edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
SpeechHARETE HIPANGO (National): Thank you Madam Chair. I'd like to pick up from my colleague Joseph Mooney in terms of the debate in relation to clause 17 of the Oranga Tamariki Amendment Bill where section 144 is to be amended so that in section 140—that's longer-term care agreements—an extended care of children and young person's agreement is not to be made without the consent of a 12-year-old. The amendment states that no agreement may be made under section 140 in relation to an extended-care agreement for a child of or over the age of 12 years unless that child or young person consents to the making of the agreement and the consent is recorded. Minister I feel as though we're battling uphill and shovelling up hill on this with most of this because these discussions have already been had in select committee and here we are before the committee of the whole House. The problem with this bill in this provision is that 12-year-olds when they are taken into care or are under the purview and the oversight of Oranga Tamariki are dealing with enough in their own right. We talk about children's rights—yes to a certain extent. A 12-year-old it's expected when under either the custody or intervention of Oranga Tamariki ought to have—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Order! Can I just say to the member that it's beginning to be repetitive on this particular clause. The Minister actually addressed it a little bit earlier on. So make your point please but do bring us some new material.HARETE HIPANGO: The point Madam Chair is that a child who comes before Oranga Tamariki ought to or will have a lawyer representing them and taking the responsibility of addressing these issues. There is a fine balance between how much a child does have a say and that's for an adult or a guardian or a court-appointed representative to carry the burden of that responsibility and to engage with a 12-year-old. To put the total burden of responsibility on to a 12-year-old child to either consent and if they don't to extended care—where does that leave Oranga Tamariki who has and is meant to have by way of custodial status either temporary interim or longer term the decision-making responsibilities? The concern is the psychological burden and impact that is weighted on to a 12-year-old.So Minister how is that addressed in terms of the balancing of a child's wellbeing welfare and best interests because that also was an issue in terms of the court having to address social-work practice with reverse uplifts. Psychological physical and emotional factors need to be taken into account. To burden a 12-year-old child with the responsibility to determine whether or not an agreement for their extended care rests with them solely adds an unreasonable expectation and weight and burden of responsibility on to them. Minister how is this to be addressed?
McKee NicoleNICOLE McKEE (ACT): Thank you Madam Chair. Minister Davis I just want to reflect on a statement that you made in answer to the last time that I stood to submit. With all due respect Minister you referred to social workers being able to look at some of the more heinous crimes that have the potential to take place under the Crimes Act and you have made mention that social workers will be trained to ensure that they can understand see and identify when some of these things are happening. But Minister I have a lot of respect for our social workers and they've been put in positions now where they're probably seeing more violence than ever before and are trying to deal with it but they've failed New Zealand in some cases. I feel that it's our job as parliamentarians to help them and we can help them if we ensure that people who have been convicted of these heinous crimes then have to look to the subsequent child policy to be approved.Minister our social workers have the ability already to look at those sections 188 to 204 in the Crimes Act and make those decisions—already they've had that ability—but they've not been able to utilise it in such a way as to protect some of our kids that have passed. So Minister I wonder in reference to your comments that the social workers will be able to take care of this and be able to identify those situations where those crimes have taken place and then make their decisions why are we not helping them with legislation so that it is black and white when the crimes mentioned are so serious and could have devastating effects not only on the children but the entire family environment?
Davis KelvinCHRIS BAILLIE (ACT): Thank you Madam Chair. Minister I'd really like clarification and an explanation on my last call. Does a young person's bail start from scratch each time? Is bail just of no real significance? Over the years as a police officer I've done hundreds and hundreds of bail checks. Each one of those bail checks that was breached was treated really seriously and the person was dragged back to court and the judge really told them off or imposed something else on that person. So bail breaches are regarded very seriously and if the Minister is saying that for young people they don't actually matter and that there isn't a consequence if you breach your bail then the first time that that young person has a consequence will be when they offend as an adult—and I say when" they offend as adult because they will if they don't receive any consequences for their earlier offending as a young person. I'd just really like to have clarification on the bail conditions imposed and whether the bail breaches are taken seriously. Thanks. Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Minister for Children): Thank you Madam Chair. I should have addressed this sorry when the member Chris Baillie first asked. One of the first things we have to do though is make sure that we understand what bail breaches are. Sometimes a bail breach can be something as simple as a young person not getting home from football practice at the right time. They missed the bus or something and so they don't get in. They can be a couple of minutes late and that's a bail breach. So the clause seeks to clarify the powers of enforcement officers under sections 214 and 214A by clarifying the relationship between the two sections. In particular the clause clarifies two things. It clarifies when the count of bail breaches resets. When the young person has committed three bail breaches the count will reset at their court appearance. After that they would need to commit three more breaches to be arrested without warrant again. It clarifies when a young person can be arrested when they are breaching the bail or when they have recently breached bail. It does not otherwise change the powers of enforcement officers. But the big thing we have to remember is that it's easy to catastrophise that a bail breach means this kid has gone off on some sort of rampage. The reality is they could just be late home from a sporting thing or something—could have missed the bus. So we just have to make sure that we don't sort of make this into something that it may not necessarily be."
