edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Halbert ShananSHANAN HALBERT (Labour—Northcote): Thank you Madam Speaker. Can I start by just acknowledging the Opposition spokesperson for transport Simeon Brown for supporting this particular bill and as I understand it for a change of heart and a U-turn this morning on supporting the Government's Clean Car Discount which they opposed for a very long time. So it's great to see that they have come to their senses—it is important that we reduce emissions amongst our transport fleet. So a full U-turn from the Opposition is welcomed by us today and it's potentially a good sign of the great work of our Transport and Infrastructure Committee and the consensus that we achieved together.But coming back to the Civil Aviation Bill today can I acknowledge all of our members and colleagues in the House that worked on this particular bill and also the chair at the time Greg O'Connor. It was great to hear what was over 117 written submissions coming in on this bill and as a select committee we heard 30 submissions in person. I guess what's important in this is that we continue to reconnect Aotearoa New Zealand with the world and the civil aviation sector is a very big part of that. In order to boost innovation safety productivity and help achieve our climate goals we are progressing our civil aviation laws to ensure that we are developing our civil aviation infrastructure and creating long-term benefits and support for consumers for travellers for industry and of course most importantly for our wider Aotearoa New Zealand economy. The Civil Aviation Bill would repeal and replace both the Civil Aviation Act 1990 and the Airport Authorities Act of 1966. After significant consultation and the work that we did as a select committee to hear these submissions and consider them there is no doubt that it has been widely agreed that investment in developing the civil aviation sector is fundamental to achieving these long-term benefits and our overall goals. One particular submission that I did want to acknowledge is the contribution made by the country's major airport Auckland Airport home of Tāmaki Makaurau and this has been reflected in the inclusion—and recommendation from the select committee—in clause 231 which retains an airport operator's ability to set charges. As Auckland Airport highlighted in their submission aeronautical prices have remained stable and are competitive with other peer airports. Since 2013 in real terms Auckland Airport domestic passenger charges have increased by just 65c per passenger while international passenger charges have fallen by 10 percent. Landing charges have also decreased by 11 percent in real terms over this period for commercial passenger aircraft.The pricing certainty provided by this bill supports investment and has provided stakeholders with the confidence that they need to continue investing in Auckland's airport and Auckland's infrastructure and ensuring the continuation of the economic benefits of our tourism industry. So I just want to acknowledge everyone's work on this particular bill and I commend this bill to the House.
Report of committee of the whole House
Salesa JennyREPORT OF COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE HOUSECHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Madam Speaker the committee has considered the Māori Purposes Bill and reports it without amendment. The committee has also considered the Remuneration Authority Legislation Bill and reports it with amendment. The committee has also considered the Statutes Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment. I move That the report be adopted.Motion agreed to.Report adopted.
Halbert ShananSHANAN HALBERT (Labour—Northcote): I move That the question be now put.Motion agreed to.Parts 1 to 41 Schedules 1 to 4 and clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.Bill to be reported without amendment.House resumed.
Severin ToniTONI SEVERIN (ACT): Thank you Madam Chair. I would just like to thank everybody with this omnibus bill. As the honourable Minister said it's a really sexy bill with the crossing of i's and dotting the t's. As he says it is very important to those that this affects. One of the simple things is the Railways Act and that we no longer have registered post. You know there's not a lot here that is controversial. Even though ACT doesn't have a seat on the Governance and Administration Committee I was quite happy to read through all these 51 lovely little changes of dotting the i's and crossing the t's—what I'd call a house-cleaning bill.It's much appreciated that it does make a huge difference for a lot of people to make it very clear about what's going on into modern times. And just keeping up with the changes that we had even with the new additions around the Unit Titles Act—because we passed a new bill within the House even that had to be changed from what it was originally in this Statutes Amendment Bill.Basically all we're just saying today is thank you again to all those hard-working people that went through all these 41 lovely changes and pointed out the mistakes because of updating issues and new legislation that has come through this House which kept everybody on their toes. So ACT will continue to support this through. Thank you.
