edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Henare Peeni; Brown SimeonHon PEENI HENARE (Labour): Thank you Mr Chair and on the topic of referendum and this is going to be the guts of my question to the Minister and the question is pretty simple: will the Minister consider a repeals process where after the referendum if there is an unsatisfactory outcome or unsatisfactory process that's been followed will the Minister consider putting a repeals process in this bill now while we have the opportunity? And the genesis of my question Mr Speaker is as I've looked through the Hansard when this debate first happened the then Chris Luxon offered the same amendment and now sitting there in the Prime Minister's chair I put to this Minister: will this Minister consider a proper appeals process to make sure that if there is any undue influence or any undue happening through the process of a referendum whether or not there can be a repeal process put into the amendment while it's being considered now? It's a very straightforward question. It was one that was offered to this House when this debate was first had by then Christopher Luxon right now the Prime Minister of this country—the Rt Hon Christopher Luxon—and whether or not the Minister will consider this. It's very straightforward; we've already heard a lot about how the referendum process is—and I'll use the words: it is the tyranny of the majority and it silences voices right across the electorate right across the country. And it's not just Māori it isn't just Māori. The tyranny of the majority does not just impact Māori it impacts a lot of whānau a lot of community groups rural groups and others throughout the country. So with that in mind it is a very straightforward question: will the Minister consider a strong and robust repeals process that will allow any mishap through the referendum process to be prosecuted through an appeals process and is he open to having that amendment put into the bill now?Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Local Government): I think the member is confused in that the issue which was being raised by the now Prime Minister was in relation to the last Government not allowing an appeals process for the establishment of Māori wards when councils were going through the establishment and setting up of wards and doing distributions. Ultimately what we have here is a thing called democracy where the public if they petition and 5 percent of the population or more sign a petition there will be a referendum and ultimately that is the ultimate appeal in that the public gets to—Steve Abel: The majority the majority.Hon SIMEON BROWN: —have their say and I hear the members opposite criticising democracy. Democracy might not give us the outcome—well we will respect the outcome of each and every referendum and in some councils that may mean there is a Māori ward; in some councils that may mean there isn't. Ultimately on this side of the House we will respect those decisions.
Kuriger Barbara; O'Connor GregProgress to be reported.House resumed.CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Mr Speaker the committee has considered the Gangs Legislation Amendment Bill and reports progress. I move That the report be adopted.Motion agreed to.Report adopted.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday 6 August 2024. Have a productive weekend.The House adjourned at 5.56 p.m.
Webb DuncanHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you. As we do draw slightly closer towards the end of the day I'm hoping the Minister will be able to answer a number of the questions that I've asked. Because although he made—and I can't complain about the quality of the answer but he referred to the sticker of the car being taken off. Since I have to accept that's answered in part but it didn't really address the genuine issue which is that when there's an insignia on a piece of property that can't be removed how does that work with confiscation?He hasn't though addressed the other three questions that I have which were—the one around the gang insignia is a really important one because it's central to this bill. So I'd really like him to address the question of the breadth of the definition of insignia and the fact that it captures pieces of clothing bandanas jewellery and in fact many many—an unlimited range of things. So that's the first thing I'd really appreciate if he would address.The other thing which may seem technical but is actually really important—and I know he's got his advisers there and so they will have an answer for him. If the answer is Oops I'll get onto that" that's fine I get it—it's a technical piece of legislation—but it's the named person point. He hasn't addressed the named person point and he really should because this is exactly what the committee of the whole House is for: it's to go through the legislation to identify gaps or apparent gaps to seek the Minister's assurance as to whether or not that exists; or that the assurance that he'll fix it; or to point out that it's a woeful hole and the Government doesn't know what it's doing. It's one of those three things. I'd appreciate an answer."
Goldsmith PaulHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): Just wanted to respond to the earlier speech in relation to the impact of this legislation on predominantly Māori communities. I want to make the first point that that the suggestion was that since this Government had come to power a message from Wellington had a direct impact on police decision-making about where to put the helicopter or to turn up to particular events. I want to assure that member that of course the operational activities of the police are by law independent and no Minister would ever seek to direct the police and how they go about those prosecutions and activities.In terms of the broader question also in relation to different communities certainly our expectation is that this legislation will be enforced without any reference to ethnicity but focused on the purpose—which is to reduce the ability of gangs to operate and cause fear intimidation and disruption to the public. Non-gang members of course will not be directly affected by this legislation. But what we are focused on through this as part of a much wider programme is to reduce the number of victims of crime. Again the communities that that member referred to often sadly include many victims of crime across the board. So naturally the police are very active in those communities but as they should be throughout the country. So it's certainly our intention that all legislation in this country will be prosecuted without regard to ethnicity but on the basis of the law as it stands.
