edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
McKelvie IanIAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Thank you Mr Chair. This time I will have a question for the Minister. Just one of the things that occurs to me—and it's really interesting because we're in a sort of interesting time at the moment—is we've got the issue with the COVID vaccine acceptance and certainly remoter parts of New Zealand are more difficult to penetrate with respect to that than perhaps Wellington or Auckland. We've also got a bill up later on tonight which deals with statistics and of course people have got to fill out statistics forms. We've got in the House this bill where there's an inherent distrust in some people of fluoridation and you've got to wonder whether the real issue we've got is that slowly but surely people are starting to distrust the Government when the Government makes decisions for them. If I knew the answer to this I wouldn't be here but I think it's a real challenge for us because if you don't fill out your statistics correctly the Government doesn't get the information they need to manage the processes we're talking about here actually amongst others. If you don't get vaccinated it would appear then that other people are at risk and the same thing applies to this. If we don't get this fluoridation thing accepted then we're going to get to the point where people effectively opt out. So I suppose my question for the Minister is—and it might be very difficult one to answer—that I just wonder: it's all very well to provide health advice to members of the public but they don't accept it necessarily and certainly the more remotely you live in New Zealand it appears the less likely you are to accept advice from the centre. So I suppose my worry with this—and as I said I don't have the answer—kind of bill is if we're going to put these in place we've got to find a way of generally getting acceptance. I accept we won't get everyone to accept it but we need to find ways as we manage these processes of getting people to accept that effectively these decisions are made for the better of their own health just like getting vaccinated is or filling out your statistics correctly is.
Simmonds PennyPENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): Thank you Mr Chair. I'm interested in having the Minister explain to us how there might be consultation and a flow of information up from the communities. She has talked about there not being consultation with the communities but what if a community should decide they want fluoridation? What is the process and what is the ability for the community to send their message that they want fluoridation in their water?
Cameron MarkMARK CAMERON (ACT): Thank you Mr Chair. Minister if I may: as you'd be acutely aware I live in Northland and we've got some of the worst teeth in the country. Very quickly and if I contextualise the problem about where I live a lot of rural New Zealand especially in Northland is on rural schemes. Can you speak to quite specifically—and we've canvassed this in the House and I think it's going to come up again and again and again. In the Water Services Bill on this side of the House we asked for an exemption for 30 end users or less. By virtue of what we're discussing tonight there's a real possibility there will be a penalty regime in place inside that piece of legislation for such things as fluoridation or the absence of it and I would be interested to know what that will look like what part of rural New Zealand it will affect and how this policy would be policed or the lack thereof.
Verrall AyeshaHon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Associate Minister of Health): The Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 38 which was recently considered by select committee does indeed make all those changes that the member is requesting because it is a change to move decision making from district health boards to the director-general. Therefore the bill as amended by the Supplementary Order Paper does not require the continued existence of district health boards in order to give effect to the increase in fluoridation that we want to see. I want to return to the contribution of the speaker before last around SOP 79. Firstly as I previously noted there are local issues that are relevant to fluoridation decisions and the director-general is required to take this into account: local health factors the oral health of the population the feasibility and readiness to start fluoridation and its cost. But the Supplementary Order Paper goes further than that and asks us—well actually it was Mr Doocey's speech in relation to the Supplementary Order Paper that was prepared by Dr Reti. Mr Doocey said that it's not just about local government but about involving community but it doesn't appear to me that that's what Supplementary Order Paper 79 does. It asks for the views of local health authorities legislated to represent … health interests where the local authority supply is situated." So it's a slightly wordy presentation but I don't think the intent of it is about community involvement. No it's about representatives I'm not even sure exist and in fact the comment that Mr Bishop was making actually applies to Mr Reti's SOP not to the Government's bill or SOP.So we will not be supporting the Supplementary Order Paper 79 because it's not entirely clear what it means and it's not clear that it will be an advance on the existing Supplementary Order Paper. It's interesting to note that this bill started its life out as a National Party bill in which there was no requirement for local consultation and nor is local consultation enabled by the Supplementary Order Paper."