Salesa Jenny; Edmonds Barbara; Sio Aupito WilliamSTATUTES AMENDMENT BILLIn CommitteeParts 1 to 41 Schedules 1 to 4 and clauses 1 and 2CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members we come now to the Statutes Amendment Bill. Members we should note that there are special requirements for statutes amendment bills. Standing Order 313(2) provides that if any member objects to a clause standing part of a statutes amendment bill the clause is struck out of the bill. Members we start with Part 1. BARBARA EDMONDS (Junior Whip—Labour): Point of order Madam Chairperson. I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one debate. CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection. It is agreed to. Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO (Associate Minister of Justice): I acknowledge that we're nearing lunch and we have a saying in Māngere that when you smell the pork keep it short. I'm also aware that the Statutes Amendment Bill is one of the most sexiest bills around and everybody wants to be part of it but I also want to say that the bill—I could not bring in any of this without cross-party support. So let me just outline for those who are not aware just what's happening here. This bill the Statutes Amendment Bill enables Parliament to make technical short and non-controversial amendments to a number of Acts. The current bill amends 41 Acts administered by 11 different Government agencies. Each of the amendments in the bill has received unanimous cross-party support and it is a good demonstration of all parties working together. As previously mentioned the Governance and Administration Committee made two changes to the bill: firstly to remove the amendment to the Unit Titles Act as another bill has made that amendment earlier this year and secondly to add an amendment to the Ngāti Manuhiri Claims Settlement Act to remove this statutory encumbrance from the discrete part of the South Mangawhai Forest to enable Ngāti Manuhiri to progress with a development opportunity. I seek the leave of the committee for all provisions to be taken as one as our whip has put it there. I welcome the deliberations from the committee on this bill. I also commend the Governance and Administration Committee for their hard work and dedication which ensured that changes made through this bill are technical short and non-controversial. Really that's all I wanted to say. I'll leave it to you members and you decide when we finish with this bill. Thank you Madam Chair. CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members before I take the next call I'd like to remind members that if any member wishes for there to be a separate vote on any provision please indicate this to the Chairperson during the debate so that we can put those questions first. The question is that Parts 1 to 41 Schedules 1 to 4 and clauses 1 and 2 stand part.
Remuneration Authority Legislation Bill — In Committee
Chen Naisi; Salesa JennyNAISI CHEN (Labour): I move That the question be now put.Motion agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that Minister's amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 148 be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.Parts 1 and 2 Schedules 1 to 6 and clauses 1 and 2 as amended agreed to.Bill to be reported with amendment.
Penk Chris; Sio Aupito WilliamCHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you.Barbara Edmonds: You said you had one more question.CHRIS PENK: I said I had one more question maybe and in fact I do now have one question.Barbara Edmonds: That's all right. Take it!CHRIS PENK: Thank you Ms Edmonds. It's been good hasn't it? Come on don't be like that! No just kidding.So thank you Madam Chair for your indulgence to ask one final question. I've found in my notes the final thing that I wanted to ask and it's actually reasonably brief. I've asked and probably answered two but that's up to the Minister of course.Within Subpart 6 of Part 2 is clause 26 which contains Section 263 Remuneration of Environment Commissioners Deputy Environment Commissioners and special advisors". We've heard from various speakers—well really just the Minister and me let's be honest—about why we're having the separation.It doesn't take a lot of imagination to say "Well of course the Environment Commissioners and the Deputy Environment Commissioner should be included within that regime. They are making substantive decisions. They are qualified judicial." But the special advisers to them—and I don't cast any doubt on the value of the work that they do. But it seems to me that it's interesting for this particular body that operates under the Resource Management Act (RMA)—soon to be RIP RMA! Actually I shouldn't say that—should I?—lest anyone think that we're fond of the current operation of the RMA. But you know let's not make it worse either.Anyway so we've got a regime where the special advisers as well the commissioners and deputy commissioners themselves would be included in that. I note that advisers to other chairpersons deputy chairpersons and so on aren't included in this. Was that a conscious decision Minister? Should others feel ripped off? Or is it a windfall for the special advisers to the Environment Commissioners and so forth that they have been included in this?Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO (Associate Minister of Justice): You asked "Was that a conscious decision?" The answer is yes."
Mitchell Mark; Sio Aupito WilliamHon MARK MITCHELL (National—Whangaparāoa): Thank you Madam Chair. I'll just take a very quick call on this. I was admiring the valiant efforts of our chief whip in speaking to the bill; here by himself as much as he is looking around for support and help—Harete Hipango: I was going to take the call but you beat me.Hon MARK MITCHELL: Oh you were getting ready to take a call. But anyway I'm very pleased to take a call on this the Remuneration Authority Legislation Bill. Look I think that it is really important. I want to acknowledge the work that the Minister has done on this and we can certainly see the sense in it. The only question that I would have for the Minister is with the formation of the new permanent legislative authorities there's always a concern that these bodies can grow. That's one of the issues that we have raised and that I want to raise again in the Chamber today; we've seen many many times when legislation comes through the House that it can be full of best intentions but the intent of the Minister or the legislation is not necessarily interpreted in a way that it was intended and you end up with unforeseen outcomes. I think that one of the points that we've raised through the process is whether or not there's the chance that these bodies could grow dramatically in numbers and whether or not the Minister feels like there's any checks and balances in the legislation or that there's any way of actually being able to make sure that that doesn't become an unintended consequence of this legislation. Thank you Madam Chair.Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO (Associate Minister of Justice): I want to underscore that this bill has had cross-party support from the committee and the Justice Committee did not amend the bill. But the point to this question about you know what it will look like in the future; look I say to myself that the Remuneration Authority has already been set up that these are critical roles within our judiciary system and they are entitled to be paid for the roles and responsibilities they conduct. And the question is should a politician be making that call or should an independent body be making that call? In this bill here it's an independent committee that should make that call. As to the future well I think Parliament will always have the role and responsibility to review any of this. So I'd say to my friend when he is Prime Minister in 18 years' time he can then lead the review of this if he has any suspicion that it may not be going in the right direction.