Goldsmith PaulHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): Thank you Madam Chair. I would make the point that of course in the broader context that all New Zealanders will be aware of of a very difficult Budget environment where—even notwithstanding all the many savings that my colleague Nicola Willis made on behalf of the Government—New Zealand will still be running a very substantial deficit of around $13 billion this year. So in that context one of the areas where the Government did choose to invest more was—alongside health—with additional resources to the police and for 500 extra police officers. So yes we do agree that the response in terms of restoring law and order is about increasing the chances of being caught and held to account—is an important part of it—and ensuring that police have extra resources is part of the message. That is why we did do that. Of course financial support is part of the issue. Also moral support for the police is important which is why we were so distressed yesterday with the implication or the question posed by the Greens that that police are more of a menace to society than gangs or could be regarded as such and we didn't think that was at all appropriate. The police do their very best to put their—sometimes their bodies and lives on the line to defend public safety and they should be backed and encouraged and supported not compared with gangs in dark alleys. So that is why we have backed up this legislation which makes a contribution to giving the police extra tools to deal with gangs. We've backed it up with extra resources for the police and moral support for the work that they do.
Goldsmith PaulHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): Thank you Madam Chair and thank you for the previous speaker Hon Ginny Andersen's observations. If indeed I was standing here as the Minister of Justice and saying that all we need to do to deal with gangs is pass this legislation then she would be right. But of course that is not what I am saying. Nobody would for a moment suggest that a Government doesn't also have to deal with the long-term drivers behind the social and economic dysfunction that contributes to multigenerational issues such as the development of gangs and that's why the Government has for example invested more in the Budget on enabling rehabilitation programmes for remand prisoners. It's why we're very much focused on dealing with truancy and poor performance in school so to deal with that. That's why we're dealing with our emergency accommodation housing situation. So there's a broad range of social issues that we absolutely agree on. Of course better and more effective dealing with addictions and alcoholism—all those issues are very much part of the broader response to gangs and their impact on society.So we certainly understand that broader context. Where we sometimes differ—and I don't want to misinterpret what her Government or her party is saying but it's one thing to understand the context but no society can function if people aren't accountable for the decisions that they make today whether or not to commit a crime or intimidate people or engage in drug dealing or a whole host of things that have been associated with many gangs in the past. So accountability is part of it. So increasing the chance of being caught and held to account has to be part of the response.This legislation is providing some extra tools to help the police deal with gangs and their public presence and their intimidation. But it builds on a large number of existing laws: firearm laws and a whole bunch of other legislation that this Government is passing. And it comes at the same time along with that much broader effort made across many Governments to deal with the longstanding social issues that are part of it. So it's not either/or and there is no suggestion that one piece of legislation will solve the problem by itself. It has to be part of a holistic plan across all Government.
Webb DuncanHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you Mr Chair. It's not usual to let the committee know that someone's not here but it's nice to know that the Minister of Police is tucked up with his National-branded pyjamas and his cup of cocoa. I think you're still allowed to wear the National Party logo at least at home in front of the fire.My question relates to the definition of named person". "Named person" is quite important because a named person is the person with whom you're not allowed to associate when there's a dispersal notice in place. We know there's got to be at least three of them—this is the group that is being dispersed. It strikes me that the definition of "named person" has a gap in it that leads to an anomaly. The anomaly it leads to is that if the gang was Andersen Webb and Goldsmith—strange that that may seem—and that two were named but one wasn't then you get a problem that one person can associate with the others but they can't associate with them. So it's really important that all of the people who are named in the dispersal notice served on one person also have a dispersal notice served on them. Otherwise you get this strange situation where I can associate with you but you can't associate with me.So my Amendment Paper which has an A on it—I'm not sure that's a formal A but it's there on the Table—deals with clause 4 and the definition of "named person". It suggests that an additional clause (c) should be there so that every named person also has been served with a dispersal notice in respect of the gathering to which the dispersal notice relates so that whatever the group—if there are 30 people you don't have to give them all dispersal notices but everyone that you don't want to associate must be served with a dispersal notice so you can't have a named person who hasn't been served with a dispersal notice. Otherwise that person could nip round and visit their mate not knowing and actually not breaking the law being allowed to visit their mate but their mate's not allowed to be visited by them. That can't be right. That's a real gap in the law.Look every single Amendment Paper I've got in there is a serious Amendment Paper that seeks to address a gap. If we want to make sure that people don't associate with each other then you've got to have it working both ways. You can't have person A allowed to associate with person B but person B not allowed to associate with person A. So that's the first Amendment Paper that I'll speak to. I do have another Amendment Paper on this part but I won't clutter the Minister's busy mind."