Bishop ChrisCHRIS BISHOP (National): Thank you Mr Chair. Look this bill has had an interesting history. It was first introduced into Parliament in 2016 at the tail end of the year and here we are coming towards the end of 2021. I think I'm right in saying that it managed to spend the entirety of the last Parliament on the Order Paper with no progress—I think I'm right in saying that. So here we are five years later and time has kind of caught up with the Government because the bill seeks to transfer power to district health boards and away from territorial authorities but contemporaneously the Government is abolishing district health boards.So I have a very simple question and I apologise if it's already been asked by members on this side. It is a very simple question. What happens when this bill is passed and it becomes an Act and the new Governor-General Dame Cindy Kiro gives her Royal assent to the legislation and it comes into force and then in a year's time district health boards are no longer in existence? What will happen to this Act or is it the intention of the Government to move an alternative form of legislation? It is a very simple question and I think people will want to know what the answer is.
Doocey MattMATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): Thank you very much Mr Chair. I wanted to talk to Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 79 which is in the name of my good friend and colleague Dr Shane Reti who is actively up in the North of the North Island now vaccinating and I want to wish him well. Now what he says in his SOP is to amend clause 4A: after new section 116E(2)(b) insert: (c) the views of local … authorities legislated to represent regional health interests where the local authority supply is situated." I suppose for us on this side of the House we believe in having strong communities. They're a place for local democracy. They're a place of our local economy and of course where our public services are delivered from and it is quite concerning—and I think my colleague Penny Simmonds alluded to this—the continual ideology of centralisation. I note that in a bill we'll debate tomorrow it says about the health reforms that "Government intervention is necessary to address these longstanding issues; indeed only Government can take the steps needed to reform the structure and operating model of the … health system." We would argue that it's not only Government; it's actually the communities as well that are needed to reform and restructure and that's why I think this is a very good SOP that will require the director-general to consider the views of local health authorities in this region.What we do need is to still consult people in their local communities. There's probably a feeling that they're getting dealt to a bit at the moment and we've seen Groundswell NZ be part of that. I think that's why it is important as set out in SOP 79 whether it be the centralisation of our health reforms or of course what the Government will announce tomorrow for their three waters announcement that in an issue like fluoridation of drinking water we should also ensure that our local communities are consulted about this on whether they agree to this or not. I do hope that the parties tonight will have read Shane Reti's SOP 79 and that they will support local consultation because of course decisions we make in Wellington affect everyone on the ground around New Zealand and we should make sure that we provide adequate consultation."
Simmonds Penny; Verrall AyeshaPENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): Thank you Mr Chair. Thank you Minister Verrall for your answers to those questions. Minister the concern I suppose is the context in which this bill is sitting of a number of centralisations of vocational education of DHBs of mandating of vaccinations and so it's really a question around implementation. Around the roll-out for COVID vaccinations there was a vacuum which allowed all sorts of other opinions to grow legs. My concern around this is the implementation of the fluoridation of drinking water. What education or what implementation information is going to go out so that there isn't a groundswell of people who are anti the fluoridation of drinking water because we definitely heard in the submissions that a number of people are deeply suspicious and I suppose when we see this sitting within the context of a lot of centralised decision-making it will add to that sense of distrust. So my question is around information sharing education and ensuring that people are in the right space to be able to accept fluoridation of water supplies.Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Associate Minister of Health): Those matters are not directly relevant to the bill we're debating but the Prime Minister's Chief Science Advisor has recently assisted with that important matter of making sure that good information is available to the public by publishing a detailed report of all of the decades of science around fluoridation. So I think there is access to New Zealand - specific high-quality information and I think that it is important that those sources remain up to date as the Ministry of Health has also kept up-to-date sources of information throughout this time in the many years that the bill has been before Parliament.The other point to make though is that I think it will not be possible to address all of the concern and opposition about the bill in the community but it is important to have gone through a process of having those proper evidence-based reviews by an independent person and that's what's been done.PENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): Thank you Mr Chair and thank you Minister. I think we've probably seen from experience around the COVID vaccinations that the science and evidence often isn't enough for communities to be won over or certain elements of our communities to be won over. So the process of consultation and getting communities on board I think is an incredibly important part of the implementation of this legislation and I'm not sure that we've had spelt out to us how that process is really going to play out.