Roberts AngelaANGELA ROBERTS (Labour): I move That the question be now put.Motion agreed to.Parts 1 to 3 Schedules 1 to 4 and clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.Bill to be reported without amendment.
Jackson WillieHon WILLIE JACKSON (Minister for Māori Development): We're still waiting on some of those responses in terms of I think it was your bill—wasn't it?—in terms of ture whenua. I have to be clear though Mr Mooney that we totally rejected your bill because well basically Māoridom told us as my good colleague Meka Whaitiri has said that the ture whenua as it was was not acceptable in terms of the way that it was being rolled out. That was conveyed to the previous Minister Mr Finlayson and I think conveyed to you even though I know that you put that up in good spirit and good faith. In fact I have to say it was quite a winner actually rejecting your ture whenua for the Māori caucus and our Māori MPs. But feel free to have another crack—feel free to have another crack Mr Mooney. In terms of Lake Rotoaira as you know that's privately owned freehold land. It's currently the primary location for trout monitoring and the location where all Rotoaira trout spawns outside the area administered by the trustees. Now Part 2 of the bill provides as you know several amendments to provide the Rotoaira Trust more autonomy and flexibility to manage the lake and associated trout fishery principally to include adjoining waters so that the trustees can undertake monitoring and fisheries management activities without authorisation from the Director-General of Conservation. Mr Mooney re your question on offences in clause 17 which amends section 11 of the Maori Purposes Act 1959 which is penalties in terms of offences clause 17 increases the fine for breaching the Maori Purposes Act in regulations made under the Act from $100 to $5000. The maximum fine is currently $100 which has not increased since 1959. So there's your answer. Clause 17 increases this to $5000 consistent with the sports fishery penalties under the Conservation Act 1987. So I hope those exhilarating responses fulfil your questions. Kia ora.
Mooney JosephJOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you Madam Chair. Minister while you're contemplating answers to those scintillating questions posed earlier—I'm waiting for the fantastic responses which I'm sure will be coming—just in terms of the changes to the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act I note that the Government wrote to all Māori trust boards on 9 August 2021. I'm just wondering if you could confirm has there been a response from all of them now and if so what those responses were.
SpeechHARETE HIPANGO (National): Thank you. Whilst Minister Jackson's contemplating and constructing answers to the questions posed by my colleague Joseph Mooney in terms of just something that's very simple and it was identified by the Māori Affairs Committee and has been highlighted in the report back to the House: correcting capitalisation. So under Part 2 clause 15(4) is to provide for the reference of Taupo District—district rather than a small d" a capital "D" which "means the district described in the Taupo District Order 1983".But what's interesting also Minister to draw your eye to when you do have time so clause 15(4) it's been detected small "d" to be capitalised for Taupo District and then under Schedule 3 regulation 2 it states further down in the third highlighted section of the bill "In regulation 2(1) insert in its appropriate alphabetical order: Taupo District"—which is a capital "D" and as minor as this might seem it's significant because this about consistency and standardisation. So Taupo District with a capital "D" "In regulation 2(1) … means the district described in the Taupo District Order 1983" yet in clause 15(4) we have a small "d". So just pointing out Minister whilst you've had time to contemplate responses to the earlier ones the importance of drilling down into the detail to make sure that the Ds are either capitalised or they're not so that everything is on point. On that note Minister we're expecting—you know waiting with bated breath—your responses to the questions posed earlier. Thank you."