Webb Duncan; Goldsmith PaulHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): That's me—thank you sir. I just want to turn again to the definitions clause. As I'm sure the Minister probably is aware we had a good discussion in committee about what gang insignia was. Now I'll be perfectly honest I think there's real vagueness problems around what an insignia is but I'm not going to actually talk about that because I don't think there's much likelihood of progress there. But I do want to talk about the fact that if we get something that's well recognised as a gang insignia—the patch or the symbol that is the patch—and put it on something else that that something else becomes the insignia as well because that's the definition of gang insignia in clause 4(b).Now it might seem trivial that the jacket that the patch is sown on to is the gang insignia. It's important because of the right possibly duty to confiscate gang insignia. And we're probably not too concerned—although a nice leather jacket is several hundred dollars' worth that's going to be confiscated. But if that gang insignia is a sticker put on the family car then the entire car is liable expected to be confiscated and destroyed. Now I'm familiar with Crown confiscations and there is a question about reasonableness and proportionality. And we can come and discuss that later but I'm wondering whether in terms of the definition whether in fact when it says whatever it's affixed to for example clothing or a vehicle the Minister had contemplated when including a vehicle quite what that meant particularly when the thing confiscated—and this is well-established—doesn't have to belong to the wrongdoer.We see that in fisheries cases all the time where your mate's boat gets confiscated for having too much paua on. So that's actually quite a significant thing if one family member owns the car some idiot youngster puts a mob sticker on it and it gets confiscated. So I wonder if the Minister could speak to the issue of what a gang insignia is and whether in fact it's appropriate that it includes everything that the insignia itself is affixed to.Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): Well it's not for me as Minister to offer legal advice but my guess is if somebody had a car with a sticker affixed to it and were at risk of having the car forfeited they would probably peel the sticker off and give it to the constable would be my guess.
Webb DuncanHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you Mr Chair. I'm a little disappointed in the Minister of Justice's original answer which essentially just repeated what I can find on his Facebook page. But let's move on because I do want to make clear that this bill is quite extraordinary and the Attorney-General's report makes it clear that it restricts some freedoms. The Minister is here and no doubt will make his case that these are appropriate restrictions—and I look forward to it—but underpinning it is you know every little building block of it.One of the things which I will expand on further when we come to the appropriate part is the suggestion of electronic service of notices. But in terms of the part that we're on that's triggered by what an electronic address is. In the definition there it talks about electronic address including an email address. Now I'm a wee bit concerned about that because does that mean that it could also include a text message a Facebook message a WhatsApp message? Or should that really say electronic address means an email address"? We have varying degrees of formality and my view is that when you're going to infringe someone's human rights justified or otherwise you should be serving a document on them. That's the most formal and most signal way you can do that. Further down the chain but not too much further is a formal notification by an email perhaps with an attached document. But well down the chain is a WhatsApp message saying "Hey bro you can't associate with these other people for seven days. This is a dispersal notice from your local constable." So I wonder if the Minister—and you know I am prefacing a discussion that will go further but "electronic service" does that mean by email or does it mean by any electronic means?"
Paul TamathaTAMATHA PAUL (Green—Wellington Central): Kia ora Minister. My question is around clause 3 which sets out the purpose of this bill and outlines the three key areas around prohibiting gang insignia being able to issue dispersal notices and around the non-consorting orders. I was interested to understand why improving public safety was not a purpose of this bill. Is it because the bill will impair public safety rather than improve it? I want to refer to page 30 of the regulatory impact statement that looks at the different options that were considered in order to achieve the purposes of this bill. I wanted to note that the only area that improves the status quo that we had prior to this bill is around public confidence. There's been a lot of commentary in this Chamber about how this bill is not founded in evidence and is for the purposes of political expediency and getting votes as opposed to actually cracking down on gang membership as is set out in clause 3.If we look here on page 30 of the regulatory impact statement it says Reducing gang memberships" and both options two and three are likely to be much worse than the status quo or worse than the status quo in terms of reducing gang membership. We know as Duncan Webb referred to in the minimising gang harm report that the Prime Minister's Chief Science Advisor prepared in the previous Government they outlined clearly that the number one way to reduce gang membership is actually to address the drivers of gang membership which are poverty and a lack of opportunity for people living in these communities.Secondly if you look back at page 30 it says "Reducing rates of offending". Again options two and three make things much worse than the status quo. Again on compliance with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and human rights much worse than the status quo. The regulatory impact statement shows that this bill makes things worse so how does the Minister explain the lack of evidence underpinning this bill and in particular around the purposes set out within the bill?"
