edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
4. Question No. 4—HousingTERISA NGOBI (Labour—Ōtaki) to the Minister of HousingQuestion No. 4—Housing4. TERISA NGOBI (Labour—Ōtaki) to the Minister of Housing: What action is the Government taking to get more young people into careers in the construction sector through its public housing build programme?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): Our Government has not only added over 10000 new public housing places since 2017 but we've also launched Kāinga Ora's apprenticeship programme. Since 2019 333 people have entered into cadetships and apprenticeships with our build partners and subcontractors across the State housing programme. This programme actively recruits more women Māori and Pasifika as well as Kāinga Ora tenants into apprenticeships. Additionally through our ramped-up maintenance programme a further 384 apprentices and cadets are learning valuable trade skills while carrying out maintenance on State homes. This has led to a total of over 700 young people who have learnt valuable construction skills through our build programme.Terisa Ngobi: What regions are benefiting from encouraging young people into the building and construction sector?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Kāinga Ora's partnerships with schools are helping to train the next generation of tradies all around the country. Kāinga Ora have eight partnerships with schools and polytechs and have five more currently being worked on. Communities across New Zealand benefiting from this programme are in Dargaville Onehunga Rotorua Hastings Ōpōtiki Wellington and Nelson. More good work is happening in Auckland where Kāinga Ora has collaborated with the construction company Icon to deliver an innovative 276-apartment complex at Greys Avenue. On this single project alone 15 apprentices are working on this site.Terisa Ngobi: What else is the Government doing to create opportunities for young people in the construction sector?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Through the Construction Sector Accord we are working with industry to identify the next generation of leaders for the construction sector. We want to provide a pathway for young people to thrive in the sector and help build infrastructure and housing for future generations. I'm proud that over the last two years over 190000 people have benefited from the Government's investment in trades training including apprenticeships an achievement I am sure my colleague the Minister of Education will no doubt cover in greater detail in the not too distant future.
1. Question No. 1—FinanceGREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu) to the Minister of FinanceORAL QUESTIONSQUESTIONS TO MINISTERSQuestion No. 1—Finance1. GREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Activity in the services sector expanded to above its long-term average—for the second successive month—in June with the seasonally adjusted BNZ-Business New Zealand Performance of Services Index at 55.4 new orders at 61.7 and sales at 56.5 remained at healthy levels while employment rose. The BNZ economists said the positive result indicated that the economy had momentum in the June quarter. There is further opportunity for growth in the services sector with the opening of borders and the prospect of a strong tourism season this summer including the arrival of cruise ships which begin this week. Nevertheless we do know that 2022 is continuing to be a tough year for many households and businesses and we will continue our support for them through this period.Greg O'Connor: What other reports has he seen on the economy?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The latest Xero Small Business Index has shown that businesses continue to be resilient. Sales grew 3.3 percent year on year while jobs also grew 4.4 percent. Wage growth was 6.8 percent. Overall the index jumped to 146 the highest level since the series began in 2017. Xero said that while the sector appears in reasonable shape small businesses are operating in a challenging global environment. This is why the Government continues to support small businesses including through the Small Business Cashflow (Loan) Scheme; the provision of support for digital initiatives and mental health programmes; and the immigration reset which allows accredited employers easier access to the staff that they need.Greg O'Connor: What reports has he seen on business investing in the economy?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The overseas merchandise trade figures show businesses are continuing to invest in the economy. Imported machinery and plant rose 16 percent to $945 million in June 2022 compared with the same month a year earlier. For the June year imports in machinery and plant rose 26 percent to $10.8 billion. Despite a volatile and uncertain global environment the decision of businesses to invest and improve our productivity will support New Zealand's economy and its recovery.
O'Connor GregCHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The time has come for me to report progress.Progress to be reported.House resumed.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Mr Speaker the committee has considered the Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System and Children and Young People's Commission Bill and reports progress. I move That the report be adopted.Motion agreed to.Report adopted.The House adjourned at 9.59 p.m.