Mooney JosephJOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you Madam Chair. Just going back to the amendments to the Māori Purposes Act 1959 to give the Lake Rotoaira Forest Trust more autonomy and flexibility in managing Lake Rotoaira and its trout fishery. Would the Minister be able to make some comments about removing the requirement to hold a trout licence to fish for fish other than trout and why there has been that change that a right of entry to the lake without an entry permit does not authorise fishing. I note Minister that clause 17 amends section 11 of the Māori Purposes Act to increase the maximum fine for an offence from $100 to $5000 which is quite a significant increase clearly. But it would be good just to have the clarification for anyone watching or anyone reading this transcript for why that penalty has been increased—it's a significant increase from $100 to $5000—and the rationale behind the warranted officer under the Conservation Act being amended in terms of the definition of a stipendiary ranger". I note also Minister the question I asked before about the definition of "adjoining waters forming part of the Lake" and why that definition has been changed here. So there's a few little issues in there Minister and it would be useful if we could have just a bit of an explanation from the Minister as to the rationale behind these amendments."
SpeechHARETE HIPANGO (National): Thank you. I certainly endorse everything that the Minister for Māori Development has said and it shall continue in the vein of being supportive for this important legislation to pass through.So dealing with all parts together Minister Jackson has identified Part 1 as Amendments to Te Ture Whenua Maori Act". There is certainly no opposition to the proposals. But the purpose of the committee of the whole House is inviting also contributions from other party members—those I see who sit on the Māori Affairs Committee. In dealing with Te Ture Whenua Maori Act it is from clauses 3 to 13 detailed in the bill what is proposed to be amended and it is about amendments of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act consistent with other parts of legislation particularly administrative functions that go with it.Minister Jackson has talked about—in my opening statement and question in relation to—the Ruapuha Uekaha Hapū Trust which is a trust within the rohe of Ngāti Maniapoto. There may be members in the Chamber and members of the public who have visited the Waitomo Caves and the recognition and the importance of that as a national taonga which the trust has the appropriate authority and mana motuhake in terms of that taonga that asset within their domain as is recognised under the 1990 Treaty settlement of their Wai 51 claim for the recognition of the trust status of the people of the local hapū of the tribal rohe of Ngāti Maniapoto.For that to remain despite what some of the regulated provisions under Te Ture Whenua Maori Act it is required importantly—and I refer to clause 8 of the bill—that section 231 of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act be amended in relation to the review of trusts to say that subsection (3)(c) of section 231 of that Te Ture Whenua Maori Act does not apply in respect of Ruapuha Uekaha Hapū Trust. The reason for that perhaps I could invite the Minister to explain to this committee why that would be and the importance for that.So I'm not going to labour it; I'm really putting the onus of responsibility back on to the Minister just to confirm and clarify why that amendment is important in relation to the trusts authority and that despite measures or legislated accountabilities under Te Ture Whenua Maori Act why the review of trust would not apply to the hapū trust that is the subject of this kōrero at the moment."
Jackson WillieHon WILLIE JACKSON (Minister for Māori Development): Thank you Madam Speaker and I want to thank that member Harete Hipango for her cooperation too—and all members actually during this process. It's been a very collaborative process. I want to thank the Hon Meka Whaitiri for standing in and speaking on the bill on my behalf in the second reading. It was pleasing to see the House coming together. As the member knows just with that question that trust has a very unique history doesn't it? It does have a unique history and we certainly want to give it effect in terms of the early Treaty settlement concerning the lands at the Waitomo Caves so I will work through things with my officials to try and make it as efficient as possible.I need to clarify I suppose that this bill makes a series of small amendments to four Acts that are relevant to Māori affairs: Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 the Maori Purposes Act 1959 the Maori Trust Boards Act 1955 and the Maori Community Development Act 1962. I mention first some of the amendments to Te Ture Whenua Māori Act. Amendments in the bill ensure that Ruapuha Uekaha Hapū Trust continues to exist with the same beneficiaries as intended by the 1990 settlement of the Wai 51 Treaty claim. Further amendments with this kaupapa will allow for meetings for assembled owners of Māori land to be held by electronic means. We've seen through the COVID-19 pandemic how critical technology is to ensure that entities can continue to operate even if they cannot meet face-to-face or kanohi ki te kanohi. Attending meetings in person is difficult for many owners who now live away from their lands. This change will make participation in meetings much easier.Other amendments to Te Ture Whenua Maori Act increase the notice period to owners and wider whānau of proposals to sell or transfer Māori freehold land from 15 to 20 working days. Amendments to the Maori Purposes Act 1959 will make it easier for the Lake Rotoaira Forest Trust to administer their freshwater fisheries. Amendments to the Maori Trust Boards Act 1955 will remove the requirement that the members of Māori trust boards provide their resignations in writing to the Minister for Māori Development; instead they'll be able to make their resignation directly to the trust board who will then notify the Minister. Amendments to the Maori Community Development Act 1962 will require district Māori councils to provide their audited financial statements to the New Zealand Māori Council rather than to the CEO of Te Puni Kōkiri.The amendments proposed in this bill have broad support from the entities who will be impacted by them and in many cases have been proposed by the relevant entities themselves. So I do want to again acknowledge the cooperative spirit in which the bill has progressed through the House the constructive approach by all members in the House who've taken to the bill and I hope that we continue in that vein. Kia ora Madam Speaker.