Goldsmith PaulHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): Thank you Mr Chair. Yes this is just the first contribution for this bill. The member opposite asked what the purpose or the point of the bill is and I can tell him clearly the purpose of the bill is to give police extra tools with which to deal with gangs in our community and the harm that they cause. We have seen over the past six years or so a significant increase in gang membership in New Zealand—around 50 percent. So that requires a different response. It's been compounded by—we've also seen at the same time an increase in serious violence crime we've seen an increase in gun crime and an increase in gang visibility across our communities. So when things change—and then we've also of course in the broader context seen many very dangerous gang members come to New Zealand from Australia under the 501 process.All of those things require a different response or an extended response. So the purpose of this bill is to give the police as I said extra tools to deal with this growing difficulty. I suppose in the legislation we could have gone on at great length about the problems that gangs cause in our community but the broader context of all of this is our broader commitment to restore law and order in this country. In contrast to the previous administration which prioritised reducing the prison population irrespective of what was going on in the community our focus is to reduce the number of victims of crime because that's what the justice system should be all about: reducing the number of victims of crime. One way in which we can do that is to deal more effectively with the negative role that gangs play in our community and then the logic flows to this legislation which is about giving the police extra tools. So that's by way of introduction and by way of the purpose of the legislation.
Kuriger Barbara; Webb DuncanGANGS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILLIn CommitteePart 1 Preliminary provisionsCHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members the House is in committee on the Gangs Legislation Amendment Bill. Members we now come to Part 1. Part 1 is the debate on clauses 3 to 6 Preliminary provisions" and schedules 1 and 2. The question is that Part 1 stand part.Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you Madam Chair. Given that this Part 1 includes the purpose clause I thought it was probably an apt time to invite the Minister to speak to that because in the second reading debate I pointed out the Chief Science Advisor's advice that a crackdown tough-on-gangs approach has a real risk of increasing gang membership and increasing gang-related crime and increasing harm to those around gang members. I note in the purpose clause that the purpose is by the tools used in the Act "to reduce the ability of gangs to operate and cause fear intimidation and disruption to the public". We agreed. I want to be clear that we want to reduce those things. It doesn't actually talk about reducing the number of gang members reducing the harm that's caused in the families and closer communities around the gangs and the general reduction in the number of gang members. There's a real risk that this bill will in fact increase all of those things including gang numbers. Now the Minister in the chair will be aware I've got a number of amendment papers and various things to speak to so I will follow the kaupapa of the House and just keep my contribution short so that the Minister can respond."
Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Winery Cellar Door Tasting) Amendment Bill — Third Reading
VoteDEPUTY SPEAKER: I have determined that the subject of this vote will be treated as a conscience issue. In this case I know there are members who want a personal vote and I am prepared to accept one. This is the process we are going to follow. I am going to put the question and as I am going to announce the result at that stage any member can ask for a personal vote.A personal vote was called for on the question That the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Winery Cellar Door Tasting) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.Ayes 96Abel (P)Fleming Meager Simpson Anderson (P)Foster (P)Menéndez March Smith Arbuckle Garcia Mitchell (P)Stanford (P)Bates Genter (P)Mooney (P)Stephenson Bayly Goldsmith (P)Nakhle (P)Swarbrick (P)Bidois Grigg (P)Nimon TraskBishop (P)Hamilton O'Connor GTuiono (P)Boyack Hernandez (P)O'Connor D (P)Uffindell (P)Brewer Hipkins (P)Parker Unkovich Brooking (P)Hoggard (P)Parmar Upston (P)Brown (P)Jones (P)Patterson Utikere Brownlee (P)Kirkpatrick Paul (P)van de Molen (P)Butterick (P)Kuriger Penk (P)van Velden (P)CameronLee (P)Peters (P)Wade-Brown (P)Campbell (P)Lu (P)Pham (P)Watts (P)Carter (P)Luxon (P)Potaka (P)WeddCheung (P)Luxton CPugh (P)Weenink (P)Chhour Luxton J (P)Radhakrishnan (P)White (P)Collins (P)Lyndon (P)Redmayne (P)Willis N (P)Costello MacLeod Reti (P)Willis S (P)Costley Marcroft Russell (P)Xu-Nan (P)Court (P)McAnulty (P)Rutherford (P)Davidson M (P)McCallum (P)Sepuloni (P)Doocey (P)McClay (P)Seymour Edmonds (P)McKee Simmonds (P)Noes 26Andersen (P)Kapa-Kingi Rurawhe (P)Verrall (P)Belich (P)Kemp (P)Salesa (P)Waititi (P)Bennett (P)Leary (P)SoseneWebb Davidson RMaipi-Clarke (P)TanaWilliamsFerris (P)McLellanTangaere-Manuel (P)WoodsHalbert (P)Ngarewa-Packer (P)Tinetti Henare (P)Prime (P)Twyford (P)Motion agreed to.Bill read a third time.