Sepuloni CarmelHon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Mr Chair sorry—I'm a bit delayed there. There were a few different things raised so I'll just go back to the ACT member who raised some questions around power of entry. I just want to clarify to the committee that there's no diminishing of power here. We're not taking anything away that existed previously. What we still have is the Children and Young People's Commission will still have responsibility for OPCAT—that's the Optional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture one of our conventions that we've signed up to. The Children and Young People's Commission will still maintain that. That gives them a higher level of power of entry than what the monitor would have.I understand the point that the member was making with regards to her concern that if a young person was urgently in trouble and called their advocate the advocate wouldn't be able to necessarily go there without notice. If that young person was in serious trouble then my expectation would be that the advocate would be ringing the enforcement services to go and take that up because that level of urgency would require support from the police or others and there are others that have those powers. So I want to just remind the committee that we're not removing a power that existed before and certainly the same powers are in place with regards to the Children and Young People's Commission and OPCAT. Mr Chair—sorry this is the issue when two people speak and I've got to traverse the two people's comments so hopefully I haven't missed anything from the ACT member.The National member stood and asked me about whether I've spoken to a specific person. That's not part of Part 2. I'm not going to traverse something that is completely out of scope with the part of this bill when I've been very clear it's so important for this House and for the general public that we—CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): I'll just remind the Minister it is up to the Chair to decide what is out of scope. The Minister can choose not to answer but the Chair will make the decision as to what is out of scope.Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Thank you Mr Chair. It's so important that we are speaking to the specifics of the particular part in front of us and there are in my mind no provisions in Part 2 for who the Minister speaks to.
Upston LouiseHon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you Mr Chair. It would be good to get some feedback from the Minister on the engagement she's had with the sector particularly around concerns that have been more recently raised about the matter of independence.This of course is Part 2 of the Minister's Supplementary Order Paper (SOP). I do hope that we get to traverse and discuss and debate every one of the SOPs from the Minister given the importance of this legislation.So on the matter of independence: one of the groups that I'm assuming the Minister has been engaging with very recently is Jonathon Boston around the item of independence and the concern about whether or not a Government department—a Government agency—can truly be deemed to be independent and whether or not in the independent monitor's duties in the duty to act independently and why it is the Minister is confident that this independent monitor truly can be independent of any political considerations and that it is not sitting too close to the centre of power.So I want to know from the Minister what engagement she's had more recently with stakeholders—including Jonathan Boston—on the item of independence. Because at the end of the day unless it's truly independent there is a risk that it becomes a political puppet—which none of us want. We need to ensure there is true independence and there's been sufficient issues of late for it to be concerning.So my question is a repeat of the question I asked before: for a list of the stakeholders that the Minister's engaged with since the select committee reported the bill back and specifically around discussions with Jonathan Boston around independence and what additional steps the Minister has taken to ensure that independence is real particularly in clause 16A(2).
Chhour KarenKAREN CHHOUR (ACT): Thank you Mr Chair. I'd just like to take a moment to thank the Minister for considering my Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 188 in regards to getting reports sent to the proper people. There was just one part that you spoke to where the Minister was talking about the chief executive of Oranga Tamariki unit not being necessary for proposed clause 27(c)(ca) to be included. I just wanted to give a little bit of reasoning behind why I had requested that. Nothing I do when it comes to this bill is just because". There's a reason behind it and I'm trying to be reasonable with the Supplementary Order Papers that I'm putting up to try and make a difference to this bill.So the reason I specifically named "the chief executive of Oranga Tamariki" is we've already seen a failure happen where the chief executive was not informed of a review that was done of their own initiative of the sexual violence programme. They did a report around something that was going on within Oranga Tamariki in a programme. That programme was failing and that programme was shut down. No one informed the chief executive even though there was probably something in there that said maybe he should have been informed. So this was just my way of making well and truly sure that the correct people are being informed when a report is presented. So that was my reasoning behind adding that in. I'd also like to have a talk about my SOP 195 around clause 34. There has been a little bit of talk about entry with notice and without notice when it comes to Oranga Tamariki facilities. I understand the Minister's argument—we don't want to upset children people coming in and out without notice—but this is actually something that young people and advocates and the Children's Commissioner talked about. It is about allowing a child who may be trying to reach out because they're in danger or something's not quite right or they feel that their safety is at risk being able to reach out to their advocate and have their advocate come in their time of need. And if you have to give notice and the organisation has the ability to say "No you can't enter." these children feel like their lifeline has disappeared. And that's just the perception. It's a bit like when I worked in retail—you know the CEO is going to come the next day. They give you notice you clean up the shop you make sure everything's fine and dandy before the boss comes in. The boss comes in doesn't see any problems and the problems still exist but they've just been hidden because that notice has been given. I really feel like that lifeline is something that these young people have called for within the select committee process and after."
