edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Upston LouiseHon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Again I think the Labour members who were on the select committee and were so diligent in working with me on it in some ways are answering the issues they're raising because that is exactly one of the points. I just want to step back a bit though in terms of again the intent behind this bill which is of course an omnibus bill. And this part is the mental health compulsory assessment and treatment amendments. So when Graeme Moyle came into my electorate office in 2010 his first concern was that a special patient the special patient that had killed his brother was out in the community having unsupervised visits. So his primary concern was actually public safety and that an unsupervised visit by a special patient could lead to harm in the community. So then if you think about—one of the other significant policy intents is equivalence between the justice system and the health system. And if you are a victim in the justice system you have the opportunity to present to the parole board. Although as we worked through this we clearly identified significant differences in terms of why that was not appropriate in the mental health system and the bill was vastly improved in the select committee from where it started. So I want to acknowledge the select committee's effort in that. What was important is that victims wanted to be able to be heard and they also wanted to be notified. So those are the two key parts of the policy behind the changes that appear in here. Obviously the release of a special patient—there is a significant process which Dr Crawshaw who is the Director of Mental Health outlined and the process that he goes through in making recommendations to the Minister of Health. So we did a lot of work to strike the balance of ensuring that there was not any inappropriate influence and that the Director of Mental Health and the mental health team are clearly specialists with a wide range of skills that they bring to the table in that decision and the victim's voice was a component. The point that the member Vanushi Walters finished on was actually for some special patients it would be equally traumatising and damaging to their recovery to be confronted in the community with their victim. So we traversed the very necessary balance of the victim and the special patient. Again I want to thank the select committee for taking the time to make sure that we had unanimous support and that the report that we brought back to this House was unanimously agreed because we recognise this is a complex but very important issue to get right.
Brown Simeon; Dean JacquiSIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): I move That the question be now put.Motion agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the Hon Louise Upston's amendment to Part 1 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 98 be agreed to.Amendment agreed to.Part 1 as amended agreed to.
Rights for Victims of Insane Offenders Bill — In Committee—Part 1 (continued)
Walters Vanushi; Dean JacquiVANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour): Thank you Madam Chair. So just continuing from where I was in terms of the focus on court processes I would very much like to hear from the member about the balancing of rights within the courtroom but also clarity and how the new addition of the new section 20 I believe it is makes that clear for all parties in the courtroom.There was another question I think for me that came up as we were hearing submissions and I'll refer back again to the Chief Victims Advisor report that she wrote back in 2019 where she made some quite broad comments about the rights of victims and that they stemmed from the UN Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power. She actually went and interviewed a number of victims and included some really alarming quotes from some of them about their experiences. One thing I was quite interested in was how she defined victims. This is an issue that came up in select committee because of the nature of the submissions that we heard from many families. And I know that the Hon Dr Nick Smith was very interested in this particular aspect of the bill as well because it's a question of scope.So we heard from some individuals that where an individual is declared unfit to stand trial in the first place the individuals who had suffered harm from an act that they had committed would go without justice—whereas if this bill were to come into force without extending to that group of people individuals who had suffered harm for someone who was declared to have committed the acts but didn't have the actus reus they would have some space within the courtroom; they would be able to read a victim impact statement. I don't recall whether it was Dr Smith or not but one of the issues that came up was whether if you had an individual who was declared unfit to stand trial at the time that they had been charged but subsequently after receiving an appropriate amount of treatment through mental health services were deemed to be sufficiently capable—how would they fit into this sort of regime and are our laws sufficient to ensure that that person is then tried and those individuals do also have the same ability to provide statements in court?So I'd be curious also in addition to my earlier question about court processes and clarity just to hear from the member about whether the intended scope that she started out with when she introduced this bill—whether she considered expanding it at any stage when hearing from those individuals. I thought that was quite a novel argument that was made at select committee. And if not why not and does she see this as a gap in the law or that it's adequately dealt with by current legal processes?CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): I call Emily Henderson.