Garcia PauloPAULO GARCIA (National—New Lynn): Thank you Madam Speaker. So 2.9 million visitors came to New Zealand by November 2023—1.2 million-plus were Australians. One can imagine that one of the main objectives of tourism into New Zealand is to try New Zealand wine. The Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Winery Cellar Door Tasting) Amendment Bill allows for a heightened opportunity for the industry to appeal more strongly to the tourism industry—already a more than $2 billion export industry—all and all over $3 billion.Clearly the tourism space is a space where the industry can grow and this bill ticks all the boxes. It assists and encourages cellar door owners to run tasting of their products making quality the focus instead of quantity by charging for 35 millilitre pours. It allows people coming to New Zealand to try multiple types of wine and that's very important because in the summer of last year I hosted American tourists and they wanted to try the wine first. They were not big drinkers but they loved their wine and so tasting was a big part of the activity that they came for and they did go home with a few of their favourites. And by that time they would have tasted many. The experience of coming to New Zealand and visiting a vineyard is critical to that wine tourism industry.In addition to ticking the box for making it easier for businesspeople to run cellar doors alongside possibly running a restaurant with an on-licence then the reduction of red tape in allowing for off-licences to be sought and secured by the same business without having to establish a separate entity to hold on to an off-licence separately is a big help to the industry. Already it is evident in many places in New Zealand that the tourism industry needs a lot of support in terms of people manning restaurants and hospitality businesses. So it makes it easier to keep a cellar door open with an off-licence even if the on-licence may not have people at that very day or business day to allow it to operate. So that's helping the business.And then also the bill already provides for minimising harm and that is by requiring water and snacks to be part of the offering of cellar doors. It is an experience more than anything else and the snacks alongside the drinking is something that enhances the whole process. With the current economic times that New Zealand finds itself in it is extremely important to do all we can in terms of facilitating and pushing that the tourism industry is given all the opportunity for it to grow much further. The opportunity for this bill couldn't have happened without our member and friend—Ha ha!Hon Members: Stuart Smith.PAULO GARCIA: —Stuart Smith right here beside us. And we are very pleased that this has come to the third reading and will pass tonight. Thank you Madam Speaker. I commend this bill to the House.
Maipi-Clarke Hana-RawhitiHANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE (Te Pāti Māori—Hauraki-Waikato): Tēnā rā koe e te Pīka o tērā tēnā rā tātou e te Whare.[Authorised te reo text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.][Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]Motion agreed to.
Appointments—Independent Police Conduct Authority
Stephenson ToddTODD STEPHENSON (ACT): Thank you Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT to also signal our support for the appointment of Ms Elizabeth Sinclair and Mr Andrew Coleman to the Independent Police Conduct Authority (IPCA). This is a very important body which actually has some very core values and those are of independence trustworthiness accountability timeliness vigilance and integrity. And I believe that these two public servants who we've heard already have a long history of public service in the Public Service will actually make an excellent contribution. Again Mr Sinclair's being reappointed—so for a second five-year term. I think that obviously her experience will be valued and this will be Mr Coleman's first appointment to the IPCA. It is led by Judge Kenneth Johnston KC. He will continue to lead the three independent members. Again he is a jurist of some standing.I also just want to add I think to the Minister's thanks to Simon Murdoch who is leaving his two terms but I want to thank him for his service. Actually having New Zealanders who are prepared to stand up and be appointed to important bodies like this is great and I want to just acknowledge him.As has already been said this is a very important body overseeing complaints related to police conduct and processes. Members in this House will often have issues related to the IPCA raised with them and it's good to see we've got individuals of such high calibre being appointed to this body. So I will leave my contribution there but again just to add our congratulations to Ms Sinclair and Mr Coleman on their appointment. Thank you.