Sepuloni CarmelHARETE HIPANGO (National): The Minister in again a statement this evening stated meaningful and effective engagement"—meaningful and effective engagement. So I invite the Government benches to consider that because it's not about dispensing with something that conveniently is going to be rushed through. Our children are really important so I'm going to bring it back to Part 2 under this bill and for the benefit of the public who are listening in Part 2 is a number of clauses which are clauses 12 to 42. So there's a significant number of Supplementary Order Papers which are proposed amendments for consideration by this Government. But judging by Part 1 or the assessment from that this is a done deal and no matter what debate we put to the committee of the whole House for the Government to consider meaningful and effective engagement it would seem that this is a foregone conclusion.But from my perspective the National Party's perspective I'm here to remind the Government that this bill is meant to be focused on the welfare the best interests the wellbeing of children and that there is a specific child-centric lens to this.So on that note I turn to my Supplementary Order Paper 230 which is addressing clause 16 under the bill. The proposal is to replace clause 16(2)(b) which says that "The Monitor must ensure that their tools and monitoring approaches—operate in a way that recognises the importance of children's and young people's families whānau hapū iwi and communities and their culture;" with "The Monitor must ensure that their tools and monitoring approaches—operate in a way that recognises … children and young people and their families whānau hapū iwi and communities …" a significant point of difference. It is specifically ensuring and inserting under this proposed amendment the focus of the monitor to ensure that tools and monitoring approaches focus on the children and young people with their families not disregarding children and young people and having the priority on the families whānau hapū and other entities.So invite the Government when the Minister has said in the Chamber this evening that a child-centric approach has been taken to put politics aside focus on what is in the welfare best interests of children centre the interest and the focus on them and this Supplementary Order Paper 230 with that proposal for an amendment to clause 16 does exactly that. So Minister invite consideration for that put politics aside put our children's interests to the fore.Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): The meaningful engagement questions that the member was asking about were actually out of scope with regards to this part of the bill. I am being specific to the parts in the bill. That's what we're here to do tonight and that's what the committee of the whole House stage is about.The point that the member raised about whānau and Supplementary Order Paper 230 (SOP) that the member wants to put up there's actually already an SOP that covers that and that's by the member Jan Logie. Also clause 5 ensures that the monitor does consider this."
Sepuloni CarmelHon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): There will still be an accountable Minister with regards to the Independent Children's Monitor. The Minister's responsibility will be to make sure that the monitor fulfils its obligations with respect to the legislation. Also if we're referring to the code of ethics the code of ethics will be secondary legislation and that will be outlined very clearly there.I also want to mention that the Minister for Oranga Tamariki when we're talking about the independence and how this relationship will work will be accountable for response to the Independent Children's Monitor's reports.
O'Connor GregCHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Harete Hipango's amendment to clause 5 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 224 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to. Ayes 43New Zealand National 33; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Noes 75New Zealand Labour 65; ACT New Zealand 10.Amendment not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Harete Hipango's amendment to clause 6 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 225 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 33New Zealand National 33.Noes 85New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; ACT New Zealand 10.Amendment not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Harete Hipango's amendments to clause 6 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 226 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 33New Zealand National 33.Noes 85New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; ACT New Zealand 10.Amendments not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Harete Hipango's amendment to clause 7 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 227 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That amendment be agreed to.Ayes 43New Zealand National 33; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Noes 75New Zealand Labour 65; ACT New Zealand 10.Amendment not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Harete Hipango's amendment to clause 8 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 228 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 53New Zealand National 33; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; ACT New Zealand 10.Noes 65New Zealand Labour 65.Amendment not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Part 1 as amended stand part.A party vote was called for on the question That Part 1 as amended be agreed to.Ayes 65New Zealand Labour 65.Noes 55New Zealand National 33; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Part 1 as amended agreed to.
O'Connor GregDr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei): I move That the question be now put.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that the question be now put. All those in favour will say Aye those against will say No. The Ayes have it. [A party vote was called for] The question will be put. [Interruption] The vote will be in silence please.Hon Louise Upston: This is an outrage.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The member will stand withdraw and apologise. The member will stand withdraw and apologise.Hon Louise Upston: I'll leave. This is outrageous. This is absolutely outrageous. I can't believe you're doing this.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The member will leave the Chamber.Hon Louise Upston withdrew from the Chamber.