Verrall AyeshaHon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Associate Minister of Health): Thank you Mr Chair and I want to thank Mr McKelvie for that honest contribution and his wishes of good luck—I appreciate it. To address some of the earlier questions the Supplementary Order Paper does require that the director-general engage with local authorities on their readiness and the cost of implementing change but as I stated earlier it does not relitigate the decision about the public health rationale or science of fluoridation. There will be a need to seek information on the health status of the local population as well. I'd just note that the original bill did not require any community engagement in its original form either. I do not view concerns about the proposed reforms of district health boards as problematic for the passage of this bill; in fact it is required. It makes an even stronger case for the need for this bill because there will not be district health boards in the future health system. The three waters bill would change the role of local authorities to that of water entities in terms of the bodies that would be responsible for having to fluoridate water on direction by the director-general and consequential amendments to change the entity referred to would have to be made through the Water Services Bill should that bill pass.
McKelvie IanIAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): I can't resist taking a call on this bill. I want to congratulate Minister Verrall for getting into what I'd call probably a fight she'll never win. I've been around the fluoridation issue for 20 years now and I've never seen a consensus achieved anywhere on fluoridation and I can't see it happening now. But the really interesting thing about the whole fluoridation issue is it's been with councils. We proposed it went to the district health boards in 2016 I think Matt Doocey said. In my view that was never going to work. I don't think this will work either because I just think it's such a contentious issue this fluoridation of drinking water. Frankly I've got to say I support the fluoridation of drinking water. When you have teeth as bad as I've got and you were never in a fluoridated water supply you'd know why I support it and it's pretty obvious that we should support it. So I don't really have a constructive question of the Minister on it but I do think it's worth commenting that I think it's a very brave move and I think it's worth trying anything we can to achieve the objective that this bill sets out to achieve but I'm just not sure how you're ever going to get a consensus on it. So that's all I really wanted to say. I do think though that it's an issue that we should persevere with as a Parliament and I don't think you can make one rule for Bulls where I live and another rule for Rātana or for Whangaehu where you live Mr Chair. So I think that the issue that we've got is it's got to be consistent across New Zealand and we should effectively where we can supply fluoridated drinking water particularly for our young people because it's just the way it is. So I don't want to ask you a question Minister; I want to congratulate you. Good luck.
Doocey MattMATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): Thank you very much Mr Chair. It's a privilege to take a call on this fluoridation bill. It is interesting. As the Minister outlined we did the first reading in 2016—I think I might have spoken on it back then—and then the second reading in about June or July last year. So as the Minister outlined it's good that the parties are taking a science-based approach and agreeing on the principle of fluoride but as we know especially with this Government the issue is going to be around implementation. With the Government's announcement of the traffic light system I think the irony wasn't lost then when it was about all DHBs going to be 90 percent and I suppose with this bill as well it is based on DHBs. Now tomorrow a bill will come before this House where DHBs will have a bulldozer driven through them and unlike the health and disability review which advocated for maybe five or seven or nine DHBS we're going to go down to none. So it will be interesting to hear from the Minister how this will line up with the abolishment of DHBs. Then probably it will be also interesting to hear of course how is the actual implementation of fluoride going to work under the proposed three waters programme as well. Who will be responsible if the three waters are going to be taken out of local councils or—I don't think we can even call them local democracies in this bill now. It changes to local authority". So will we have to come back and change this as well? So there are some competing priorities here although as we said the bill arrived in 2016. But now in 2021 we face a very different landscape. So we won't be able to talk about the decision making going to DHBs because we won't have any and who will actually provide the fluoride or who will put it in the water system if we move to three waters and that is moved to some entity that we can't see in the legislation yet?"
Simmonds PennyPENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): Thank you Mr Chair. I had the privilege of being on the Health Committee and hearing the submitters. There were a number and it was quite emotive at times. One of the big fears was around the decision making being taken from the community and I wonder if the Minister can outline beyond the Supplementary Order Paper that has been put forward just what sort of consultation might take place at a local community level given the sense of distrust that we did see coming from a number of the submitters.
Rurawhe Adrian; Webb DuncanHEALTH (FLUORIDATION OF DRINKING WATER) AMENDMENT BILLIn CommitteeParts 1 and 2 Schedule and clauses 1 to 3CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Members the House is now in committee on the Health (Fluoridation of Drinking Water) Amendment Bill. We come first to Part 1. This is the debate on clauses 4 to 10 and the Schedule: amendments relating to drinking water. The question is that Part 1 stand part.Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Junior Whip—Labour): Point of order. I seek leave to have all questions taken as one debate.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. Therefore the question now is that Parts 1 and 2 the Schedule and clauses 1 to 3 stand part.