Webb DuncanDr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you Madam Chair and congratulations to the member Louise Upston for getting the bill this far. There's a couple of questions I really invite you to talk to—and I saw her about to get to her feet before—and I guess the first is this and it's about the kind of importance of the concept of mens rea as an ingredient of guilt. The phraseology chosen of not criminally responsible" is clearly dispensing with the idea of "not guilty" and it seems to be right there in the nub of this bill that we are putting insane people into a kind of different category. The law's long recognised that the actus reus and the mens rea are critical ingredients of guilt and that if you don't have either of those components—the intention that's necessary and the critical thinking skills necessary to form that intention—then you are not guilty. I'm really asking whether that undermines the concept of mens rea as an ingredient of guilt itself of the responsibility from which flows criminal conviction and the sentencing that follows.I guess the other thing I'd just point out and it may be for a later part: the bill's called the Rights for Victims of Insane Offenders Bill; this is not about offenders at all. It's about insane accuseds. They never become offenders. They didn't commit the offence. They are not criminally responsible. Once again we've got a person here who is seriously mentally unwell if they don't have the ability to form the intention to commit a crime and yet the bill tags them as offenders when they are not offenders.Now I understand the Justice Committee recommended that in reaching a verdict as set out in this bill the judge is to explain what "not criminally responsible by reason of insanity" means and how that interplays. I'd be interested in the thoughts of the member. I think it's really important because I'm sure the courts will look at these debates to understand what that might entail. What would in particular the victim want to know about the verdict? What kind of equipment do we want to give the judiciary in terms of the intention of this House when they come to say to a victim "This person isn't going to jail isn't going to be punished and the reason is they don't have the mental capacity to have committed this crime. They are not guilty. They are not offenders. They are not criminally responsible. But that does not diminish the fact that you have suffered sometimes some very grievous you know acts at the hands of these people." But I do think in striking this balance—and I know the member's tried desperately hard to strike the right balance—we've got to be cautious that whilst we can say a verdict which is you know "not criminally responsible" we steer away from then saying "The person who is the accused is an offender." because the verdict itself declares that they're not.So I'd be interested in your views on mens rea and also in your views as to whether it's appropriate to identify the accused person as an offender and as to what we might be asking of the courts in explaining the verdict to the court and in particular to the victim. Kia ora."
Stanford EricaERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): I move That the question be now put.
Upston LouiseHon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you Madam Chair. I will take up that member's—Emily Henderson's—invitation. My intention and I've spoken about it in the earlier readings of this bill but it was the genesis of how this came about actually and it's very much a people bill. It was based on a constituent coming into my electorate office in 2010 and raising an issue raising his experience of the way he found the justice system as a victim when his brother had been killed by someone who was found to be insane at the time and the clear difference between how he was treated because the offender became a special patient in the health system as opposed to a criminal in the justice system. Therefore the experience for him as a victim was so vastly different.I think some of the frustration of Graeme Moyle and his family was that at that time there was a move to strengthen victims' rights in a number of areas. So as the previous National Government and now the Labour Government have continued the mantle to improve the victims' experience of the justice system and as Ginny Andersen spoke about have victims at the heart of the justice system the expectation grew and the gap became wider in terms of his experience of what happened for him and the very fact that when you have an offender that is found to be insane it's a very different pathway and a very unequal pathway. That's very much what we heard from other submitters.So in terms of Part 1—I know we are wandering a little bit Madam Chair if you can indulge me for a moment—the rights for victims of insane offenders was very deliberately chosen based on a very real human experience which I felt as a member of Parliament was wrong. I'm immensely grateful for this House for the time and effort that has gone in during a select committee process where we honour those victims and give them greater rights.
Upston Louise; Dean JacquiHon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you Madam Chair. I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one question.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is.Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you Madam Chair. So I want to just refer to the only Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that is now on the table related to this bill. For those who are just watching this debate now in the prior committee of the whole House there were SOPs—No. 40 which has been withdrawn and that is now replaced by No. 98—and I just wanted to explain a couple of those changes. They are very much cross-referencing changes that are picked up as part of the drafting process. So they're very technical changes and also in one with the change to clause 8B new section 50 it is to ensure consistency with the wording of the Mental Health Act. So I just wanted to put on record to clarify for the House that SOP 42 no longer exists it's been replaced with 98. What was SOP 52 in the prior committee stage had been incorporated when the bill went back to the select committee as outlined by the chair Ginny Andersen.