Mooney Joseph; Davis KelvinJOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you very much Madam Chair. Minister I'm going to ask questions around new section 144(1) in clause 17. This clause states that (1) No agreement may be made under section 140 with respect to a child of or over the age of 12 years or a young person unless—(a) the child or young person consents to the making of the agreement; and (b) the consent is recorded." I'm just going to ask for the rationale behind that with the concern that this clause may challenge the protection necessary for the child's care and treatment plan in the absence of a child's consent. For example when an appointed lawyer for child and/or statutory custodial or guardianship status act representation of the child has been made the age maturity cognitive functioning and other relevant considerations of a child are accounted for in the representation of their views versus their best interests but there's an inherent tension between what a 12-year-old wants and what an adult custodian guardian or advocate deems to be in that child's welfare and best interests. There is a concern here that if the child or young person is required to consent and that consent has to be recorded how will that be reconcilable with say a lawyer that has been appointed in the best interests of the child to make decisions in the best interests of that child but which the child for various reasons may not agree with? So there is a concern there Minister and we would appreciate the Minister expanding on what that has been made and how it is going to address that specific issue—for example if the advocate for the child seeks to make decisions in their best interests but is unable to do so because of clause 17. Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Minister for Children): Thank you Madam Chair and I thank the member for the question specific to clause 17 which is amending section 144. It's a technical change. It is aimed at addressing issues where the framing of the section does not strengthen the rights of children and young people. In particular the current wording of section 144 sets out that the consent from children and young people must be in writing. However not all children are able to provide consent in writing. This clause will allow a child or a young person to give consent in ways other than in writing so the change is aimed at improving children's rights and their involvement in the process."
Webb DuncanDr DUNCAN WEBB (Chief Whip—Labour): I move That the question be now put.
SpeechHARETE HIPANGO (National): Thank you Madam Chair. Before the Minister does stand to respond to the probing questions and submissions—quite properly and quite timely also—Minister I pick up and I carry on in relation to that having practised in the area of child welfare and also in the criminal courts labouring the point if it needs to be laboured that we will do that because our children and their safety is critical.Supplementary Order Paper 275: my colleague Nicole McKee has outlined in detail those specific offences where a parent of a child has been convicted. I implore this Government and labour the point with the Labour Government on the necessity and importance that where any subsequent child has a parent or a caregiver convicted of these serious criminal offences it must be a criteria and a factor under law for a subsequent child of a previous sibling taken into the custody care and protection of Oranga Tamariki for that subsequent child to automatically—automatically—and mandatorily be uplifted and taken into care.I talked about timeliness. The timeliness of this follows on and I labour the point again that Dame Karen Poutasi was talking about Malachi as not being seen as visible—named an invisible child—and as a result of that being lost in the system. So the relevance of this is that Dame Karen Poutasi's recommendation one of 14 is for mandatory reporting by professional organisations.The point of this Supplementary Order Paper is that if there is a conviction of a caregiver or of a parent of a subsequent child of a former child in care that is not just for a conviction for murder manslaughter or infanticide but is for a conviction detailed under sections 188 to section 204 of the Crimes Act. My colleague has gone and detailed what those convictions are. The seriousness and the severity of those assaults on a child must be factored in by this Government in this law. I labour the point with the Labour Government to do so.