Simmonds Penny; Tinetti Jan; Dean Jacqui; O'Connor GregPENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): Thank you Madam Chair. Thank you Minister for that additional information. Given the changes that have occurred in the last few months particularly around supply chains and delays does the Minister still believe that the time frames and time lines originally looked at are reasonable for domestic operators? Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Internal Affairs): Yes. Dr James McDowall: Madam Chair. CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Before I take the member if members want to take a call in a committee stage they've got to get up and take a call. Otherwise I will close the debate. However we have Dr James McDowall. Dr JAMES McDOWALL (ACT): I was just going to say Point of order." but I'll sit back down. My apologies. GREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): I move That the question be now put. CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the question be now put. Motion agreed to.Part 2 agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members we come now to—Hon Members: Dinner. CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Thank you. Members when I feel I need assistance when I'm ruling I'll certainly let you know. But in the meantime the Chair is going to leave the Chair for the dinner break and we'll see you all at 7. Sitting suspended from 5.56 p.m. to 7 p.m."
Maritime Transport (MARPOL Annex VI) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Part 1
McDowall James; Dean JacquiDr JAMES McDOWALL (ACT): Thank you Madam Chair. Just to add to that I'd like to know what assurances the Minister can give that any requirement for reception facilities may be negotiated to the satisfaction of the port operator to avoid any unnecessary costs. CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that Part 1 stand part. Hon Scott Simpson: Madam Chair. CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): I have started. The question is that Part 1 stand part. Part 1 agreed to.
Simpson ScottHon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you Madam Chair. While the Minister's seeking an answer to my colleague Penny Simmonds' very good question clause 4 of the bill relates to an amendment to differentiate between the terms ballast water" and "sediment" and my simple question is: what does the Minister understand to be the distinction between ballast water and sediment?"
Simmonds PennyPENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): The answer to my previous question about the availability of the low-sulphur fuel was We're OK." and I don't think that's a terribly technical explanation of really what amount of low-sulphur fuel is available for domestic operators. Is there sufficient low-sulphur fuel available and over what time frame will it then enable implementation of Annex VI?"
Smith StuartSTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you Madam Chair. I've come very late to this debate but I'm coming representing the wonderful port of Picton. We have significant issues with emissions and MARPOL VI can't come quick enough for the people in Picton. The latest airshed readings from the ferry terminal in Picton in particular are quite worrying. In fact this has come quite late and I'm very concerned about the health of the people of Picton due to the air quality issues. I know in particular the soot that comes out in small flakes and contaminates washing on the line for example in less than favourable conditions.So MARPOL VI I know decreases the emissions from ships in general but Picton has greater issues with emissions than Tauranga does which has a hundred times the number of ship movements that Picton does and it's related to the geography in that port. So does this bill in any way take any account of the particular circumstances in particular ports that will exacerbate the issues that otherwise might be fine in places like Tauranga or Auckland's port or Lyttelton rather than a small port with particular geographical issues with hills around it and the comings and goings of ferries in particular rather than the giant ships that are coming and going—container ships particularly—in Tauranga or Auckland or other ports around the country? It's a very confined space. It is subject to a lot of wind but some days there isn't any and that's the days when we have issues and I know that some of those ships are not emitting in large quantities as they would be in the case of those aforementioned large ports. So my question is: is there any account of that in the bill and if so can the Minister please explain how that would work?
Tinetti JanHon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Internal Affairs): I just wanted to take a very quick call around the supply chain issue. I have been assured that where—I can give assurance around the supply chain in that particular point in time. There is a bit of a side issue of course with the closure of Marsden Point but I have been told that we're OK.
Kuriger BarbaraBARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): Just following on from that question it is actually quite similar. So in clause 4(3)(b) it talks about anything that comprises or is intended to comprise any part of a ship offshore installation or pipeline … that is or … intended to be installed on or fitted or supplied to a ship" so we are again talking about marine protection. This bill was done in a global context and we are looking for new fuels. So in terms of anything being installed on a ship in the future does that include any new plant or any new pipes or anything that might be used to use a new fuel that's going to go through that ship so everything will be caught in the intent of this bill? That is my question. Thank you."
Simmonds PennyPENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): Thank you Madam Chair. If we could return to the issue of supply chain disruption can the Minister assure us that there will be low-sulphur fuel available for domestic operators and has that been factored into the time line for implementation? And is she able to give us an assurance that there will not be further delays to our supply chain by the implementation of this Annex VI?