Dean JacquiRIGHTS FOR VICTIMS OF INSANE OFFENDERS BILLIn CommitteePart 1 Amendments to Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003 and Schedule 1CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members the House is in Committee on the Rights for Victims of Insane Offenders Bill. The House was considering Part 1 and the question was—Ginny Andersen: Madam Chair.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Ginny Andersen.
Interventions — Withdrawal of Member—Apology
Jackson WillieINTERVENTIONSUnparliamentary Language—ApologyHon WILLIE JACKSON (Minister for Māori Development): Mr Speaker I was kicked out of the House earlier—SPEAKER: No no. The member will take his mask off.Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Oh! Apologies again Mr Speaker. I was kicked out of the House earlier today or left the House earlier today and on reflection I want to offer the House an apology for the unparliamentary language that I used at the time. So I apologise and withdraw for the statement that I made.SPEAKER: Thank you. I declare the House in committee for consideration for further consideration of the Rights for Victims of Insane Offenders Bill.
McAnulty Kieran; Dean Jacqui; Mallard TrevorKIERAN McANULTY (Chief Whip—Labour): Point of order. I apologise for interrupting the debate but I seek leave to report progress and sit again presently.Motion agreed to.House resumed.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The committee has considered the Rights for Victims of Insane Offenders Bill and reports progress.SPEAKER: The Chair moves accordingly—and that is that the committee has reported progress on the bill and has sought leave to sit again presently.Motion agreed to.SPEAKER: The House is resumed. I should have said that earlier.
Rights for Victims of Insane Offenders Bill — In Committee—Part 1
Upston LouiseHon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you Madam Chair. There seems to be a little procedural change that we weren't expecting so apologies to the committee. I just want to put on record the changes that were made at the Justice Committee so that there is some context in terms of how this debate will go for the rest of the session.This bill has had a start of a committee of the whole House. It was on 1 July 2020 referred to the Justice Committee. It had unanimous support from all parties in Parliament and there was a significant amount of work by the select committee and the determination of the chair that we could have a bill that all parties would continue to support. I want to put on record my thanks to the Justice Committee chair Ginny Andersen for the professional and very deliberate way in which she chaired the select committee to ensure that we had time to consider the issues during the select committee.On 16 April 2021 it was reported back to the House with extensive amendments agreed by the select committee. They were unanimously accepted in the second reading on 12 May. However on 24 May the Chief Justice wrote to the Attorney-General raising concerns about the implications of some of the amendments that had been agreed. One of the key areas raised was the amended wording of the proposed verdict. I tabled Supplementary Order Paper 52 at the time in response to some of the Chief Justice's concerns. However on 30 June the bill was referred back to the select committee with the instruction that the committee consider the Chief Justice's advice on the bill.We requested advice on the original verdict—the verdict the select committee chose and the verdict used in New South Wales. The bill as introduced said and I quote the acts or omissions are proven but the defendant is not criminally responsible on account of insanity". The select committee amended the verdict to "proven but insane". So we sought officials' advice on both the use of either of those options and the New South Wales verdict of "act proven but not criminally responsible". Officials provided advice on three other alternatives. We have landed on a compromise and that is in the bill that we are debating in the committee of the whole House today and that says "act proven but not criminally responsible on account of insanity" which meets the needs of all parties: victims those who are facing charges the judiciary and Parliament.My thanks to officials in the Parliamentary Counsel Office for getting this done so promptly and for the unanimous cooperation of the members of the select committee who worked so hard to get to a position that we could all agree with."
Dean JacquiIn CommitteeDebate resumed from 9 June.Part 1 Amendments to Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003 and Schedule 1CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The House is in committee on the Rights for Victims of Insane Offenders Bill. We come first members to the debate on Part 1 this is the debates on clauses 3 to 7B and Schedule 1—Amendments to the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003". The question is that Part 1 stand part."
Rights for Victims of Insane Offenders Bill — Consideration of Report of Justice Committee
Andersen Ginny; Mallard TrevorRIGHTS FOR VICTIMS OF INSANE OFFENDERS BILLConsideration of Report of Justice CommitteeGINNY ANDERSEN (Chairperson of the Justice Committee): I move That the House take note of the report of the Justice Committee on the Rights for Victims of Insane Offenders Bill.Motion agreed to.SPEAKER: The question is that the amendments recommended by the Justice Committee be agreed to.Motion agreed to.SPEAKER: The question is that the bill now proceed.Motion agreed to.SPEAKER: In accordance with a determination of the Business Committee this bill is set down for committee stage forthwith. I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Rights for Victims of Insane Offenders Bill.