Jackson Willie; Salesa JennyHon WILLIE JACKSON (Minister for Māori Development): I seek leave of the House for all provisions in the bill to be taken as one question.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Leave is sought for that purpose. Are there any objections to the motion? There are no objections. The question is that Parts 1 to 3 Schedules 1 to 4 and clauses 1 and 2 stand part.
Salesa JennyMĀORI PURPOSES BILLIn CommitteeParts 1 to 3 Schedules 1 to 4 and clauses 1 and 2CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members we come first to the Māori Purposes Bill Part 1.
Salesa JennyHOUSE IN COMMITTEECHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members the House is in committee on the Māori Purposes Bill the Remuneration Authority Legislation Bill and the Statutes Amendment Bill.
Natural Hazards Insurance Bill — Second Reading
Webb Duncan; Dean JacquiDr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): It's a real pleasure I stand to take the final call in this reading of the Natural Hazards Insurance Bill. And it's interesting to listen to Mr Stuart Smith talk about the fact that for someone Earthquake Commission (EQC) premiums might not relate exactly to their risk. I can tell you that in Christchurch pre-2011 people didn't think it was particularly high risk and yet billions upon billions of dollars had to be forked out of the EQC fund to rebuild and repair homes in Christchurch. So I think we've got to be a bit cautious about sort of not spreading the risk across all of New Zealand.Look there are some big changes here the lifting of the caps is the most obvious one and it's a really good one because certainly when the EQC framework was designed the cover was expected to be that of a modest dwelling. Well $300000 doesn't come close to the cost of rebuild of a modest dwelling now but it's a much more substantial contribution than the previous was. It certainly will cover most natural damage claims. But what I do actually want to identify from my time working for quite a long time in this space as a lawyer for homeowners is the fact that this is a bill which goes through in detail and sorts out all of the little problems that hold up issues. I can remember sitting with a plan of university halls of residence with coloured pencils and markers marking out which units looked like dwellings and which ones didn't. It was a laborious task that took months of negotiations with EQC. Well that's just one of the things that this bill makes clear so that that kind of problem won't arise again.Boarding houses what's happening when a house is being renovated common and shared property part-commercial part-dwelling properties—all of these things which can take a lot of time if you don't have clear rules in advance. This has been worked through and I must say I was on the Finance and Expenditure Committee when the bill first came before it and after being moved on to other jobs I've taken the opportunity to sit on the select committee from time to time. The committee did a great job in going through in detail a lot of these difficult points that a lot of people will never take any notice of and in most people's lives won't arise. But in a large natural disaster getting the law right at that level of detail is absolutely critical. It will save time it will save grief and anxiety it will save money and it will give people back their homes sooner and better. That's a great thing. I commend this bill to the House.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is That the amendments recommended by the Finance and Expenditure Committee by majority be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.Motion agreed to.Bill read a second time.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Māori Purposes Bill the Remuneration Authority Legislation Bill and the Statutes Amendment Bill.
Leary IngridNATURAL HAZARDS INSURANCE BILLSecond ReadingDebate resumed from 10 November.INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): Thank you Madam Speaker. This bill is really bringing to light the Cartwright recommendations for natural hazards around reducing the impact of the trauma of natural hazards but also mitigating the risk to the Crown or the exposure and it is also enabling the Crown to get involved in the transfer of reinsurance for risks that fall outside of the bill. At the select committee process the main changes that we made were around the scope of the research and education functions but there were also clarifications that those reinsurance matters would lie outside of the bill. There were a number of technical changes modernisations and improvements—for example we spoke quite a lot around drains walls retaining walls bridges culverts and so on trying to work out where the lines would fall around liability and compensation. I just want to thank the independent adviser for his really good advice as we worked through those issues. There were a couple of areas where as a committee we wanted to increase the rights or the protections if you like for those who would be insured. One was around the commission being required to settle claims as soon as practicable rather than within one year. Secondly there was a provision that enabled the commission to recover moneys paid in error and there was an assumption that this would be perhaps because of the withholding of information from a claimant when in fact it could be possible that new information could come to light. So we recommended that some natural justice prevail there in the event that the claimant wouldn't have an enduring liability in the event that there would be a cap to it. Finally we suggested getting rid of a one-off charge to enable cover to continue after a claim is settled. So those were the changes. It was a pretty thorough investigation. I'd just like to commend Minister Dr David Clark who's sitting next to me for shepherding this through. It's really important given that we have increasing natural hazards with climate change and so New Zealanders can be assured that we still have a robust system that is going to work when these unfortunate events happen. I commend it to the House.