Simpson ScottHon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): So what then was the policy initiative behind not taking this opportunity to tidy up the vocabulary to actually bring consistency across the two regulatory statutes? It strikes me that that would have been an obvious and simple thing to do. The Minister in the chair has available to her an army of officials to bring logic and sense to legislative changes of this sort.But while the Minister is consulting with the officials on that matter there is a further matter I want to raise and that relates again to clause 4(2)(b)(ii) and it provides the statutory exclusion for the release of harmful substances for the purposes of legitimate scientific research". I'm keen to know what the parameters of the disposal and/or dumping may be of harmful substances could be for the purposes of legitimate scientific research. In what quantum would be permissible scientific research to pollute to dump and to give waste to toxic materials in the name of science? How would that be quantified when would it be justified and who would make those decisions?"
Simpson Scott; Simmonds Penny; Tinetti JanHon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): I wondered if I could come back to the use of vocabulary. So in clause 4(2)(a) and (b) relating to discharge" there are sort of nice words about including the "release disposal spilling leaking pumping emitting or emptying;" but then paragraph (b) goes on to say "does not include—(i) dumping" and I'm intrigued to know why there can't be some consistency of vocabulary. "Dumping" is a pejorative word whereas "release disposal spilling leaking" is a much kinder use of the English language. It seems to me that there is a specific exclusion in the legislation that precludes the evil dumping but that allows for the inclusion of disposal spilling leaking pumping emitting or emptying.PENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): Given the situation that we find ourselves in at the moment with supply chain delays and particular issues around shipping and delay of goods and services both in and out of the country can the Minister give us an assurance that this has been considered in the time line and time frame for implementation to ensure that even greater shortages of goods and services don't occur with a further breakdown of the supply chain?Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Internal Affairs): I just wanted to go back to the previous member's question about dumping because I know that that's twice that he's asked it so it's obviously very important. It's because it is consistent with the Maritime Transport Act as it stands at the moment. It deals with different provisions. The word "dumping" is in the Act in four different provisions and so it is consistent with what has already been in the in the main Act. So it is consistent with the legislation as it stands at the moment. It's not pejorative; it is just around the fact of consistency and getting consistency within our legislation.Hon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): That is my very point. So in the sentence in the clause immediately above it refers to "discharge". So why in that sentence are nice words like "release disposal spilling leaking pumping emitting or emptying;" used but the word "dumping" isn't used? I would have thought that a polite way of using the language was actually to say what is meant and if dumping is what is meant then the word "dumping" should be used throughout the legislation rather than just in a way that is selective and not consistent.Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Internal Affairs): So just to confirm that we're talking about two different parts of the Act. We've got dumping and discharge used in different parts of the Act dealing with completely different provisions so to make that distinction we've got the different language that's being used in that particular point because we're dealing with completely different provisions. It could be something that eventually down the track—when we're looking at the Plain Language Bill for example—could be tidied up for that purpose but at the moment that's how it stands."
Simmonds Penny; Tinetti JanPENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): Thank you Madam Chair. Perhaps while the Minister is getting that advice I could put some further questions forward. As my colleague just talked about earlier this import of low-sulphur fuel is going to be required and I wonder if the Minister could tell us about any modelling that has been done in terms of the potential cost to domestic operators and also a time line for implementation. Given that there is going to be this additional cost for domestic operators I'm sure they will be wanting to know a little bit more detail about time frames and when they need to be budgeting for this. Thank you.Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Internal Affairs): Implementing Annex VI requires expansion to a number of Maritime New Zealand and Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment (MBIE) functions. Additional operational funding is needed to achieve this. We expect the cost of implementing Annex VI obligations to be approximately $1.9 million per year for Maritime New Zealand and $1078427 per year for MBIE. We expect the cost of the regime to be borne by the shipping and fuel industries through the maritime and fuel levies. This would be subject to further analysis and consultation as part of the funding review. However in March 2020 the ad hoc Cabinet committee on COVID-19 response suspended all funding reviews across border and aviation agencies for 12 months.
Simpson ScottHon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Well thank you Minister for the kind invitation but that's not the purpose of the committee of the whole House stage. The purpose of this stage is for the Minister to reply to questions from members in this committee and I would have thought that the member would be on top of this legislation. I understand that she's sitting in for the Minister whose bill this name is in but that doesn't absolve her from the responsibility to be able to answer what I think are some reasonably basic questions—and it may be that with the arrival of the official we may be able to get some answers. So I will give the Minister an opportunity for a brief consultation with officials and then I have other questions.