Mallard TrevorSPEAKER: The House is resumed. I'm going to ask the Government Whips before I ask the Serjeant-at-Arms to inquire of where Mr Jackson is and require him to come the House immediately.Damien Smith: He's over in Huxley's with—SPEAKER: Sorry?Damien Smith: He's over in Huxley's. I saw him over in Huxley's.SPEAKER: I still can't hear him sorry.Hon Stuart Nash: Do you want me to give him a call?SPEAKER: No we're going to get on with the business of the House while we're waiting for him. I call on members' order of the day No. 1.
Eagle PaulPAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare and thank you for the privilege to speak on the Canterbury Regional Council (Ngāi Tahu Representation) Bill.I want to just say it's a good day because this really does set the benchmark for all local councils to look at how they enact the Treaty partnership. Fundamentally it's good for that reason alone. Obviously there has been some work done and that entity has decided that in terms of recognising how to best move forward with Ngāi Tahu this is the best way forward. I often get asked how is it that local government can have a functioning truly authentic and genuine partnership with mana whenua Māori. This is something that people will look at and say We want that too." So this is good.I know in my own patch on Rēkohu Wharekauri the Chatham Islands this very thing where you have imi iwi looking at how to enact governance with tauiwi on an island that big this will be looked at carefully. Too often you have advisers or others that act in a way where they don't have mana whenua authority or authentication to act in a way where they are speaking truly for mana whenua Māori. Then you get confusion because some like myself who aren't from Wellington when I was elected on to Wellington city—I'm not from here—but I certainly made it clear that having a Treaty partnership enacted through something like this would have been ideal solely because they could have spoken as true mana whenua representatives.This is a good bill. This is a good day and I commend this bill to the House."
Pallett SarahSARAH PALLETT (Labour—Ilam): Thank you so much Mr Speaker We stand here this evening to ensure I hope with this bill if it passes that we have direct Ngāi Tahu representation at the council level because direct representation is not what we currently have at Environment Canterbury. We have two wonderful Tumu Taiao—they are mana whenua experts—but they do not have decision-making powers; they have no vote. One of the great joys of being an immigrant to Aotearoa has been learning about Te Tiriti learning more about and gaining a greater understanding of the ongoing impacts of colonisation the rights of tangata whenua and on how we have gradually been moving towards a genuine partnership as outlined in Te Tiriti—a partnership that isn't a nice-to-have" but an absolute obligation; and you cannot work in partnership with any group that has been given a seat but no vote no voice. It isn't good enough it doesn't work for Canterbury and that's why I commend this bill to the House."
Luxton JoJO LUXTON (Labour—Rangitata): Thank you Mr Speaker. It's a pleasure to rise and take a call on this piece of legislation. In Canterbury we're innovative we're resourceful we're good at coming up with local solutions to fix local issues and that is simply what this piece of legislation does. This piece of legislation or this proposed piece of legislation is a local bill a local piece of legislation that Environment Canterbury—we call them ECan—have asked for themselves. It simply puts into permanency something that was put in place under the previous National Government in 2010—something that has actually worked very very well since then. It simply puts it into permanency so that these people Ngāi Tahu the mana whenua the kaitiaki of the land who have close ties bonds and connections with the land have the ability to have a seat at the table and hence voting rights. They're in addition to the current 14 councillors. They are not replacing any councillors.I think that this is a fantastic piece of legislation. Local solutions for local issues. Thank you Mr Speaker.