Walters VanushiVANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour): Thank you Madam Speaker for the opportunity to take a brief call in relation to the Plant Variety Rights Bill. I am not a member of the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee who considered this bill. However I am a member of the esteemed Regulations Review Committee and one of the privileges of being on that committee is that we cover a broad range of topics. Our substantive focus goes from lobsters to optometrists to e-scooters and—yes—to plant varieties and we did engage with this bill because it creates regulation-making powers as we do for bills across a number of areas. We are interested in everything and it was with that interest and great excitement that I read the select committee's report and there were three things which stood out for me in terms of my role within the Regulations Review Committee. The first was the committee's diligent consideration of a letter written to it by the Regulations Review Committee in June that considered the use of powers in clause 150. So it was really good to see the committee engaging actively with that piece of advice. The second was the committee's decision to make a recommended change around clause 116 which gives the Commissioner of Plant Variety Rights the ability to delegate their functions and powers to others. The committee noted that that was actually framed quite broadly so they drew down those powers which as we all recognise within the regulations space are extremely important in terms of ensuring clarity and then a number of other speakers have referred to the significant insertion of the right to appeal contained in clauses 68A to 68D. So a really thorough job was done by the select committee and I would like to commend them for that. I commend the Minister for his diligent work in bringing this bill to the House and I commend the bill to the House.
Henderson EmilyDr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei): Kia ora e te Māngai o te Whare. I rise in support of this bill. When I first learnt that I was speaking on this bill I said to my friend and colleague Ms Brooking Excellent. I love plants I'm an avid gardener." She said to me "Emily this is not about plants this is about the intellectual property of plants" and she is absolutely right.For those who are just joining us there are two things this bill does. The first is it aligns us with international obligations under the treaties and it actually strengthens the rights of our remarkably innovative and effective plant-breeders like my neighbours in my little garden in Whangārei Lynwood Nurseries who are remarkably innovative in their breeding of avocados and their development of grafting technologies. The other thing it does is it brings in a unique and very powerful protection for our indigenous community's relationships with the indigenous flora of this nation—the kūmara has been mentioned on many occasions this morning.My friend Mr Cameron across the aisle in the ACT Party mentioned he has lived in Tai Tokerau for 37 years. Well I trump you at 43 years Mr Cameron and he tangata Tiriti ahau a sixth generation Pākehā Kiwi. What I want to say is this: I do not understand the white fragility that leads to the concern over the protection of indigenous relationships and mana whenua relationships with their plant varieties. I am sixth generation I stand proudly with my colleagues Meka Whaitiri and my other colleagues and mana whenua in this land.This is a good bill. Too often have we watched overseas when indigenous peoples' knowledge of plants has been stripped taken by companies from outside and used to make profits outside their country of origin. We are not going to let that happen in this Government. I commend this bill to the House."
Ngobi TerisaTERISA NGOBI (Labour—Ōtaki): Ata mārie Madam Speaker. It's a pleasure to rise and take a short call today on the Plant Variety Rights Bill. To be honest I didn't know that we Aotearoa New Zealand were world leading in terms of our plant variety industry and really leading the way in terms of our research and planning for example the mahi New Zealand Plant Breeding and Research Association is doing including its forage industry strategy. This bill will replace the Plant Variety Rights Act 1987. The changes will strengthen our already thriving local plant breeding industry while also showcasing to foreign breeders and investors the value in investing here in Aotearoa New Zealand. The bill also implements the Crown's obligation under Te Tiriti o Waitangi in relation to the plant variety rights regime. We heard earlier with Minister Whaitiri the Waitangi Tribunal considered the Crown's obligations in relation to the plant variety rights regime in the Wai 262 report Ko Aotearoa Tēnei and the recommendations included a Māori advisory committee to advise the Commissioner of Plant Variety Rights on this matter. The bill strengthens these recommendations by establishing a Māori plant varieties committee with a decision making rather than an advisory power. Again just tautoko-ing what Minister Whatiri said this is to enhance Aotearoa's standing—sorry I should have said earlier. This is nothing to be scared of; this is something to celebrate. This bill represents a uniquely New Zealand approach to the plant variety rights. It ensures our responsibility under Te Tiriti o Waitangi and it aligns us to the highest international standards of plant variety protection while meeting our obligations under the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership. So again it's a real pleasure to rise and support this bill and I commend this bill to the House.
