call—Hamish Walker.
Hughes GarethGARETH HUGHES (Green): Well National can choose to take the low farm road but we'll choose to take the high farm road. We won't get bogged down by petty politics exaggeration scaremongering and grandstanding. Most of that last contribution was about politics and parliamentary procedure not the issues. The issue is we are caught unprepared for biosecurity incursions. The best thing you can say about National Animal Identification and Tracing (NAIT) is that it didn't happen in a time of foot-and-mouth because had foot-and-mouth hit it would have been catastrophic for New Zealand and we would have been unprepared. So let's not focus on the low road; let's focus on what we are doing to fix it.Now this legislation fixes the mess that National created. It's a technical amendment to make sure that our Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) officials have the exact same powers and functions as they have for fisheries as they have for wine as they have under the Waste Minimisation Act and it's the grandstanding and the scaremongering that's going to send our farming communities the wrong message because they should actually be working with MPI to protect New Zealand to protect our economy.Now I want to make a quick comment. The use of urgency is entirely justified. We're fixing a mess that means the people that protect our country don't have the skills the powers and the functions to be able to do it. We are talking about slaughtering tens of thousands of cattle—hundreds of millions of dollars. If this isn't a use for urgency I don't know what is.So I'm going to take a very short call because I want to see this legislation pass. I want to see our MPI officials have the powers they have under the Search and Surveillance Act. We weren't fans of this legislation passing at the time but we don't think that our MPI officials should be hamstrung and not be able to use it. Currently under National's own NAIT legislation MPI officials have the ability to have an unwarranted search of a property—it's called doing their job. It's about their regular compliance work. But National left them unprepared. They hamstrung them because they could go do that regular compliance and then if they saw offending they couldn't then take a photograph of it and this is why we have the mess.So look all I can say is thank gosh it didn't happen in a time of foot-and-mouth. Hopefully we can learn the lessons. Now let's get out of the gutter and actually focus on fixing stuff.
Allan KiritapuKIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour): In the interests of our regions it is my pleasure to absolutely commend this bill to the House.
Bennett DavidNATIONAL ANIMAL IDENTIFICATION AND TRACING AMENDMENT BILLThird ReadingDebate resumed from 15 August.Hon DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): Thank you Mr Speaker. This bill is a case where the Government is using M. bovis to really push through an agenda which will mean that farmers and other agricultural producers are now subject to search and surveillance rules that no other industry or group of people are and that is what this Government is doing in this bill.
Twyford PhilQuestion No. 5 to Minister—Amended AnswerHon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Housing and Urban Development): I seek leave to correct an answer that I gave to a question earlier in question time.SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that? You'd better tell us which question it was.Hon PHIL TWYFORD: It was question No. 5 I believe.SPEAKER: Is there any objection? There appears to be none.Hon PHIL TWYFORD: In answer to the member's first supplementary I stated that I wasn't aware of a reported case of a Housing New Zealand tenant renting out their home on Airbnb. For the member's information I have subsequently been advised there is only one known case of this happening. It happened more than a year ago—SPEAKER: Order! Can I just check with the Minister—is this information that he has received since he made his answer? Well the member cannot correct an answer when he said he wasn't aware of something then for the fact that he's aware of it now. The answer was accurate at the time.
Hipkins Chris; Brownlee GerryTHURSDAY 16 AUGUST 2018The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.BUSINESS STATEMENTHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): Today the House adjourns until Tuesday 4 September. When the House resumes priority will be given to the Canterbury Earthquakes Insurance Tribunal Bill the Building Amendment Bill the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill the Education (Teaching Council of Aotearoa) Amendment Bill and the Conservation (Indigenous Freshwater Fish) Amendment Bill. On Thursday 6 September the Iwi and Hapū of Te Rohe o Te Wairoa Claims Settlement Bill will receive its third reading. Wednesday 5 September will be a members' day.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): Thanks to the Leader of the House for giving us that fairly comprehensive indication of what's coming in that first week when the House resumes. I wonder if he's able to give us any indication of when there will be a Resource Management Act reform bill introduced to the House as promised by New Zealand First.Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): In the fullness of time and at the appropriate moment the Government will bring forth further legislation for the House to consider.