McKee NicoleNICOLE McKEE (ACT): Thank you Madam Chair. I implore the Minister to stand and answer some questions around how this Government can say it's OK under the Crimes Act under Assaults and injuries to the person". Wounding with intent injuring with intent strangling or suffocation injuring by unlawful act aggravated wounding or injury aggravated assault—these are just a few offences. It goes from section 188 to section 204. How Minister can we allow this to occur without having some consequence to the parents who will do this to a subsequent child? This is really detailed criminal effect here and while I do understand that we need to have that balance where—as you have said and as I've mentioned before—an 18-year-old has been prosecuted and then maybe in their thirties with their having grown up a bit there's other legislation which also has to deal with people growing up. But taking away wounding with intent assault strangulation and suffocation as being a consequence or even a way of being able to look at whether a person is suitable to continue to have their child in their care—Minister what is the answer to why we would get rid of this? But more importantly Minister what is the answer to why we would not include it as suggested by Karen Chhour's Supplementary Order Paper 275?"
SpeechCHRIS BAILLIE (ACT): Thank you Madam Chair. Minister I'd also like to speak on behalf of my colleague Karen Chhour with regard to Supplementary Order Paper 276. It probably just needs clarifying for me and maybe an explanation. New section 214A(2) in clause 29(2) reads If a child or young person appears before a court and the court considers the child's or young person's bail no breach of a bail condition that occurred before the appearance may be used to support a subsequent arrest under this section." Now I'm reading that as saying that no previous breaches of bail can be used against the child or young person. That would seem to me to be really counter-productive in having young people have any sort of consequences for their actions and in this case it's a consequence for breaching bail. Bail is set by a judge in a court. It's often a Youth Court judge who understands how young people work and has a lot of experience and often will know the family background of the young person. Really we hear police parents and everyone in the community say that young people just have no consequences today and I'm just wondering whether if that is the case—I don't know whether I'm reading it wrong—you'd consider this Supplementary Order Paper to delete that clause 29(2) and confirm with me that it's not that the clock starts again after each recording of a breach of bail. Thank you."
McKee NicoleNICOLE McKEE (ACT): Thank you Madam Chair. Minister Davis I am going to speak to Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 275 from my colleague Karen Chhour. I just want to speak a little bit to this Minister because what we've seen over the last few years especially with our children is a lot of hurt a lot of harm and a lot of abuse. When I read through our current legislation which talks about the subsequent child policy and I hear your argument for wanting to change it I feel that we need to find a balance here because what the Government is looking to do is to align the current legislation so that the subsequent child policy will not have any effect if a person is not convicted of either murdering a child or manslaughter of a child. But it doesn't speak to a person or family member beating a child—beating a child to a point where they end up in hospital and could potentially be beaten over and over again. When we look at what's happening in our communities with ram raids and with youth crime while we can say that part of youth crime is on the downside we have this massive 500 percent increase in ram raids and what we all hear across this House is how we have to together unite to find the way to ensure that our children aren't put into a situation where they do go out there and commit crime. One of the salient points that we always hear even from the children themselves that are in police custody is that they come from homes where they have been beaten and where they have been abused and what concerns us Minister is that this particular clause does not protect the children in that sense whereas my colleague Karen Chhour's Supplementary Order Paper 275 does merely this. All it does is say that if anybody is convicted of a crime under the Crimes Act between sections 188 and 204 and is imprisoned for three months or more then they should fall under what is currently the subsequent child policy. That is a way that we feel will help to protect these kids that are then going on to perform the ram raids and some of the more serious crime. Minister I've heard you speak of somebody who may have been 18 years old and they've been convicted of a crime and then some time on they should not have to go through the subsequent child policy. We totally get that—you know when somebody is young they should be given a second chance. But that is one example when there are many many more examples of our kids being beaten and abused and this policy does not protect them but Karen Chhour's SOP will go some way to helping that. So Minister my question to you is: what is your plan for these kids that are being beaten and abused by parents who have lost a child to Oranga Tamariki for doing that exact same thing because if we continue to allow this to happen what we are breeding effectively is more crime—potential crime—from our youth and it doesn't help them or the next generation. So what is the Government's plan there? Is it to let the kids be abused and be beaten because if they're not dead that's OK—because we don't think that's right Minister. So What is your plan?" is my question. Thank you."