Webb DuncanDr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you Mr Speaker. It's a pleasure to stand and speak on this bill. I was surprised when Mr Doocey said we shouldn't change this piece of law because the way local government has worked in Canterbury for the past 150 years has been fine. I could hear some of my Ngāi Tahu friends choke. I think that he should perhaps go and read the Ngāi Tahu Claims Settlement Act and the Crown apology appended to it. It will become pretty readily apparent that things haven't worked fine for many.But I mean I think this bill begs the question of what it means to be mana whenua. Is it just someone who we invite to give a karakia or a pōwhiri from time to time or is it someone we engage in meaningful discussion who we have actually around the table on an equal footing? And Ngāi Tahu do occupy a very special place in Canterbury and the South Island. Environment Canterbury is in a unique position of Ngāi Tahu being the only iwi. So when they do want to engage with mana whenua there is only one iwi to do that with. So the fact of actually having them around the table two members that have not only a voice but the same deliberative powers and voting powers is really really important. And it's not for us if we're going to have those members of Ngāi Tahu around the table to say how they're selected. That's for Ngāi Tahu. That's why an appointment process is an entirely appropriate mechanism. And Christchurch and Canterbury are in a unique and privileged position to be able to engage in this way with Ngāi Tahu.So whilst the last 150 years might not have been great in terms of our relationships with Ngāi Tahu I look forward to a future when this bill will improve it significantly. Kia ora.
Palmerston North Reserves Empowering Amendment Bill — First Reading
Watts SimonSIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): I rise to talk on the Palmerston North Reserves Empowering Amendment Bill. I thank the member Tangi Utikere for bringing this local bill to this House. I unlike many in this House don't reside or come from Palmerston North but I did as part of my deep research for this short call today do some research and find that it is the home of the Rugby Museum. Obviously as a keen member of the parliamentary rugby team—and I look across the House and I can see the very light-footed but very fast Kieran McAnulty who plays on the wing for that team and the Hon Michael Woodhouse who's our fly-half and the second row of which I play with Mr O'Connor—I reflect that the Rugby Museum in Palmerston North is a key part of that city. But of course this bill is about a lovely reserve related to a part of our local government area and a reserve that is obviously going to be sold for development into housing. National supports this bill. National stands up for councils and National stands for keeping the local" in "local government". National supports local councils and local governments to make their own decisions and this is an example of a decision that is going to be able to be put into that council's hand to be able to do what will be a positive thing in regards to future housing development. National supports this bill as obviously not only will this create housing development but also it will create community facilities in developments for that local community and that is a good thing. We've heard from prior speakers that this land has been vacant for nearly 15 years so it seems sensible that that will transition back out. It's been through a thorough consultation process and again I thank the member for providing detail around that. Of course it will go through a select committee process as well to ensure that the issues are dealt through.I acknowledge there was some feedback that was in opposition to this bill but as it has been through a reasonable degree or a higher degree of consultation I think most of those issues have been mitigated and I look forward to seeing this bill pass through. I lastly say that actually there are a number of examples of these types of bills around the country. I've actually got one in my local electorate. So I look forward to the future when we can bring that to the House. I commend this bill to the House."
Sage EugenieHon EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Tēnā koe Madam Speaker. Thank you. The Green Party will be supporting the Palmerston North Reserves Empowering Amendment Bill. I don't have the nostalgic memories that Rachel Boyack does and am not able to describe the area in quite such eloquent detail. So my research was looking at the location of the Huia Street Reserve on Google Earth and Google Maps and noting that it is only five blocks from the square in Palmerston North and it's on quite a prominent intersection and that it is quite close to quite large areas of open space—Ongley and Manawaroa parks—and also the council has noted its proximity to the Victoria Esplanade and the Julia Wallace park. So the council has concluded that there is quite significant public open space within the vicinity that justifies this local bill. It will be obviously for the select committee to hear submissions and I am pleased that it's going to the hard-working Environment Committee.I would just note though that there has been quite a lot of community concern about the potential loss of the reserve. The Railway Land Action Group Environment Network Manawatū saw there as being value in the reserve remaining as open space and wanted to protect it as green space. I think Environment Network Manawatū sees the potential for it to have things like a plant nursery demonstrations of renewable energy an eco-house and hope that in determining the future of the land and its future uses that the city council works with those community organisations and their aspirations to have areas where sustainability practices are able to be experienced and shown to the public and to find suitable land for that to happen. Yes the land has been vacant—was formerly the Manawatū bowling club I understand—and it's been vacant since 2005. The proposals that the council has made for potentially using it for housing noted that there were a range of options; not all of them were promoting the sort of medium- and high-density housing and variety of typologies that would be most suited to this site so close to the central city. So I hope that the council when it does make a decision does look to maximise the range of houses there the range of affordability and really does do medium- or high-density well and not just allow a developer to buy it and then turn it into something that's not really encouraging urban renewal and urban intensification. But that is a decision for the council; it is not for the Parliament. This bill is simply enabling the Palmerston North City Council to choose to sell it if it wishes to because at the moment as Tangi Utikere noted in his speech it is held as reserve status and there is not an ability to sell. So I look forward to submissions on the bill and all the views that they will bring to bear. The Green Party supports the bill.