Simpson Scott; Tinetti JanHon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you Madam Chair. Look I didn't sit on the select committee that considered this legislation so I'm coming to this with a view of a layperson. Some of the terms in the legislation are a bit perplexing and I'm hoping that the Minister will be able to offer some advice about for instance the terminology in Part 1 clause 4(1) which refers to fuel oil" at the bottom there. It means "any fuel delivered to and intended for combustion purposes for propulsion or operation on board a ship including gas distillate [or] residual fuels" and what I'd like to know is: how was that definition arrived at and is it extensive enough? For instance does it include futureproofing fuel sources? So does it for instance include the prospect of hydrogen fuel cell propulsion and what about the potential for some vessels—I understand that Wellington is soon to have an electric tugboat in place. So I'm keen to know about what those various types of fuel might mean. Now there is a further section: the amendment to section 222(1)(b)(i) in clause 4(2) refers to dumping but immediately above that it refers to discharge and I'm wondering why the rather more pejorative term "dumping" is used rather than "discharge" and why there isn't some kind of consistency in terms of the vocabulary around those matters. I'm hoping the Minister may be able to give some clarity on those. I've got some other questions later.Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Internal Affairs): In terms of laypeople it's the member and myself both. So my suggestion in that particular instance—and while I'm waiting for my officials to come in—would be that maybe the member could put those questions in writing and I'm sure that the Minister in charge of the bill would be more than happy to give an answer to him."
Dean JacquiMARITIME TRANSPORT (MARPOL ANNEX VI) AMENDMENT BILLIn CommitteePart 1 Amendments to Maritime Transport Act 1994CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members the House is in committee on the Maritime Transport (MARPOL Annex VI) Amendment Bill. We come first to Part 1. Part 1 is the debate on clauses 3 to 16 Amendments to Maritime Transport Act 1994". The question is that Part 1 stand part."
Dean JacquiCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the Minister's amendment to Clause 2 as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 75 be agreed to.Amendment agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that Clause 2 as amended stand part.Clause 2 as amended agreed toClause 3 agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): I will report this bill with amendment.
Dean Jacqui; Tinetti Jan; Kuriger BarbaraClauses 1 to 3CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members we now come to our final debate; that's debate on clauses 1 to 3: title commencement and principal Act.Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Internal Affairs): The commencement date of the bill is currently set for 30 April 2021; however COVID-19 has caused disruptions to the work and this initial commencement date has since passed. I'm tabling a Supplementary Order Paper which amends the commencement date to 1 February 2022 to reflect the high priority of implementing the bill. The time frame for commencement does not need to allow for the promulgation of regulations. This will ensure that other key provisions such as the live stream provisions can take effect immediately after commencement.BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): Thank you Madam Chair. Just a question in the interim on the name of the bill. Given that we've had our fair share of laughs over the last few weeks around the Films Videos and Publications Classification (Urgent Interim Classification of Publications and Prevention of Online Harm) Amendment Bill did the Minister actually have a look and see if there was some way of simplifying the title of the bill or did it just get too hard?Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Internal Affairs): The member will be delighted to know that when this bill gets passed its third reading it will then fold into the main Act and we'll know it as the classifications Act.
McKee Nicole; Tinetti JanNICOLE McKEE (ACT): Thank you Minister for that response. What about those people who are sharing a live stream as new section 132C inserted by clause 10 is specifically about sharing objectionable live streamed content? Rather than the person who is delivering the content themselves it's those innocent people who say Well that person's a friend of mine on Stalkbook and not Facebook and I will share their content because usually it's been quite good." but they're committing an offence in doing so.Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Internal Affairs): The bill will not penalise all instances of live streaming objectionable content. There is a threshold as defined in the bill that needs to be met and I'd just like to read this particular part here. Individuals would commit "an offence if (a) they livestreamed content knowing or having reasonable cause to believe it [was] objectionable; or (b) [shared] content or information about how to access content" and they need to meet these two points: "(i) knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that the content is objectionable; and (ii) with the intent of promoting or encouraging criminal acts or acts of terrorism."So there's quite a high threshold there. It's not just about "Oh this is my friend." or "I've shared something from my friend." not realising as they get through the stream that it is objectionable. There are those two bullet points that need to be met which makes sure that that protection is afforded to those people."