Sepuloni CarmelHARETE HIPANGO (National): Kia ora. Thank you Mr Chair. Congratulations on your ascension to the Speaker's Chair and this evening as chair of this committee of the whole House.So I put the question to the Minister. It's on the record Minister: the opening statement given by you this evening that the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 209 with the proposed amendments—the approximate 49 to 50 of them. The statement is they are not substantive changes. So Minister would you please clarify then that clause 3—which is one of the proposed amendments under the bill—requiring the monitor to act independently which was not previously part of this bill is not a substantive change?Then the other question is whether or not it is a substantive change—it's again one of your Supplementary Order Paper amendments. Now under clause 5 principles must have regard to the best interests of children and young people the perspectives of children and young people. Is that not a substantive change to this bill? I put it to the Minister I've put it to the House and members of the public: it is certainly substantive. So to suggest for one moment that the amendments under the Minister's SOP numbered 209 are not substantive changes—are effectively minor changes—is somewhat not the case.So Minister if you could clarify whether or not those are deemed to be substantive or not before we move on to some more substantive provisions of amendments that have been proposed by the Minister.Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Just quickly adding independence" into clause 3 is not—as I said it enhances; it provides further reassurance. But independence is stressed throughout the bill. It was just to provide as I said earlier about the Supplementary Order Papers further reassurance."
Brooking RachelRACHEL BROOKING (Labour): Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker Bennett for allowing me to take the final call on the second reading of the Overseas Investment (Forestry) Amendment Bill. I note that when I took a call on the first reading of this bill it followed you so good to see your change in position and it was a good speech you made as well that I followed. We're talking here about the Overseas Investment Act and we've heard the other speeches as well say that this is the piece of legislation where we really take some care to say to those overseas investors with some capital What is the benefit going to be to New Zealand for your investment here?" This bill relates though to the forestry conversion. We've heard from the previous speaker Todd Muller that the current legislation has incentivised these conversions of what could be quite highly productive land into forestry. So there are different tests at the moment for investment into sensitive land. In this context sensitive land is agricultural rural land. So there's currently the special forestry test. It doesn't apply to carbon farming but we have heard from the Finance and Expenditure Committee report that it's become a tick-box exercise so this has clearly become too permissive. Then there's another test which is the benefit to New Zealand test. So that is that there has to be some analysis and agreement that there are economic benefits for New Zealand that there are natural environmental benefits that there's some continuation or increase in the ability for the public to access that land. Then there's this third test that we've also heard about in some of the speeches today particularly in the Hon Eugenie Sage's contribution and that is the farmland benefit test. This is a more stringent test than the benefit to New Zealand test and puts more weight on the economic benefits and those considerations of the investment. So we know that the select committee has recommended moving these forestry investments to the benefit to New Zealand test. This seems to be a sensible check on those forestry conversions that they do benefit New Zealand and I commend it to the house.Motion agreed to.Bill read a second time."
Overseas Investment (Forestry) Amendment Bill — Second Reading
White HelenHELEN WHITE (Labour): First of all congratulations Mr Assistant Speaker Bennett on your appointment. This is a bill that I was part of the select committee hearing on and it's one that really tries to balance the risks that are associated with overseas investment with the benefits of it. The benefits of investment in things like long-term forestry are something that was very apparent in the submissions. We had people explain to us how long those investments are and how good for the country they are and I was very much convinced by those arguments. What the bill will do is it will remove the current test and go to a test which is a common one. It's the change to the benefit to New Zealand test. And that test for people who don't know about it really boils down to: is there a benefit to New Zealanders compared with the state of the land at the present time in its use in forestry? So it's a good solid test and it involves looking at the economic benefits of this along with those benefits to the natural environment. I think it's a great bill. I commend the bill to the House.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon David Bennett): Todd Müller.