SpeechHARETE HIPANGO (National): Thank you Madam Chair. I'll address Supplementary Order Paper 311 which Minister Kelvin Davis has just spoken to but for purposes of clarification the Minister has taken out of context the point that I was making about timeliness in terms of child notifications. My point in relation to the tragic death of Malachi Subecz and the report and finding from Dame Karen Poutasi is that there is the importance and recognition that Malachi became deemed and viewed as an invisible child. The point that I was making was the importance of timeliness of responsiveness to that and that relates to the Supplementary Order Paper that I was speaking about in terms of the importance of timeliness of response from this Government and from the Government's child welfare care and protection agency Oranga Tamariki to address the issue relating to subsequent children. The partial repeal that's being addressed before the committee which is of section 18B of the Oranga Tamariki Act which is addressed under Supplementary Order Paper 275 from Karen Chhour was recognising the importance that there needs to be an amendment to the partial repeal to factor in and take account of a person who has been convicted of a previous assault on a child or young person. I address this House also on the importance of recognising convictions for domestic violence. It's about the timeliness of a response from this Government to take heed and to address the Supplementary Order Paper and the importance of this repeal to get it right with the recognition that any subsequent child of a former child who has been taken into the custody the oversight of care and protection of Oranga Tamariki—that that subsequent child in a timely way is addressed as being a child who is in need of that oversight and lens of Oranga Tamariki to ensure their wellbeing their safety and their care and protection. So that's the context.Now I'm turning my eye to Supplementary Order Paper 311 which the Minister has put and proposed. I will need to consider that—it has just been tabled—and I will refer that as it correlates to the Oranga Tamariki Amendment Bill. But in closing the importance of these amendments must be focused on the children—first front foremost—and section 4A of the Oranga Tamariki Act is the paramountcy provision. It is so important that the Government in this debate does not lose sight of the child-centric approach that must be taken in this debate and an important element of child centricity is the timeliness of action and response.
Salesa JennyORANGA TAMARIKI AMENDMENT BILLIn CommitteeDebate resumed from 16 November.Part 1 Amendments to principal Act (continued)CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members we come now to the Oranga Tamariki Amendment Bill. When we were last debating this bill we were debating Part 1 which is the debate on clauses 4 to 43 Amendments to the principal Act". The question is that Part 1 stand part."
Verrall AyeshaHon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Associate Minister of Health): Before the committee broke for the lunch break I had a question in relation to a Government Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that has a reference to herbal smoking products. I can inform the committee that the bill as originally drafted included in the definition herbal smoking products within the scope of the bill. The reason for that is to stop herbal smoking products becoming another way for nicotine to be added to those products—they just need to be notified under the bill. What the SOP does is tidy up the bill to make sure that there is time for those products to be notified and that aligns with the other notification provisions put through the bill otherwise the distributors of those products would have to comply immediately but there is a phase-in process for that.
Salesa JennySMOKEFREE ENVIRONMENTS AND REGULATED PRODUCTS (SMOKED TOBACCO) AMENDMENT BILLIn CommitteeDebate resumed.Part 1 Amendments to principal Act (continued)CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members we come first to the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Smoked Tobacco) Amendment Bill. When we were last considering this bill we were debating Part 1. This is the debate on clauses 4 to 53 and the Schedule Amendments to principal Act". Once again the question is that Part 1 stand part."
Salesa JennyHOUSE IN COMMITTEECHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members the House is in committee on the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Smoked Tobacco) Amendment Bill the Oranga Tamariki Amendment Bill the Natural Hazards Insurance Bill and the Digital Identity Services Trust Framework Bill.
Offices of Parliament
Hipkins Chris; Rurawhe AdrianAPPOINTMENTSJudicial Conduct CommissionerHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I move That pursuant to sections 7 and 8A of the Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Judicial Conduct Panel Act 2004 this House recommend Her Excellency the Governor-General appoint Alan Deans Ritchie as Judicial Conduct Commissioner for a term of two years.Motion agreed to.SPEAKER: I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Smoked Tobacco) Amendment Bill the Oranga Tamariki Amendment Bill the Natural Hazards Insurance Bill and the Digital Identity Services Trust Framework Bill.
Hipkins ChrisOFFICES OF PARLIAMENTAddress to Governor-GeneralHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I move That a respectful Address be presented to Her Excellency the Governor-General commending to Her Excellency the alteration to the appropriation for the 2022/23 financial year in respect of Vote Audit. [Members talking amongst themselves]SPEAKER: Order! Votes are taken in silence can you please be quiet.Motion agreed to and Address agreed to.SPEAKER: The proposed Address is available on the Table of the House. The question is that the Address be adopted.Motion agreed to.Address adopted.