McKee Nicole; Tinetti JanNICOLE McKEE (ACT): Thank you Minister. I'm going to go back to this objectionable" part and specifically into new section 132C where we're actually talking about making it an offence to live stream material where we are knowing or have reasonable cause to believe that it is objectionable. And this is where I come back to my earlier questions about people perhaps live streaming or sharing a link to a live stream not realising the content of that stream of it being objectionable. And while I now recognise that there is a rapid assessment that would allow a take-down order this bill would actually make it an offence to live stream such material before it has been made objectionable or even noted as such. So people are actually live streaming content that has not yet been made objectionable but are committing an offence in doing so if there is reasonable cause to believe that they knew about that. So I'm just wondering Minister how you could allay some fears of people who just go about live streaming things not realising what the content is at that time. How can we allay their fears as to creating or committing an offence?Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Internal Affairs): I think that's a really good question and I want to go back to that term "objectionable" which is defined in the principal Act as it stands now. We are talking about some of the most abhorrent media that any of us probably couldn't imagine. People will know that they are live streaming objectionable content because we are talking about abhorrent. I don't want to be too definitive in my example here but to give a broad definition of what that might look like we are talking about terrorist material or we're talking about child sexual exploitation. So for example a young child might be being abused in a pretty abhorrent way and someone else might be standing there live streaming them. Currently that person live streaming would not be committing an offence of live streaming. They know that that is objectionable. That's the level that we are talking about."
Dean Jacqui; Tinetti JanPart 2 Take-down notices for objectionable online publications offences and regulationsCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members we now come to Part 2. This is the debate on clauses 8 to 12 Take-down notices for objectionable online publications offences and regulations". The question is that Part 2 stand part.Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Internal Affairs): Part 2 of the bill amends the Act to provide Department of Internal Affairs Inspectors of Publications with the power to issue take-down notices when they identify objectionable material online. This power would be in addition to the inspectors' current practice of requesting voluntary take-down of content in individual cases. Unlike other jurisdictions we have had to rely on voluntary requests to remove illegal online material. This change will provide certainty for Government and online content hosts by enabling statutory authority and accountability when a take-down notice is issued. An online content host that does not comply with a take-down notice as soon as reasonably practicable would be committing a breach and subject to a penalty of $200000.The bill also provides a definition for the term live stream which notes that "livestream means to transmit over the Internet or any other electronic medium images or sounds as they happen". This amendment makes it clear that a live stream of objectionable material is captured under the Act. Furthermore the bill makes it an offence to knowingly live stream objectionable content or share objectionable live streamed content. This offence is not intended to have extraterritorial application. This offence applies to the individual or organisation that live streams the content with the penalty of imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years for an individual and a fine not exceeding $200000 for a body corporate."
McKee Nicole; Dean JacquiNICOLE McKEE (ACT): And just further to that Minister I just wonder where content of material hasn't actually been made objectionable yet—so it's content that's still coming to be determined as being objectionable but has been put up before that determination. I hope that makes sense.Hon Jan Tinetti: Madam Chair?CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Gosh that was just in time—Hon Jan Tinetti. I was just about to put the closure motion.Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Internal Affairs): Ha ha! I know you were Madam Chair but I did want to be as responsive as I could be and I was making certain that I got that exactly as it should be the answer. So the rapid assessment within this bill allows for that to be made very very rapidly. And so again then the take-down notice that will be issued to the internet service provider would enable that to be taken down very very quickly. So it's ensuring that people the powers that be—the inspectors in this particular case—can act very very quickly and that's what that rapid assessment does.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that Part 1 stand part. Part 1 agreed to.
Films Videos and Publications Classification (Urgent Interim Classification of Publications and Prevention of Online Harm) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Part 1
McKee Nicole; Tinetti JanNICOLE McKEE (ACT): Thank you Madam Chair; thank you Minister. Minister I've got a question for you on going back to the objectionable material and my question is around it—well sorry I'll make a statement first.You've already said that it's been defined in law so everybody should know what is objectionable and what is not but I have some concern about whether or not those people out there who see something on social media and immediately share it not knowing what we know about the law and objectionable and how does this Act plan to work within that regime of people accidentally—or not accidentally but very quickly sharing something not realising that it is objectionable because they don't have that same outline as we do or knowledge of the law?Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Internal Affairs): There are safeguards in this around that. I think that's a really good question because we know that that can happen that people don't understand or don't understand that that is objectionable. It is clearly defined in law but there would have to be intent around that. There's the protection again here of the take-down notices and it would go through the test of ensuring that the intent of knowing that it was objectionable would actually make that act illegal and that is defined within the bill as it stands now.