SpeechDr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei): Kia ora Mr Assistant Speaker Bennett. As you are a new Speaker it is of course incumbent upon us all to put you through your paces a wee bit so I've managed twice to try to take a call that was not my own—you're welcome! I'd like to congratulate you on your new appointment.I'd like to congratulate the members of the Finance and Expenditure Committee and also the submitters for their excellent work on this bill. This is an important matter. I'm slightly surprised the Māori Party have chosen not to take their call on it but I am the beneficiary of that decision. Forestry is exceptionally important to New Zealand. We are here tonight to hopefully pass a bill which will refine the measures we took in 2018 to encourage forestry investment. We now turn to the point which we always promised to do to review it. Changes have happened as previous speakers have said. We therefore tighten the regulatory regime to make sure that forestry will truly benefit New Zealand. I commend this bill to the House and I will now make like a tree and leave.
SpeechGLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth): Kia ora Mr Speaker. From one Bennett to another I say congratulations on becoming Assistant Speaker. And it probably solves another problem for me because as a first-term MP the amount of times I've heard Mr Bennett!" across these hallways—of course I've panicked every single time. As the youngest child I think I still have instincts of "Oh my gosh what have I done wrong this time?" So I'm grateful that you are in the Chair Mr Speaker; congratulations.On this piece of legislation obviously coming back to the bill we as the Government want to ensure that overseas investment continues to benefit us to benefit New Zealanders and this piece of legislation in this small way is going to do that. For me as the MP for New Plymouth we have a lot of pastoral agricultural beautiful farming land. We also have our high country and our areas and there is concern around ensuring that—Hon Damien O'Connor: It's called a mountain. GLEN BENNETT: —our areas are looked after. We have more than a mountain. So this is about the right forests the right places for the right reasons and on that I commend this bill to the House."
SpeechOVERSEAS INVESTMENT (FORESTRY) AMENDMENT BILLSecond ReadingDebate resumed from 4 August.ANNA LORCK (Labour—Tukituki): Thank you Mr Speaker and may I congratulate you Mr Bennett on your role tonight having first worked with you on the Primary Production Committee. It a great way and a great start to my political career to join you there. Anyway to this bill. This bill aims as we go through things to strike the right to plant the right tree in the right place for the right reason. Not often can I say that most of what needed to be said on this bill and where we are on the second reading was said by the National MP Ian McKelvie. He touched on the fact that everyone in the select committee agreed with this move that will see forestry for overseas investment now come under the special test for New Zealand. I acknowledge everybody who contributed to the submissions. Thank you Mr Speaker.
Webb DuncanDr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Kia ora e te Mana Whakawā. A pleasure to be here and congratulations on your appointment. This bill is an important bill and the points made by Mr O'Connor in terms of guns in our community being an issue we need to address are fair ones. The important and only point I really need to make is that this bill strikes an important balance between rights. There has been some discussion from the other side around the fact that searches shouldn't need cause. That's what we would call a random search or even an irrational search and that's not what we want. As the member for Manurewa noted we need a trigger a threshold for any search to be conducted under this legislation and a reasonable suspicion" is a well-known legal test for a search. It's entirely appropriate and that's where the balance is struck. The Attorney-General agrees that it's appropriate and I commend this bill to the House.Motion agreed to.Bill read a third time."
Firearms Prohibition Orders Legislation Bill — Third Reading
SpeechSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki) (remote): Ah there we go. It might be a sign Mr Speaker that they weren't allowing me to unmute myself but I'll try not to cause the House too much harm.Look it's very clear that Nationals supports this. Look it's on the old adage that the perfect is the enemy of the good. So this is a good sufficient bill in many ways and you've heard from previous National Party speakers that in many ways it's just echoing a lot of what legislation already exists particularly around the search or warranting side of things. In other words police already have existing powers they can use. National's being very clear that this should have gone much much further. Warrantless search powers for the likes of firearms on gang members is to put it in a common parlance a no-brainer. Unfortunately the Labour Party disagrees with that even with the escalating crime we are seeing in New Zealand.However this is still a step forward or at the very least not a step backwards. So as I say National is happy to support. We still encourage the Government to go further in this space and if I might just draw from a previous contribution it should not be lost on my colleagues on the other side of the House the major problems that we have with crime in our communities and particularly those Labour MPs who are electorate MPs like myself they will know. They will know the large amount of crime that is in play. It doesn't matter if that's with guns it doesn't matter if it's ram raids break-ins assaults; you name it the Government needs to do much much more. So I am encouraging my Labour colleagues and particularly the Minister to not think that he or the Labour Government have done anywhere enough to address these issues. It would be a false presumption to sit back at the end of this reading and think because we now have a firearms protection order that all is fine. It is not and it will not be. As I say we've had multiple shootings in my electorate. There was an aggravated robbery only 24 hours ago with a firearm in my electorate. We had multiple people being attacked businesses broken into ram raided. There's a huge array of problems and again the firearms side of it is deeply deeply concerning. So can I begin to wrap this little contribution up by signalling a good step maybe a half step but we have rampant gun crime now in New Zealand. And if I might just riff if you will: of my own electorate lucky as it is—being an electorate that is not necessarily me as the MP but no lucky as it is gun crime in the electorate of Tāmaki has almost been unheard of. But as I say in the last month or so we've had two shooting incidents and as of 24 hours ago an aggravated armed hold-up again with a firearm—unheard of. This law will maybe go some way—I don't know one-eighth one-sixteenth of the way—to address the issue. But can I conclude my contribution by asking imploring the Labour Government to take crime seriously and to pass far more legislation required—in fact take some steers from Mark Mitchell and his suggestions so that we can properly address the rampant crime occurring under this Government.