Menéndez March RicardoRICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you Mr Speaker and it's a privilege to speak on the Plant Variety Rights Bill at the third reading on behalf of the Greens. I know some of the speakers have talked at length about the kūmara and the importance of the kūmara and I just wanted to make a brief reflection that for many of us from the Latin American region and for many indigenous peoples from the region the kūmara also plays a really important role and it's one that actually connects the Pacific side of the Latin American region with Aotearoa. I think it's interesting to hear those different stories about the role that kūmara plays.This bill I acknowledge does try to modernise New Zealand's plant variety regime which is fixed-term intellectual property rights granted to plant breeders over the variety they develop. The idea of modernising our variety regime is really important and it is needed. I do also hear that throughout the debate it's been mentioned that the intent of the bill was also to better protect indigenous people's ability to not forego those rights over endemic species and to meet our Treaty obligations. I think what we've unpacked in the first and second reading of this bill in our debates is that this desire to meet our Treaty obligations within this bill is at odds with the fact that this bill is also here to basically fulfil our Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) obligations. When we think about the fact that we're tying our approach to this bill to a trade deal which the Waitangi Tribunal found to be insufficient to protect Māori rights and our obligations pursuant to Te Tiriti and that the Government didn't fix this—I think the broader intent of this bill is at odds with the larger picture.Throughout the submission process—and I touched on this in the second reading so I'm not going to go to great lengths in here—we did end up getting quite a few contributions whether it was from the Māori Law Society Professor Jane Kelsey or Te Kāhui Oranga who talked about some concerns about the insufficient aspects of this bill around genuinely protecting indigenous rights. So once again the Green Party does have a long history of ensuring that we take a holistic view of legislation. We have had historical concerns over the CPTPP and what this will mean for indigenous rights and so we do think that this bill as part of that broader approach could end up being part of a project that does not sufficiently protect indigenous rights and for that reason we cannot support this bill. Thank you.
Chen NaisiNAISI CHEN (Labour): I do agree with my colleague across the House Melissa Lee that this has been a really long process. In fact I almost couldn't believe my eyes when this bill came up on the Order Paper once again after such a long time; I thought we had passed it a while back. However I have thoroughly enjoyed the select committee processes. As my colleague across the House is on our Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee—one of the best in the House. Also I recognise the chair who has just contributed to this debate as well. During the select committee process it was one of those weird and wonderful bills where you expanded your knowledge in a subject matter area very very extensively in a very short amount of time. This whole entire International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants process whether we follow the Australians whether they're going to amend their own process of their protection of intellectual property (IP) of their plant varieties or we're going to go down the European way—all of those things I really want to thank all of the officials especially for guiding us especially when this is not a very common and popular kind of area we all bring something to.However like my colleague has just mentioned intellectual property in plant varieties is actually quite emotive as well for some people—emotional. We often connect food with emotions and I just want to pay a special shout-out to one of my friends an artist in our community called Cindy Huang who put in an installation an interactive art instalment called Twin Cultivation where she particularly explored the different connections that food brings different cultures for instance the Pacific community and the Chinese community and our kūmaras and making sure that there are different types of kūmaras that actually get recognised. It was the first time I actually knew that the indigenous kūmara the Māori kūmara is only that small because we imagine kūmaras being quite big and substantive. But she managed to create them out of ceramic.So those things I think—protecting our IP in our food and in our plants—actually tell a story about our nation about our cultures and the people that live on this land and so that's why I commend this bill to the House.
Strange JamieJAMIE STRANGE (Labour—Hamilton East): Mr Speaker thank you for the opportunity to take a call on this third reading of the Plant Variety Rights Bill. It's been a very positive process. I'd like to acknowledge all of those who have worked in terms of the select committee—the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee—on this process. I'd like to acknowledge all of those who've made submissions on it. We're now at the third reading and this bill is about to I believe pass into law which is good.The bill represents a new and uniquely New Zealand approach to plant variety rights that will ensure our responsibilities under Te Tiriti o Waitangi are upheld also aligning the highest international standards of plant variety protection. It links into the work that we've been doing in terms of the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV-91) and the place that we play with the other countries around the world. We've taken a unique approach to the part that we play in this in terms of our Te Tiriti o Waitangi obligations and we've taken an approach where we've brought in a lot of our indigenous plants into this in order to protect the intellectual property that comes with those.Our select committee suggested a number of amendments which you know have strengthened the bill. Yeah look it's an important piece of legislation in terms of our UPOV-91 requirements and our connection with the rest of the world on pieces of legislation like this. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.