Rurawhe AdrianPETITIONS PAPERS SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLSSPEAKER: No petitions have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation. Ministers have delivered papers.CLERK: 2021-22 annual reports for:Ministry of Education Student Loan SchemeEducation Payroll LimitedNew Zealand On AirAsia New Zealand FoundationLocal Government Commission 2022-23 statements of performance expectations for:New Zealand On AirPublic Service CommissionState of the Public Service December 2022.SPEAKER: Those papers are published under the authority of the House. Select committee reports have been delivered for presentation.CLERK: Report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Monetary Policy Statement November 2022report of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee on the International treaty examination of the World Trade Organization Joint Initiative on Services Domestic Regulation.SPEAKER: The Monetary Policy Statement and the International Treaty Examination are set down for consideration. The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of bills.CLERK: Water Services Economic Efficiency and Consumer Protection Bill introductionHuman Rights (Incitement on Ground of Religious Belief) Amendment Bill introductionWater Services Legislation Bill introductionParental Leave and Employment Protection (Shared Leave) Amendment Bill introduction.SPEAKER: Those bills are set down for first reading.
Hipkins Chris; Bishop ChrisBUSINESS STATEMENTHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): Legislation to be considered next week will include the first readings of the Human Rights (Incitement on Ground of Religious Belief) Amendment Bill the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Community Participation) Amendment Bill the Therapeutic Products Bill the Water Services Legislation Bill and the Water Services Economic Efficiency and Consumer Protection Bill and the third readings of the Electoral Amendment Bill and the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Smoked Tobacco) Amendment Bill. At 8 a.m. on Wednesday 14 December President Zelenskyy of Ukraine will address the House. There will be an extended sitting later that morning. After the adjournment debate on Wednesday afternoon the House will—assuming everybody votes for it—adjourn for the Christmas break.CHRIS BISHOP (National): I thank the Leader of the House for that update. I was just wondering whether the Government could advise as to whether or not there is any interest in picking up members' notice of motion No. 1 in my name in relation to the passing of Supplementary Order Paper 285 for the Water Services Entities Bill and advancing it as a Government notice of motion.Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): That matter was well traversed in the House yesterday and the issue has been resolved.
SpeechTHURSDAY 8 DECEMBER 2022The 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 King 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.
Thursday 23 February 2023 - Volume 765
12. Question No. 12—HealthDr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour—Banks Peninsula) to the Minister of HealthQuestion No. 12—Health12. Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour—Banks Peninsula) to the Minister of Health: What recent announcement has she made about the future of New Zealand's COVID-19 vaccination programme?Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Minister of Health): Today I was pleased to announce that anyone over the age of 30 will be able to receive the new bivalent COVID vaccine from 1 April. Those at higher risk of severe illness from COVID-19 will also be able to receive an additional booster regardless of how many doses they've previously had.Dr Tracey McLellan: How does this help us prepare for winter?Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: A priority for me as Minister of Health is preparing and planning for winter to ease the pressure on emergency departments and other parts of the health system. Uptake of the bivalent vaccine will prevent people from becoming seriously unwell and going to hospital. We know there is more to do but this is the first step in our plan to keep Kiwis well for winter. Dr Tracey McLellan: How will the vaccine be rolled out?Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: There are currently 717 clinics offering COVID-19 vaccinations across the motu including general practices pharmacies community centres and Māori and Pacific providers. We're working with communities to scale up vaccination campaigns including pop-up events targeted activities at priority groups and outreach to those eligible.Dr Tracey McLellan: How will people be able to book their vaccine?Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: Booking the vaccine is easy and the COVID-19 bivalent vaccine remains free. We'll be running a comprehensive programme to encourage vaccination against both influenza and COVID-19 targeting those audiences most at risk in the lead-up to winter. You can visit  call 0800 282926 or talk to the health professional you see most often.