Williams ArenaARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe Mr Speaker. I want to acknowledge first everyone who has worked on this piece of legislation and the hard-working select committee—the Justice Committee—and my colleagues who are here in the House tonight. There has been a great deal of consideration on both sides of the House and around the table in that select committee about the submissions and the content of this legislation and I thank everyone who has put in the work to understand it.I think it was well captured in the speech of Joseph Mooney earlier. Colleagues will recall that before the dinner break Mr Mooney's contribution highlighted the reasons that the National Party members came to agree with many parts of this bill but he drew the House's attention to one part which is warrantless searches where we have a disagreement. I'd just like to put on record that Labour's proposals here do allow warrantless searches by police officers but they require a reasonable suspicion. We landed there and it strikes a useful balance because we believe that allowing police officers—where they have a suspicion of someone being around firearms or having firearms in their possession that is about the right standard to require of police when they are conducting these searches. So for that reason I'm pleased that we've found some agreement here and I commend this bill. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon David Bennett): The next call is a remote call.
Brooking RachelASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon David Bennett): Good evening. The sitting is resumed. Members before the dinner break the House was debating the third reading of the Firearms Prohibition Orders Legislation Bill. I invite a member to seek the call.RACHEL BROOKING (Labour): Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker Bennett and congratulations on your new role and to the Assistant Speaker who was in the Chair before you as well.I know from hearing the previous speeches that this bill addresses something we're all concerned about and that is: giving police another tool to keep our communities safe from criminal behaviour. How the bill does this is by creating a new firearms prohibition order—an FPO. This is the tool that the speeches have been talking about. It's a court order for people who have a conviction of a specified violent offence and we heard about that in some detail from Nicole McKee. What the bill does is insert new Part 7A to the Arms Act and it disqualifies these people who have the FPO from ever holding a firearms licence.There are standard conditions for an FPO and these are found at what will be new section 39C. There are a range of things here—we heard the Minister talk about them in his speech—but they include associating with people who have firearms; residing at premises in which firearms are stored; joining or remaining being a member of shooting club; attending any shooting range or shooting gallery; attending an activity of any kind that involves the use of firearms; or visiting any premises or place at which firearms or related items are manufactured sold repaired hired lent or otherwise supplied. So it is going to be a useful tool and I commend it to the House.
Prime Willow-JeanWILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour—Northland): Thank you Mr Speaker. This is just going to be a brief contribution as we have heard how important it is to get this legislation passed as soon as possible. But as a member of the Justice Committee it is my pleasure to take a call on the Firearms Prohibition Orders Legislation Bill. This is another step in the Government's response to criminal behaviour and reflects our ongoing goal of ensuring that our police have the right tools that they need to keep our communities safe.We heard a lot through the select committee process about ensuring that we are striking the right balance between our public safety objectives and our human rights concerns. I feel confident that as a select committee we have thoroughly debated this and looked at that and I'm comfortable that we have struck that balance.The aim of the bill is to protect community safety and to reduce firearm-related crime by targeting possession use or carriage of firearms for unlawful purposes. We heard about those who might be responsible gun owners but this is really clear. We are targeting those whose actions and behaviours reflect violent tendencies or who represent a high risk of violence and they'll be prevented from being able to access firearms.In my final few seconds. I want to acknowledge Dr Emily Henderson who through her experience in the Family Court argued hard for the inclusion of strangulation as one of those offences and I'm pleased that as a select committee we were able to recommend that and that has been included.So with that I commend the bill to the House.
SpeechVANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour): Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker O'Connor and I'll join my colleagues in congratulating you on your new appointment. It's an absolute pleasure to speak in support of this bill this evening just as it was to speak in support of the repeal of three strikes. I consider it rather poetic that these two bills are hopefully passing on the same evening because they both speak to this Labour Government's approach to community safety and justice which is evidence-based and which is based on the rule of law and principles of justice. The other side have spoken about New South Wales. We have a report from the Ombudsman in New South Wales where he says that there's no evidence that warrantless search powers without cause achieve the results sought with a reference to data. I'm not sure whether to be entertained or whether to be horrified that the Opposition often don't seem to bother themselves with things like data or evidence and they don't seem to bother themselves with things like the principles of justice but thankfully on this side of the House we do. I commend this bill to the House.
Andersen GinnyGINNY ANDERSEN (Labour—Hutt South): Thank you very much Mr Speaker and may I congratulate you on your appointment to your new position. Nice to see you there. Firearms-related crime represents a real risk to our community and in particular community safety. While firearms licensing and the regulatory regime has been somewhat strengthened already under this Government there is further scope to reduce the opportunity particularly for high-risk offenders to have access to firearms and to in doing that further improve public safety.I want to quickly touch on the history of this bill because I think it's important that way back in—I think it was—2013 when Minister Tolley was the Minister of Police she brought an item to Cabinet back then to raise the issue of firearm prohibition orders in 2013. And it wasn't until way into March 2016 and then 2017 under Ministers Collins and Bennett that's the third Minister of Police under the previous Government that we actually saw a Cabinet paper brought on firearm prohibition orders. But still—still—there was no legislation produced from that substantive discussion around the Cabinet table. The very reason for that was the issue that has just been raised by the member who resumed his seat Mark Mitchell and that issue is on search powers that the previous National Government was torn right down the middle on—on whether to breach the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and have like New South Wales does warrantless causeless searches or to do what this Government has done and to utilise the existing provisions within section 18 of the Search and Surveillance Act to enable firearm prohibition orders to operate in New Zealand. So I'm proud to be part of a Government that was not only able to make their mind up but able to deliver a bill that will increase safety for New Zealanders. And so I think it's a great thing that we have done. It's been a delicate balance in order to be able to get that right and this bill has been designed to carefully balance the public safety protections offered with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act considerations alongside considering the restriction on the freedom of movement proposed by this bill. And they are warranted. They are warranted and it's passed its vet because it makes that better for public safety. So I am proud to see a good bill pass that has got the balance right and that has delivered on something that the previous Government was simply unable to do. I commend it to the House.
O'Connor Greg; Rurawhe AdrianHouse resumed.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Mr Speaker the committee has considered the Firearms Prohibition Orders Legislation Bill and reports it with amendment. I move That the report be adopted. Motion agreed to.Report adopted.DEPUTY SPEAKER: In accordance with a determination of the Business Committee this bill is set down for third reading forthwith.
Firearms Prohibition Orders Legislation Bill — In Committee—Clauses 1 and 2
O'Connor GregClauses 1 and 2CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Members we now come to our final debate: clauses 1 and 2.The question is that clause 1 stand part.Clause 1 agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that clause 2 stand part.Clause 2 agreed to.Bill to be reported with amendment.
O'Connor GregCHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Part 2 as amended stand part.Part 2 as amended agreed to.