Sittings of The House
Wood MichaelSITTINGS OF THE HOUSEHon MICHAEL WOOD (Deputy Leader of the House): I move That the sitting of the House today be extended into tomorrow morning for the debate on the Government motion to extend the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020 the committee stages of the Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Amendment Bill and the Sexual Violence Legislation Bill the third reading of the Education and Training Amendment Bill and the first readings and referral to select committees of the Oranga Tamariki Amendment Bill and the Security Information in Proceedings Legislation Bill.Motion agreed to.
Obituaries — Wiki Mulholland
Mallard TrevorPETITIONS PAPERS SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLSSPEAKER: No select committee reports have been presented. No bills have been introduced. Petitions have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation.CLERK:Petition of Social Credit requesting that the House declare the Marsden Point oil refinery a nationally strategic assetpetition of Natalie Horspool requesting that the House ensure the Te Awakairangi Birthing Centre in Lower Hutt stays openpetition of Ava Simeon requesting that the House urge the Government to increase the Access Barrier boarding allowancepetition of Ingrid Shaw requesting that the House urge the Government to stop actioning ideas detailed in the He Puapua report until it has seen full public consultationpetition of Chlöe Swarbrick MP requesting that the House urge the Minister of Education to provide immediate direct financial support for all tertiary students.SPEAKER: Those petitions stand referred to the Petitions Committee. Ministers have delivered papers.CLERK: Tertiary Education Commission Annual Report for the year ended 30 June 2021Archives New Zealand Chief Archivist's Annual Report on the State of Government Record keeping 2020/21.SPEAKER: I present the report of the Controller and Auditor-General entitled Consulting Matters: Observations on the 2021-31 consultation documents. Those papers are published under the authority of the House.
Ngarewa-Packer DebbieOBITUARIESWiki MulhollandDEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori): I seek leave of the House to move a motion without notice and without debate honouring the passing of cancer drug advocacy movement leader Wiki Mulholland.SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that? There appears to be none.DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER: I move That the House express its sympathy and condolences to the whānau of community and youth development leader Wiki Mulholland and pay tribute to the outstanding advocacy she led for better access to cancer drugs in Aotearoa. Kia ora.Motion agreed to.
Dean Jacqui; Mallard TrevorWEDNESDAY 8 DECEMBER 2021The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.KARAKIA/PRAYERSHon JACQUI DEAN (Assistant Speaker): Almighty God we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed on us. Laying aside all personal interests we acknowledge the Queen and pray for guidance in our deliberations that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom justice mercy and humility for the welfare and peace of New Zealand. Amen.SPEAKER: Members no select committee reports have been presented—Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: A point of order. Point of order.SPEAKER: A point of order Debbie Ngarewa-Packer.
Tuesday 23 November 2021 (continued on Wednesday 24 November 2021) - Volume 756
Taxation (COVID-19 Support Payments and Working for Families Tax Credits) Bill — Third Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Taxation (COVID-19 Support Payments and Working for Families Tax Credits) Bill be now read a third time.Ayes 75New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Noes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Abstentions 2Te Paati Māori 2.Motion agreed to.Bill read a third time.SPEAKER: The Government has informed me that they do not intend to proceed with further legislation. Urgency is therefore concluded. The House is adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow.The House adjourned at 11.48 p.m. (Wednesday)
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the question be now put.Ayes 75New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Noes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Abstentions 2Te Paati Māori 2.Motion agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 1 be agreed to.Ayes 75New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Noes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Abstentions 2Te Paati Māori 2.Clause 1 agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that Jan Logie's amendment to clause 2 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 101 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 10Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Noes 108New Zealand Labour 65; New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Abstentions 2Te Paati Māori 2.Amendment not agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 2 be agreed to.Ayes 75New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Noes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Abstentions 2Te Paati Māori 2.Clause 2 agreed to.Bill to be reported without amendment.House resumed.