2. Question No. 2—ForestryHon EUGENIE SAGE (Green) to the Minister of ForestryQuestion No. 2—Forestry2. Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Green) to the Minister of Forestry: What estimates if any has he had of the costs of damage caused by forestry slash in Te Tai Rāwhiti from Cyclone Hale and Cyclone Gabrielle?Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment) on behalf of the Minister of Forestry: To date I've seen no dollar estimate. I have seen serious damage caused by the storms including from sediment and slash. Obviously the local focus to date has been to respond to the immediate needs of those affected.Hon Eugenie Sage: Is it acceptable that some of Aotearoa New Zealand's largest private landowners overseas-owned forestry companies can operate on steep-land erosion-prone soils in a way which causes such harm to rivers downstream land infrastructure and communities?Hon DAVID PARKER: I think the sentiment that the member has expressed—and I have heard similar comments of concern from the Prime Minister and from the Leader of the Opposition during his response to the Prime Minister's statement on Tuesday—would indicate that most people are worried about whether we've got the settings right around forestry in some areas.Hon Eugenie Sage: Does he expect forestry companies to compensate councils for bridges which have been destroyed or damaged by forestry slash farmers whose crops have been flattened and land is now unusable and communities who have forestry slash clogging rivers and beaches and if so what mechanisms is the Government considering so compensation can be paid?Hon DAVID PARKER: The question as to whether there is a breach of any legal duty in the context that would allow a claim for compensation to be made against forestry companies is not one that I'm in a position to give the member advice on in the House. I do note that the maximum fines for breaches of environmental rules are being increased in the Natural and Built Environment Bill that's currently before the House and I also note that that same piece of legislation makes illegal insurance against Resource Management Act (RMA) fines. At the moment it's illegal to take insurance out against a criminal fine or a traffic fine for example but it's still legal to insure against RMA fines. So those are two instances of where the Government is improving the legal framework.Hon Eugenie Sage: Will the Government consider a damage levy to ensure that forestry companies pay compensation and cover the costs of cleaning up forestry slash repairing infrastructure in Tai Rāwhiti and Wairoa and elsewhere?Hon DAVID PARKER: On behalf of the Minister I've had no advice on that point to date.
Rurawhe AdrianPETITIONS PAPERS SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLSSPEAKER: A petition has been delivered to the Clerk for presentation.CLERK: Petition of Juliana Carvalho on behalf of Access Matters Aotearoa requesting that the House urge the Government to strengthen the Accessibility for New Zealanders Bill.SPEAKER: That petition stands referred to the Petitions Committee. No papers have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation. No select committee reports have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation. The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of a bill.CLERK: New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income (Controlling Interests) Amendment Bill introduction.SPEAKER: That bill is set down for first reading.
Motions — Instruction to Committee—Leave Declined
McClay Todd; Rurawhe AdrianMOTIONSInstruction to Committee—Leave DeclinedHon TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua): Point of order Mr Speaker. I seek leave to move a motion without notice to instruct the Māori Affairs Committee to report the Rotorua District Council (Representation Arrangements) Bill to the House by 7 March 2023 and that it be discharged.SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is.
Robertson Grant; Brown SimeonBUSINESS STATEMENTHon GRANT ROBERTSON (Leader of the House): Today the House will adjourn until Tuesday 7 March. In that week the debate on the Prime Minister's statement will be concluded. During the week legislation to be considered will include the first reading of the Māori Fisheries Amendment Bill and the second readings of the Criminal Activity Intervention Legislation Bill the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Amendment Bill and the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2022/23 Platform Economy and Remedial Matters) Bill (No 2).SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you. On what date will the Rotorua District Council (Representation Arrangements) Bill be returned to the House?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Leader of the House): I know that is a matter of great interest to the member. I don't have that information in front of me but he will be among the first people to know.
Salesa JennyTHURSDAY 23 FEBRUARY 2023The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.KARAKIA/PRAYERSHon JENNY SALESA (Assistant Speaker): Ke tau lotu. 'E 'Otua Mafimafi kuo mau taa'imālie 'i ho'o 'ofá mo e ngaahi tāpuaki hono kotoa. 'Oku tuku homau lotó ka mau hū atu ke malu'i ange mu'a 'a e Tuí mo tataki 'emau fua fatongia 'i he Fale Aleá 'aki 'a e poto Faka-'Otua 'ofa pea mo e 'ulungaanga malū ko e 'uhí ko e mo'ui mo e melino 'a e fonuá. 'Oku mau kole atu 'a e ngaahi me'á ni hono kotoa 'i he huafa ho 'alo ka ko homau fakamo'ui 'Emeni.