McKee Nicole; Hipkins ChrisNICOLE McKEE (ACT): It's great to see you up there and congratulations on your appointment Mr Chair.My question is to the Minister on Part 2 clause 18 amended section 3(1) where we're amending the interpretation of arms". I'm referring here to a submission that the Council of Licensed Firearms Owners (COLFO) placed. Actually if we're going to refer to their submission it's paragraphs 15 to 18 within the COLFO submission. They talked about inconsistencies in the use of words in the interpretation and it appears that it is quite untidy. This legislation now introduces—and I quote—"firearms or related part" to the terminology in the Arms Act 1993. Some of the terms listed under this new definition are already listed and some are slightly differently defined.This new part isn't operating in isolation; it's actually operating in conjunction with the licensing and offence regimes. An example that the council gave was where a licensed firearm owner may have a firearms protection order in their home—so father and son—as long as the firearms or related parts are secured.It seems important that when we have two different types of definitions that we need to explain what "related items" are to licensed firearm owners so that the people that can be caught up in this actually have an understanding of what it is because some of those items are quite benign like a sling for example and it's not of any danger but it can get people into a lot of trouble.The definition actually needs to be consistent with the rest of the Arms Act. I just wonder Minister whether or not there will be education placed out there for licensed firearm owners to have an understanding of what the new term of "related part" actually means. Could you confirm if that's going to happen please.Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Police): Thank you Mr Chair. I certainly can confirm that there will be clear communications and education available including for those who are the subject of a firearms prohibition order (FPO) as well because we want them ultimately to comply with the FPO.The issue that the member raises I think is not an unreasonable one in the sense that the Arms Act is now quite an old piece of legislation relative to other statutes and it has been heavily amended over its nearly 40 years of existence.I think from time to time legislation does reach the point in this House where there's a need to have a policy-neutral redraft just to actually make sure that the Act is updated and I suspect the Arms Act is reaching that point. The challenge with something like the Arms Act though—having done this in a number of other legislative areas—is it's almost impossible to do that without it throwing up a few policy questions along the way as well.So I can't necessarily commit that we'll be doing that in the short term but I do think the Arms Act when the time comes around for the regular revision bills process—which is where they look at bills like the Arms Act that have been around for a long time and amended quite heavily—if that was a candidate for a rewrite I would certainly support that."
O'Connor GregPart 2 Amendments to other ActsCHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Members we now come to Part 2. The question is that Part 2 stand part.
Firearms Prohibition Orders Legislation Bill — In Committee—Part 1
O'Connor GregCHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that the Minister's amendment to Part 1 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 212 be agreed to.Amendment agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Supplementary Order Paper 216 in the name of Nicole McKee is ruled out of order as being outside the scope of the bill. The question is that Part 1 as amended stand part.Part 1 as amended agreed to.
Mitchell Mark; McKee Nicole; Hipkins ChrisHon MARK MITCHELL (National—Whangaparāoa): Thank you Mr Chair. A question to the Minister around new section 42A Offence to breach firearms prohibition order": "(1) A person commits an offence if the person breaches a firearms prohibition order by—(a) accessing possessing or using any firearm pistol pistol carbine conversion kit restricted weapon …"—and the rest of them—"or (b) failing without reasonable excuse to comply with any condition of the order." How is a front-line police officer going to detect whether or not a person with a firearms prohibition order is in breach of either (a) or (b)?NICOLE McKEE (ACT): My question is in relation to clause 12 which amends section 69 relating to forfeitures. New subsection 69(1A) will read that any person with an FPO upon them found breaching an order and in possession of a firearm will have upon sentencing an order that those items will be forfeited to the Crown.I had asked the question in select committee: "Well what if those firearms were stolen?" What if it's Billy-Bob Joe with Uncle Bob in the vehicle and Uncle Bob's going off hunting—what if there is legitimate reason for those firearms actually not to be confiscated and forfeited to the Crown but returned to their owners? I understand that section 69(2) does give an exemption where the Crown doesn't have to forfeit if they feel it's unjust to do so.But I wonder Minister what provisions will be in place where it is found later that the firearm can be identified as belonging to a legitimate owner where it's been stolen after the court has decided it's going to be forfeited? What response are we giving to those firearm owners who will be expecting that registration will mean the return of their firearms not the confiscation and forfeiture of them?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Police): I'll get a little bit further information to answer Nicole McKee's question and I'll endeavour to do so in a moment. But I do want to pick up Mark Mitchell's question.I have to say I did take pause with this question because the answer seems so obvious. The police generally are pretty bright. And so if someone is possessing a firearm for example and they are found to be in possession of a firearm then clearly they are in breach of the legislation. If they are using a firearm then they are in breach of the legislation. So I'm not entirely sure what he's kind of getting at where he's trying to determine whether or not the police would be bright enough to determine that someone possessing a firearm might be in breach. I think they make those sorts of judgments all day every day."