Grigg Nicola; Tinetti JanNICOLA GRIGG (National—Selwyn): Thank you Madam Chair. Thank you Minister. I just had another question around Part 1 of this bill around the online content host description. I just wanted you to be able to elaborate a little around the role that online content hosts will be playing in the sense that—just trying to understand what difference this law will make when it comes into effect when there are internet service providers (ISPs) and platforms already removing material voluntarily.Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Internal Affairs): Exactly what I've just said in that this gives them clarity. So we've currently got a voluntary regime and a voluntary regime is up to the provider and the ISP. With the take-down notices there is no question around whether this is objectionable or not. They're not having to second guess. This gives them that sense of clarity and that's where this bill is seeking to improve what currently exists.
Tinetti JanFILMS VIDEOS AND PUBLICATIONS CLASSIFICATION (URGENT INTERIM CLASSIFICATION OF PUBLICATIONS AND PREVENTION OF ONLINE HARM) AMENDMENT BILLIn CommitteePart 1 Definitions application of Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015 and interim classification assessmentsCHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Members we come now to the Films Videos and Publications Classification (Urgent Interim Classification of Publications and Prevention of Online Harm) Amendment Bill Part 1. This is the debate on clauses 4 to 7 Definitions application of Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015 and interim classification assessments". The question is that Part 1 stand part.Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Internal Affairs): This bill will update the classification Act to allow for urgent steps to be taken to prevent and mitigate harms caused by objectionable publications. The amendments will ensure that Government internet service providers and online content hosts can swiftly and consistently take action against objectionable material and prevent the potential harm that this material can cause to New Zealanders.Part 1 of the bill first amends definitions in section 2 of the classification Act. This provides certainty that the definition of publication expressly includes "a copy of images or sounds that have been livestreamed" in the definition. It amends the Act to expressly override the "safe harbour" provisions in the Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015 when the classification Act applies. The result of this change would ensure that online content hosts could be prosecuted for possessing or distributing objectionable or restricted content such as violent extremist material.The bill will also provide for a new urgent interim classification assessment processed for the Classification Office. This will cover all publications by the principal Act in contrast to the rest of the bill which only applies to online publications. The change provides an option for the chief censor to indicate a likely classification status and alert the public and enforcement agencies accordingly as a result allowing public enforcement agencies and online content hosts to act sooner in dealing with objectionable content."
Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Part 2
Rurawhe AdrianPart 2 Amendments relating to COVID-19CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Members we now come to Part 2. This is the debate on clauses 13 to 34—amendments relating to COVID-19. The question is that Part 2 stand part.Part 2 agreed to.Schedules agreed to.Clauses 1 to 3CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Members we now come to the final debate clauses 1 to 3. This is the debate on clauses 1 to 3: Title Commencement and Principal Act.Clause 1 agreed to.Clause 2CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The question is that the Minister's amendment to clause 2 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 72 be agreed to.Amendment agreed to.Clause 2 as amended agreed to.Clause 3 agreed to.Bill to be reported with amendment.
Simmonds Penny; Little AndrewPENNY SIMMONDS (National—Invercargill): Thank you Mr Chairman and thank you Minister for that assurance. I wonder if the Minister could further outline to us what monitoring of that reporting might take place so that we can be sure that parts of the country are not applying the guidelines inconsistently with other parts of the country. Just the reporting of it is good but if the reporting isn't monitored and consistency achieved then only half the job is done. Thank you Minister.Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): I think the member raises a very good point. I think a couple of things. First of all the Director-General of Health is responsible for developing the guidelines so they will be a set of national guidelines. The Director of Mental Health obviously will have an involvement in that and the Director of Mental Health is responsible for ensuring provisions in the current legislation are applied and applied consistently.I think what will give further reassurance to members is the legislation introduced yet to have its first reading—the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Bill—is about a truly nationwide health system so that any inconsistency that might have been developed between the proprietors of mental health units at the moment which are any one of the 20 DHBs there will be a mechanism to ensure a greater consistency of application of national guidelines in the future in a way that we struggle to achieve at the moment.Part 1 agreed to.
Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Part 1