Paul TamathaTAMATHA PAUL (Green—Wellington Central): E te Māngai o te Whare tēnā koe. I rise on behalf of the te Pāti Kākāriki to say that we're all good with the appointment of Elizabeth Sinclair and Andrew Coleman to the Independent Police Conduct Authority (IPCA). It was really great to look into both these individuals and to find that Mr Coleman has a background in both policing and heritage and even though I have strong views on both of those issues I can see that Mr Coleman brings some really great experience to the authority. The IPCA is an important check on the power that police officers have and it's important that the members appointed are as independent as possible. I was glad to see a balance between one member having police experience and another not having that experience because a criticism that I've certainly had as the spokesperson on police was that in the Greens there is some scepticism and some suspicion around former police officers being appointed to essentially investigate themselves so maintaining that independence is a really crucial aspect to that check.At the second reading of the Gangs Legislation Amendment Bill this Tuesday my colleague Kahurangi Carter made the comment that many New Zealanders would rather walk down a dark alleyway with a patched gang member than with a police officer and this caused some disagreement from the Minister. But the reality is that this is a statement of fact and that is how some people feel and the police do have a way to go to earning that trust back in some communities. The reality too is that some communities interact more frequently with the police than others. For example in the small town that I grew up in in Tokoroa it was a common occurrence to have breath checks on our main road every week and I was pulled over multiple times as a young person—I had my licence so I was sweet—but I've never been pulled up in Wellington. There's a huge difference between the way that some communities particularly those with low socio-economic indicators and those that are predominantly Māori or Pacific are more heavily policed than other communities. That is just the way things are so it's important that there is a check on the powers that police have available to them.I had a look through some of the recent reports by the IPCA and found that they investigate a whole range of things from the use of force the use of police dogs fatal and non-fatal shootings and the treatment of people who are held in their custody. That's really important. One recent IPCA inquiry found that police officers were illegally taking photos and storing thousands of photos of young Māori on their phones and this really adds to this reality that there are some communities that are more heavily surveilled and have more frequent interactions with police and I think that we should listen to those communities and work to build trust in those communities to try and address some of that scepticism.Just to conclude we extend our congratulations to Ms Sinclair and Mr Coleman on their appointment and thank outgoing members for their service on the IPCA. Kia ora.
Fair Trading (Gift Card Expiry) Amendment Bill — Second Reading
VoteASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): The question is That the amendments recommended by the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee by majority be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the Fair Trading (Gift Card Expiry) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.Ayes 112New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; New Zealand First 8; Te Pāti Māori 6; Tana.Noes 11ACT New Zealand 11.Motion agreed to.Bill read a second time.
McLellan TraceyDr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour): Thank you Mr Speaker.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): Five-minute call.Dr TRACEY McLELLAN: Final call—yes thank you Mr Speaker.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): This is the Te Pāti Māori call.Dr TRACEY McLELLAN: This is the final call on the second reading of the Fair Trading (Gift Card Expiry) Amendment Bill. And just for the member who's just resumed his seat Ryan Hamilton whilst I was enjoying his anecdotes and I thought his story was very sweet and lovely I can also confirm that the leaders of the men's triathlon bike cycle changed positions several times just in the period of time where you chose to rattle off a list of competing businesses or businesses that partake of selling gift cards to fill that 10 minutes. So thank you very much.I think that everything that could possibly be said about this bill has been said tonight. It's pragmatic; it's sensible. I don't think anybody necessarily disagrees. I think it's been interesting to have some comment from the other side of the House about whether there should be an expiry date at all. And that's something that we or the Government could perhaps—look at in further members' bills or their programme of work.So when we think of all of the reasons as to why consumers may get the rough end of the deal here I think it's a really good bill to bring to the House. And I note that again the previous speaker wanted to thank Dan Bidois. And I extend my thanks to him and also acknowledge the fact that I remember both Melissa Lee and Jacqui Dean being very excited and quite animated about this when they spoke about it. And in fact it was Jacqui Dean when she first mentioned it that kind of got me over the line when I was thinking about whether this was a good idea or a bad idea or what those loopholes might be. So on that basis I commend this bill to the House.