Taxation (COVID-19 Support Payments and Working for Families Tax Credits) Bill — In Committee—Clauses 1 and 2
Taxation (COVID-19 Support Payments and Working for Families Tax Credits) Bill — In Committee—Part 2
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the motion be agreed to.Ayes 75New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Noes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Abstentions 2Te Paati Māori 2.Motion agreed to.The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 77 Noes 43.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the Hon Louise Upston's tabled amendments to clause 10 to amend the calculation of family tax credit be agreed to. All those in favour say Aye; to the contrary No. The Noes have it. Party vote has been called for. The clerk will conduct a party vote.Hon Marama Davidson: Point of order Madam Chair. Could I please ask the House to correct my vote just then for the Māori Party? It should have instead been abstain". My apologies.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The clerk will correct that vote. The Ayes are 75 the Noes are 43 abstain 2. The Ayes have it. The question is that Jan Logie's amendment to insert new—Matt Doocey: We've still got to vote.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Oh sorry. We go back to the vote on Louise Upston's amendments please.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 53New Zealand National 33; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; ACT New Zealand 10.Noes 65New Zealand Labour 65.Abstentions 2Te Paati Māori 2.Amendments not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that Jan Logie's amendment to insert new clauses 10A 10B and 10C set out on Supplementary Order Paper 102 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 10Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Noes 108New Zealand Labour 65; New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Abstentions 2Te Paati Māori 2.Amendment not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that Jan Logie's amendment to delete clause 11 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 101 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 43New Zealand National 33; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Noes 75New Zealand Labour 65; ACT New Zealand 10.Abstentions 2Te Paati Māori 2.Amendment not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The Hon Louise Upston's tabled amendment to delete clause 11 is out of order as the same in substance as a previous amendment.A party vote was called for on the question That Part 2 be agreed to.Ayes 75New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Noes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Abstentions 2Te Paati Māori 2.Part 2 agreed to."
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the question be now put.Ayes 75New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Noes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Abstentions 2Te Paati Māori 2.Motion agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The question is that Andrew Bayly's tabled amendment to clause 4 to amend the definition of COVID-19 Support Payments scheme be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Noes 75New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Amendment not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The question is that Andrew Bayly's tabled amendments to clause 5 to remove the power of the Commissioner of IRD to determine eligibility requirements be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Noes 75New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Amendments not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The question is that Andrew Bayly's tabled amendment to clause 5 to set a specific date and time for eligibility requirements to be published be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Noes 75New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Amendment not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The question is that Andrew Bayly's tabled amendment to clause 5 to amend new section 7AAC(2)(a)(ii) to replace 6 months" with "2 months" be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Noes 75New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Amendment not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The question is that Simon O'Connor's tabled amendments to clause 5 to allow new business owners of existing businesses to claim future payments be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Noes 75New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Amendments not agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That Part 1 be agreed to.Ayes 75New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Noes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Part 1 agreed to."
Taxation (COVID-19 Support Payments and Working for Families Tax Credits) Bill — In Committee—Part 1
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Taxation (COVID-19 Support Payments and Working for Families Tax Credits) Bill be now read a second time.Ayes 75New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Noes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Motion agreed to.Bill read a second time.DEPUTY SPEAKER: I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Taxation (COVID-19 Support Payments and Working for Families Tax Credits) Bill.
Taxation (COVID-19 Support Payments and Working for Families Tax Credits) Bill — Second Reading
Taxation (COVID-19 Support Payments and Working for Families Tax Credits) Bill — First Reading (continued)
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Taxation (COVID-19 Support Payments and Working for Families Tax Credits) Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 75New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Noes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Motion agreed to.Bill read a first time.
COVID-19 Response (Vaccinations) Legislation Bill — Third Reading (continued)
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the COVID-19 Response (Vaccinations) Legislation Bill be now read a third time.Ayes 75New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Noes 45New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Motion agreed to.Bill read a third time.