Wednesday 22 February 2023 (continued on Thursday 23 February 2023) - Volume 765
Returning Offenders (Management and Information) Amendment Bill — Third Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Returning Offenders (Management and Information) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.Ayes 108New Zealand Labour 64; New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.Noes 12Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Motion agreed to.Bill read a third time.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The House stands adjourned and will resume at 2 p.m. today. Thank you everybody.The House adjourned at 9.56 a.m. (Thursday)
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That Parts 1 and 2 the Schedule and clauses 1 and 2 be agreed to.Ayes 108New Zealand Labour 64; New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.Noes 12Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Parts 1 and 2 the Schedule and clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.House resumed.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Madam Speaker the committee has considered the Returning Offenders (Management and Information) Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment. I move That the report be adopted.Motion agreed to.Report adopted.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The Returning Offenders (Management and Information) Amendment Bill is set down for third reading immediately.
Returning Offenders (Management and Information) Amendment Bill — In Committee
Bennett GlenGLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth): Kia ora Madam Speaker. I rise this morning to endorse the fact we've been in urgency to tweak and pass a piece of legislation. Obviously it was here before the House in 2015. The original intent is what we are working on today and I feel comfortable that it is being done in urgency. Most people have said what needs to be said. We need to get on and move to other important legislation as well. So I commend this bill to the House.
Williams ArenaARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): I quite agree with my colleague on the other side Simon O'Connor. I have enjoyed the contributions to the debate this morning and last night—the fun facts from my colleague the chair of the Justice Committee Vanushi Walters and also our Attorney-General reprising his role as Parliament's favourite and most even-handed and thoughtful lawyer. You know we have traversed the details of this bill in our contributions but it's really quite simple at this point: that we are affirming Parliament's original intent that we are putting returned offenders in the same position that they would have been in were their offending in New Zealand. That's all there is to it. Hopefully we can wrap up this debate soon.
SpeechSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Thank you Madam Speaker. I think like a number of people at this third reading I don't intend to speak for too long. Obviously the National Party continues to support this. We thought the original piece of legislation in 2015 was a good satisfactory and well-explained piece of law. We have learnt—through the courts of course—that some did not understand what we said and thought and as I mentioned last night it's my hope that these debates discussions discursions will make it abundantly clear. I will make this comment—and it's again an element that was picked up in the discussions last evening—we are seeing our democratic if not constitutional structures working. It's good that the court has decided to make a decision and that Parliament responds. But I think if there is a further benefit not only that we're keeping New Zealanders safer that we're actually providing to a degree—I know it's parole but it's also somewhat pastoral support to those coming back to this country. As Paul Goldsmith noted this is something imposed upon us by our Australian friends and neighbours and I know successive Governments will continue to raise that with Australia because while they might be on paper and in their passports New Zealand citizens many if not all of those coming back don't really have the connections here. So in many ways one of Parliament's intentions back in 2015 and now in 2023 is to ensure not only the safety of the community but that we have some sort of oversight control support mechanisms to those who are here. But fundamentally important as I say the courts have the right to critique to challenge to say that they've got a problem. But Parliament also has the ability as it is today to say that Parliament is sovereign and we will decide what the laws say and I don't think we can make it any more clear than that.
SpeechVANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour): Thank you Madam Speaker. Can I just thank colleagues across the House for their really robust contributions last night and today. I think a number of members dwelt on the pivotal point which is the distinction between an element of retrospective application versus retrospective punishment. And Mr Penk I think yesterday summarised the mood of the room with the exception of the Greens that we don't consider this applies retrospective punishment so double jeopardy isn't engaged; the element of being retrospective in itself isn't always contentious. And fun fact: the Interpretation Act in itself while it prevents retrospective legislation is in itself retrospective. I also just want to acknowledge my colleague Nicole McKee whose comments about the Justice Committee review led to the committee of the whole House discussing the Justice Committee's role. And as the Chair of the Justice Committee I just wanted to acknowledge the Minister yesterday and this morning and their openness to the committee opening a matter to make some brief comments. Kia ora. I commend this bill to the House.