Lorck AnnaANNA LORCK (Labour—Tukituki): Thank you Mr Speaker. Look this bill is about efficiency. I think that one of the things that I continually hear from the Opposition is them complaining about the reason to complain. This bill is just about getting on with the business. And every time I get to stand up and talk about business I frankly wonder what sort of businesses that the Opposition even think about. For a company what this means is efficiency and getting it done on time and if this can help that—remembering that this was a request of the Government to come in and make this simple efficiency to make it all better for us to get our companies registered on time and more efficient. So on that I commend as a final speaker the second reading to the House.
White HelenHELEN WHITE (Labour): I was on the select committee that considered this bill the Finance and Expenditure Committee and I'm fully supportive of it. Just to respond to the points made by the Opposition there's a five-year review on this bill. People did that because they were mindful of the issue about making sure that fees were reasonable. There's also a consultation being recommended over those fees. But basically what I would say to the New Zealand public is I remember being a search clerk many years ago and it was a very laborious and expensive process for everyone. We've come a long way. This is about a modern bill and actually if the Labour Party stands for modernising this area and the National Party doesn't well I think the New Zealand public will draw its own conclusions. I commend this bill to the House.
Webb DuncanDr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Kia ora e te Mana Whakawā. I see the Māori Party's chosen not to take its call so I'll just make a couple of brief comments in response to the member who doesn't seem to understand what fees and levies really are all about. It's not like going to the shop and purchasing something off the shelf. The Companies Office manages a number of registers. This is simply a tidy-up so that the law—which across multiple Governments has been erroneously applied—is tidied up to make it clear that the fees and levies charge can be used to fund across the various registries that are administered. A sensible piece of legislation—surprised the National Party once again is standing in the way of sensible progress.
Halbert Shanan; O'Connor GregSHANAN HALBERT (Labour—Northcote): Thank you Mr Speaker and can I start by acknowledging the Finance and Expenditure Committee for their work on this particular bill and my colleagues who are a strong team speaking in this bill this morning with less brouha—I think that's our word for the day brouha; we'll continue that through.The New Zealand Companies Office administers the corporate registry system of 16 registers and supports other statutory functions of its registrars and this amendment bill amends the Companies Act 1993 to create a new regulation-making power that really makes the system a lot fairer. We don't need to traverse this bill too much this morning. I think there's some very good work that has been done by my colleagues on this so the brouha can be minimised this morning and we can get on with the mahi. I commend this bill to the House.DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon Todd McClay—it's a five-minute call.
Smith DamienDAMIEN SMITH (ACT): Thank you Mr Speaker. The Companies (Levies) Amendment Bill will be supported by ACT at the second reading. It amends the Companies Act 1993; it actually covers across 15 Acts and tries to clean up 16 registers. But honesty's required here: there is a funding shortfall and the cost of upgrading these systems and registries needs to have a slightly changed model which includes levies and that is something which is a move on from just charging fees.The bill itself does help to recover costs—not excessive costs—and it affects companies in the sense that they will have to pay and protects incorporated societies from overinflated costs; i.e. they will be actually subsidised to participate on the registers themselves.There were several changes at the select committee which made sense. So the technical amendments do add some modernisation to the levy-making powers. We believe that it's time to clean it up and we don't have any administrative arguments with that. The important thing is it's reviewed as a confirmable instrument over the next five years and ACT will be supporting this bill at this reading. Thank you.
Menéndez March RicardoRICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you Mr Speaker. I will also be taking a short call on this bill. The Companies (Levies) Amendment Bill is a common-sense bill that wants to gather some other changes that have been done to effectively create a new regulation-making power that will enable regulators to impose levies and certain users of the register administered by the New Zealand Companies Office. Pretty straightforward.I want to commend the Finance and Expenditure Committee for the work that they have done on scrutinising this bill and coming through with some proposed amendments that were accepted unanimously. Some of these amendments include reclassifying the regulations as confirmable instruments" clarify that future levies can be combined in one payment strengthening consultation provisions and a statutory review of the levy system.I note that there were only three I believe written submissions for this bill at the committee. We often hear from people opposing the legislation and when there's something controversial we get a lot of submissions trying to either improve or oppose it. I think that the fact that there was a bit of a low-level interest in this bill just shows that it is a common-sense bill. We commend this bill to the House."
Leary IngridINGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): Mōrena Mr Speaker. I'll keep this really short. I don't understand why the Opposition is making a brouha over something that is a rationalisation of—[Interruption]—a brouha—Hon Member: A brouhaha.INGRID LEARY: —a fuss—a system that is already in place. Basically the primary legislation and the fees that have come as a result of it there's a mismatch and they need to be lawful. This system works and it's really looking at efficiency of the system rather than something that requires a big policy analysis to say Are there other systems that should be in place?"So it's really just about rationalising what's already happening and it's a great bill and I think we need to just move on. So with those words I commend it to the House."