McLean Institute (Trust Variation) Bill — Third Reading
Public Finance (Fines Collection Costs—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill — Second Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Public Finance (Fines Collection Costs—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 49New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.Motion agreed to.Bill read a second time.DEPUTY SPEAKER: This bill is set down for committee stage immediately. I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Public Finance (Fines Collection Costs—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill.
Nakhle RimaRIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini): Thank you Madam Speaker. Look this bill the Public Finance (Fines Collection Costs—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill has been referred to by people across the floor as a pathetic little bill—trivial nickel-and-dime stuff a silly piece of law. Why? Because it's generating about $400000 only they say. I mean that may be less than what they spent on a slippery slide once upon a time but $400000 will go a long way to community organisations. $300000 went a long way recently for the Takanini Gurdwara in my electorate of Takanini. It refurbished their kitchen which feeds thousands of people per week. It's not trivial. It's not pathetic. I commend this bill to the House.
Garcia PauloPAULO GARCIA (National—New Lynn): Madam Speaker thank you. So many words have been said. It's a simple bill. Ten percent to 14 percent; 4 percent increase in Crown retention. The Opposition say that This is trivial it's small money." but to a fiscally responsible Government every dollar counts. We commend this bill to the House."
Brewer CameronCAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour): Here we have the Labour Party suddenly concerned about costs! It's suddenly concerned about costs but what did they vote against just a couple of moments ago? The tax cuts that 83 percent of workers would benefit from; 93 percent of households would benefit and they voted against tax cuts for low to middle income workers.As Mr Meager has said this is a small cost recovery adjustment making this small amendment to the Public Finance Act 1989. The previous speaker Dr Tracey McLellan says they can't justify it. Well I'll tell you how they justify it: the fee has not increased since 1989. The increase from 10 percent to 14 percent is much much less than inflation since then—136 percent. This is very very small. I commend the bill.
Meager JamesJAMES MEAGER (National—Rangitata): We are witnessing the decline of the once great workers' party. Not content in Government with reaching into the pockets of New Zealanders and taking their tax they now in Opposition want to reach into the pockets of working New Zealanders and take their tax relief.This is a very simple bill. It takes cost recovery from 10 percent to 14 percent to deal with the rampant inflation made under the previous Government. It's a bill by a great Minister shepherded by a great Minister. I commend the bill to the House.
Unkovich TanyaTANYA UNKOVICH (NZ First): Thank you Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to support the Public Finance (Fines Collection Costs—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill. Now it makes a minor but very important to the Public Finance Act 1989. It's common sense and as I said in the previous reading anything that is common sense New Zealand First will support. I commend it to the House.
Pugh Maureen; Parmar ParmjeetASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Members we are up to the second reading of the Public Finance (Fines Collection Costs—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill. We're up to call No. 4 which is the ACT Party call. I call Parmjeet Parmar.Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (ACT): Thank you Madam Speaker. I am taking this call on behalf of ACT to support the second reading of the Public Finance (Fines Collection Costs—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill. This is a sensible bill and it shows that this coalition Government—that is National ACT and New Zealand First—really wants to see that our public services are financially sustainable. We know that this is about the amount that is retained by the Crown from the collection services that are delivered by court for local authorities and organisations. This is going to be increased from 10 percent to 14 percent. The last time this price was set which was at 10 percent was in 1989; so it's been around 35 years. It's been a long time and what it does is bring it in line with what private debt collectors charge. It is a very sensible policy and I think we should all support this bill. The ACT Party is supporting this bill. Thank you Madam Speaker.
Brown Simeon; Tuiono TeanauSecond ReadingHon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Local Government): I move That the Public Finance (Fines Collection Costs—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.I would like to thank members for their contributions on this bill in the first reading debate. To recap my earlier speech the Public Finance (Fines Collection Costs—Budget Measures) Amendment Bill makes a minor amendment to the Public Finance Act 1989. This will increase the percentage of local authority and other organisation fines collected by the Ministry of Justice that can be retained by the Crown from 10 percent to 14 percent with effect from 1 July 2024.This bill is an addition to a suite of Orders in Council that will adjust fees in courts and tribunals and fees and costs for collection services to account for inflation since fees were last updated. The increase in the amount retained by the Crown from fines recovered for local authorities and other organisations is comparable to the rates for private debt collection but remains competitive. It is important that local authorities who receive most of the money collected should pay a reasonable amount towards the cost of the recovery of these fines.The change from 10 percent to 14 percent will come into force on 1 July 2024 which will realise revenue immediately and contribute to the Government's Budget goal of delivering a more efficient effective and responsive public service.I note members on the other side of the House have been spending their entire debate trying to drag out speeches on a bill which makes a minor but important change to ensure that the functioning of Government can actually be delivered efficiently and that the costs are appropriately recovered—principles of good Government which were ignored for the last six years. I commend the bill to the House.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that the motion be agreed to.