Goldsmith PaulHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you Madam Speaker. I stand to support this amendment bill under urgency which seeks to assert the current understanding of this legislation and how it applies in New Zealand in relation to returning prisoners primarily from Australia. As I said in my first reading speech it arose during 2014-15 when the Australian Government adopted an unfriendly practice of sending back to New Zealand large numbers of prisoners whose connection to this country was not very strong in many cases and the Government of the day was left with the significant public safety issue that developed. We had prisoners with serious offences coming back to this country and just being dropped at the airport and we just waited for those offenders to offend again in this country if that's what they were to do before protecting the community from them.The designation and the ability to put parole-like conditions on those returning prisoners was the purpose of the legislation and as the Hon Amy Adams indicated in the House when that legislation was passed under urgency it was to give a swift remedy to a problem that was urgent and topical—and that legislation was passed. Then we've had a High Court judgment which came to the conclusion that the Parliament acting under urgency was passing something that wouldn't really take effect for more than a year if the court's reading applied which I can't understand.The National Party certainly supports this legislation to assert Parliament's understanding of the legislation that it passed and to make it clear that we do believe that the imposition of parole-like conditions is appropriate and is justified in terms of keeping our communities safe and that it also gives the best shot at rehabilitation for those returning prisoners who as we all can understand face many real difficulties in being returned to a country where they may not have any real connections. They may have left when they were infants. They may not have any family around. They may not have any support and it is in the absence of any such regime a recipe for disaster.It is important I believe to pass this legislation and ensure that the regime that has been in place for the last seven years continues recognising that there may well be arguments about the impinging of the rights of those returning prisoners. But Parliament has made the judgment that that is justified by the need to maintain public safety. As the Attorney-General's report originally back in 2015 and again recently in relation to this bill has pointed out: yes human rights are impinged but yes that is justified by public safety. So with that—I don't think we need to elongate things any further—we do agree with the Government on the need for this legislation and for its urgency.
Parker DavidThird Reading Hon DAVID PARKER (Attorney-General) on behalf of the Minister of Justice: I move That the Returning Offenders (Management and Information) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. The bill amends the Returning Offenders (Management and Information) Act 2015 to address issues raised in the recent High Court decision of G v The Commissioner of Police. The High Court recently found that the Act does not apply in respect of offending that occurred overseas before the Act came into force in November 2015. There are some in this House that thought that Parliament did do that but the court has determined that the language in the Act is not clear enough for it to have acted retrospectively in that way since it's come into force in 2015.So what this bill does is confirm that the Act does apply since its inception to people whose offences and convictions occurred earlier than that 2015 inception date of the underlying legislation. The bill confirms that the Act continues to apply to offenders who are deported to New Zealand or have been deported for offending that occurred before the Act came into force in November 2015. This means that returning offenders such as the section 501 deportees from Australia will continue to be managed on parole-like conditions when they return to New Zealand after being deported following release from prison in normally Australia. Consequently the bill in our view achieves the aim of putting returning offenders in the same general position they would have been had they offended in New Zealand or indeed had they continued to be in Australia after release rather than been deported.We think it is important to public safety that we address the issues raised in the High Court decision as soon as possible because it is possible that the appeal to the Court of Appeal may not—the Court of Appeal may agree with the High Court or they may not. We would have had a gap had we awaited that decision and then it had gone against the Crown hence the use of urgency to progress the bill through all stages.I'd like to thank MPs from around the House for their support of this important bill. If there are some residual issues that members of the Opposition want to raise as to some of the details and they wish to do that through the Justice Committee as I said in the committee of the whole House stage the Minister of Justice and I spoke about that issue and we'd be subject to the work programme I suppose of the select committee. I think that select committee members might entertain consideration of those issues but I can say from the point of view of the Government that we wouldn't want it to be a broad inquiry into the whole scheme of the Act which seems to have broad support in this Parliament. On that basis I commend this amendment bill to the House.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the motion be agreed to.
McKee Nicole; Parker DavidNICOLE McKEE (ACT): Thank you Minister Parker for bearing with me with my scenarios—this is my last one. It's in regard to just trying to find provisions within the bill as to how we deal with those that have returned with mental health disorders. In this country as you know we can often find a person not guilty by reason of insanity but they've been quite violent in some aspects. So I'm wondering what happens if a person is returned from overseas after having served a sentence not necessarily in a prison but in a mental health facility and whether or not this legislation allows us to capture them as well and put that wraparound support—conditions rehabilitation and reintegration—into their lives as well.Hon DAVID PARKER (Attorney-General): Well the first point to be made is if I'm correct in my reading of the statute there has to have been a conviction for it to apply. Where there is a conviction and someone has mental health difficulties of course the supervisory orders that can be made could provide a route for the Government to become aware of the needs of the person who has been deported to New Zealand and through that route make available the services that are available to people with mental illness in New Zealand. So it could help in that regard.In respect of the issue as to whether there should be specific legislated reference to that there was a submission to the Law Society when it met with the select committee in 2019. The select committee made no recommendation to that effect back to the House so presumably they didn't think that the matter needed to be taken further.