11. Question No. 11—Pacific PeoplesANAHILA KANONGATA'A-SUISUIKI (Labour) to the Minister for Pacific PeoplesQuestion No. 11—Pacific Peoples11. ANAHILA KANONGATA'A-SUISUIKI (Labour) to the Minister for Pacific Peoples: What recent announcement has the Government made about supporting Pacific communities in their transition to the COVID-19 Protection Framework?Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO (Minister for Pacific Peoples): Yesterday I announced that $10 million would be provided to support Pacific health providers and communities transition to the new COVID-19 Protection Framework. The Government recognises that there is a clear need to prepare new systems and healthcare approaches to protect and empower Pacific communities to lead and respond. The funding will also enable increased and more coordinated community engagement and education to enable greater reach into Pacific communities that the system struggles to engage with.Anahila Kanongata'a-Suisuiki: What support will be provided to Pacific health providers?Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO: Our Pacific providers have proven time and time again that they are an essential part of the Government's response to this outbreak for our Pacific communities. The providers are known and trusted by their communities and have the language skills and the cultural intelligence to be most effective. I've acknowledged them as the heroes of our front lines against COVID. Eight million dollars will be provided to Pacific health and disability providers to address capacity pressures accelerate ongoing protection measures and adapt their business models to respond to the additional responsibility of rising COVID-19 infections and supporting care in the community. This investment will also allow the continuation of targeted vaccination and testing activities for vaccine hesitant and hard-to-reach Pacific groups. The funding will help Pacific health providers to better support Pacific communities during the shift to the COVID-19 Protection Framework whilst ensuring that Pacific health inequities are not further exacerbated in the process.Anahila Kanongata'a-Suisuiki: How will the funding support Pacific community outreach with the transition to the COVID-19 Protection Framework?Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO: Two million dollars of the funding announced will help maintain Pacific community outreach engagement by the Ministry for Pacific Peoples to underpin the whole-of-system transition to the COVID-19 Protection Framework. This will enable the continuation of community engagement and education targeting groups such as Pacific churches community-based groups young people—autalavou—businesses and community leaders especially clusters with lower vaccination rates. The engagement will also help inform communities about the new settings that will apply to church services funerals large family gatherings sporting and cultural events. Our aim is to keep everyone in Aotearoa safe and encourage our families to be well prepared for the global and national COVID environment. I also want to ensure that our providers and front-line workers can have the confidence to take a well-earned break in the Christmas holidays.
9. Question No. 9—TransportSHANAN HALBERT (Labour—Northcote) to the Minister of TransportQuestion No. 9—Transport9. SHANAN HALBERT (Labour—Northcote) to the Minister of Transport: How will transport support the economic recovery over the next three years?Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): We're making good progress on a number of projects around the regions to keep New Zealand moving and to support the economic recovery. I am pleased to report that one of our regional New Zealand upgrade programme projects Takitimu North Link stage 1 now has enabling works under way. At its peak of construction up to 400 people will work on the Takitimu North Link stage 1 at any one time so the people in the Bay of Plenty will be seeing real progress on this project which includes a safe expressway and shared walking and cycling path to provide better transport choices while also supporting employment and economic development in the region.Shanan Halbert: What other regional projects have reached important milestones?Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Our Queenstown New Zealand upgrade package reached another milestone recently. Geotechnical investigations have been carried out for the State Highway 6A project that's part of the overall package. These will feed into the design of the project which will improve public transport services and enhance walking and cycling connections along Frankton Road. And construction is already under way on the linked town centre upgrades we're funding through Crown Infrastructure Partners creating jobs and supporting the region's recovery.Shanan Halbert: How are other transport projects supporting the regions?Hon MICHAEL WOOD: While the New Zealand Upgrade Programme is supporting hundreds of jobs across the country it's also useful to highlight some of the small projects that will make a big difference for New Zealanders. The first stage of safety upgrades on State Highway 1 at Five Mile Bay just south of Taupō will be installed shortly. A wide centre lane will be painted on the freshly resealed section of the State highway between Taupō Airport and the Lake Terrace roundabout and Tawhaa Road later this week. That separation will help reduce the likelihood of head-on crashes and will no doubt be welcomed by many people travelling that stretch of road over the summer. Waka Kotahi is also investigating options such as flexible median and roadside barriers on State Highway 1 from Taupō Airport to Hatepe excluding the local township and work is expected to begin next year. This is a Government that invests and delivers in our regions in economic development.