Points of Order — Leave to Table Documents—Correspondence with Speaker
McLellan TraceyDr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour): Thank you Madam Speaker. Gosh it's been quite interesting listening to all the contributions on this bill and listening to people give such colourful examples as we've traversed through the history of the McLean Trust and all of the good work that they've done. I'd like to acknowledge Dr Duncan Webb for ushering this bill through. He was quite excited about it when he was first approached and loves nothing more than a good member's bill. Labour has a long history of supporting women and girls and I think it's incumbent upon us whenever we face the opportunity to do something that can advance the needs of women and girls in society and in New Zealand in particular that we should grasp that with two hands and do what we need to do and take all opportunities to continue that good work. This bill is entirely appropriate. As many people have said it allows it to be updated so that it's relevant so that the types of circumstances that people may find themselves in reflect the environment of the more modern world and therefore it's allowed to focus on its core intentions which was to provide that emergency transitional housing and all of the other social support to allow people to live independently and to allow them to live with dignity. So having said that I have no hesitation in commending this bill to the House.
Prime Willow-JeanHon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour): Thank you Mr Speaker. My speech certainly will not be as long as the previous member Tim Costley's speech—you did really well to fill your 10 minutes. As a previous whip I know what it is like to request your members to fill the 10 minutes. So well done to you.I was on the select committee so I feel like I can talk to this with some qualifications. What I wanted to really acknowledge was the board's representatives in bringing this issue forward and assisting the select committee so that we could understand what it was that they were seeking and needing to do to modernise this and to update it. I want to acknowledge my colleague the Hon Dr Duncan Webb whose name this bill is in for bringing it here. I want to say that for a small bill—you know we don't get too many private members' bills from outside of the House being brought in here—we actually gave this a lot of time and attention and we thought really hard and asked a lot of the officials and of our parliamentary counsel to help us with this and make sure that we got it right. I think that's because we do want to honour as much as possible what the original intent was of the person who set this up but we understood the challenges that the current board has and that because the courts had ruled that they couldn't do the things that they were being asked to do and wanted to do and in order to be able to do that they had to come and get the Act changed through Parliament. That's why we are here today. I can tell the House and anybody who's listening this afternoon that the committee did actually put a lot of time and energy into this and that we agreed unanimously with the recommendations for the changes to be made.So we hope that now once this passes shortly after a few more filibustering speeches this will pass finally and the board members will be able to get on and implement their deed in the way in which they wanted to. Kia ora Mr Speaker.
Ferris TākutaTĀKUTA FERRIS (Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Tonga): [Authorised te reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.][Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]The McLean Institute a charitable trust based in Ōtautahi Christchurch incorporated in 1909 was established pursuant to the will of Allan McLean who wished to provide financial assistance to women and their tamariki who were in destitute circumstances. The initial focus of the trust was to provide long-term housing and daily necessities for the beneficiaries. While the trust was set up to support women and their tamariki who were in destitute circumstances the language used at the time had limited who was eligible for support and it is rare for persons to qualify for support today.I'm glad to stand today in support of the amendments made to this bill and glad that the McLean Institute may finally progress their crucial critical work in support of the Ōtautahi Christchurch communities. What resonated with me in particular was the focus that this trust places on to the women and tamariki and their ability to access safe housing. It seems absolutely appropriate given the current climate and state of liveability within this country that the amendments to this bill be addressed today in this third reading.I say this as I have been listening to the responses of the proposed amendments to the Residential Tenancies Act. What seems to be a recurring issue amongst these responses was the challenge that minority vulnerable and disadvantaged groups are facing when it comes to housing. One particular response referred to our gang whānau and the absolute challenge our women our wahine our mothers and tamariki within this community are facing when it comes to discrimination particularly around housing.It is most appropriate that the select committee has approved relevant changes to the trust deed so institutions such as the McLean Institute can commit to helping those that this Government has so far failed to reach. I want to tautoko the words of my colleague Takutai Tarsh Kemp who in the second reading of the bill acknowledged the mahi of the McLean Institute and the desire we have to see our communities supported and housed well. So we at Te Pāti Māori support this bill and look forward to seeing the wonderful mahi that the McLean Institute can now engage with in their communities of Ōtautahi and beyond. [Authorised te reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.][Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]