edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Goldsmith PaulHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): Very happy to answer the member Scott Willis' question and thoughtful question. The first point I'd make of course is that this bill does not do away with the ability of the justice system and judges in sentencing to take into account the background of offenders; there are many opportunities—Hon Willow-Jean Prime: For those that can afford it.Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: —in the Sentencing Act—no not just for those who can afford it—and throughout the justice system for people to take into account the background of the offenders and that is appropriate.We also of course share the desire of everybody in this House to improve the chances of people rehabilitating themselves and getting back into a productive life. For example that is one of the reasons why my colleague the Hon Mark Mitchell this week announced the fact that this Government will be ensuring that prisoners on remand will have access to rehabilitation programmes so there are many ways in which society and Government encourages people to rehabilitate.What the issue is in this legislation is not taking any of that away not removing any focus on the need for the sentencing judge to have access to the background of offenders or the desire to rehabilitate; it is dealing with a particular little cottage industry that has developed in relation to these section 27 reports that we needed to deal with and that's what was set out to do.
Willis ScottSCOTT WILLIS (Green): Thank you Madam Chair. This is my first opportunity to speak on this issue in the House and certainly I look across at our colleagues opposite and I do wonder about your past and your past misdeeds perhaps and your misspent youth. I can tell that some of you had fun and perhaps—CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The member's not referring to the Chairperson is he?SCOTT WILLIS: Sorry. To the Minister of Justice: some of your colleagues perhaps Minister did have a bit of a misspent youth. I'm wondering about the need for tailored sentencing. Because essentially if we take everyone as simply a facsimile of everyone else we cannot help people adjust to a life out of crime or a life where they may become a parliamentarian—a life where they may live a good life and pass good legislation. Isn't tailored sentencing to prevent reoffending good for victims of crime because of the reduced likelihood of reoffending? If we think how people have been able to turn their lives around why would we not give them a chance? Why would we not look at the challenges that they've faced and start tailoring something to meet the requirement to reintegrate them into society? Why would we not do better than what is proposed here today?So for the Minister I would like an answer please: isn't tailored sentencing to prevent reoffending good for victims of crime because of the reduced likelihood of reoffending? If the Minister could respond to that please and give us some insight into his thinking on this matter I'd really appreciate it because it really does matter that we keep people out of prison that we don't increase the prison population. It really does matter that we have people who are contributing members of society and are able to fix things that they may have done in their past. They might have—I don't know; I don't know what the Minister's colleagues may have done. I don't need to know because they've made good and we want everyone to make good. Kia ora.
Goldsmith PaulHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): Thank you. Thank you and I can assure the member Willow-Jean Prime I have read the documents. Secondly the previous member asked around how this bill affects access to justice and New Zealand Bill of Rights Act issues. Now the difficulty is of course that we had a period of 15 or so—maybe 13 or 14—years when the legislation was passed and people didn't have access to legal aid for writing these reports. I don't think people said there was no access to justice or that we were failing the Bill of Rights. People had every opportunity to get a lawyer through the legal aid system if they needed to and have access to a lawyer conducting their defence. None of that is being taken away by this legislation. What is being dealt with by this legislation is an additional cottage industry that had developed since 2017 and was gathering great momentum and speed with each passing year and costing more and more.Now it's quite right and appropriate for the Law Society to make some observations on that. With respect to them I don't agree with their conclusions and so the Government has made it clear that we were going to cease funding for this particular element of the defence spending and it was well signalled. I think most New Zealanders would appreciate this focus on making sure that money in the legal aid system which is under pressure generally—as every element of Government spending is under pressure given the deficits that we've faced for a long period of time and the very big increase in debt that this country has taken on in the last six years. I think everybody appreciates the need for careful spending and this is one element of that.
Prime Willow-JeanHon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour): Was that a bluff attempt to stand up Minister was it? Or are you actually going to engage in answering the questions? Because you were about to let it go to a closure motion. Yet in earlier contributions the Minister had disregarded points and questions that we were asking saying that he would address them when we got to the substantive section which in case he isn't aware is this one. So now is the time for you to answer all of those questions that we asked earlier which you didn't address in the title clause and it was deemed to be frivolous—the title or whatever.I did jump to my feet because I could see that the Minister did a fake attempt to stand up and answer and actually invited a closure motion from the other side. Now I'll get on to my actual contribution and the point that I wanted to make.Hon Paul Goldsmith: Got that off your chest?Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: Oh would you like to answer the questions and then I could quite happily carry on from that? No? OK. You know that is the point of the committee stage—just checking—Tim van de Molen: Get to the bill.Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: Excuse me?Tim van de Molen: I said Get to the bill."Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: Get to the bill? Did you think that that was not a fair comment about what just happened there? Hmm. Anyway Madam Chair we do look forward to some engagement with the Minister on the details around what this bill is proposing to do and I hope that we are going to get some of that engagement tonight.I want to start with what we have heard the Minister describe as just a small change just a small area within the legal aid system. The Minister said that in an earlier contribution but I think that it is important that the committee understands the profound impact of this so-called small change of defunding section 27 cultural reports. My question to the Minister is—this is my first question of many—can he tell me how this bill this amendment is meeting our international obligations? I have read the regulatory impact statement and the disclosure statement and in there it says they cannot see how this bill is actually meeting our international obligations. Has the Minister read the advice? Does he understand that? And can he please tell us how his change is meeting our international obligations and whether or not he's concerned that we may be in breach of those and not meeting those."
Pugh Maureen; Webb DuncanCHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members the committee is resumed. We are resuming debate on clause 4 the amendment to section 99 of the principal Act.Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you Madam Chair and I must say it's a real privilege to be spokesperson for justice in the Labour Party and be able to speak on this. I saw my friends on the other side of the Chamber leap up and I do hope they'll have substantive contributions to make on this because I'd be interested in the views of some of the backbenchers who probably are struggling with some of the policies of this Government.But I hope for an extended debate because this bill which is an important bill has not been to select committee and so the committee hasn't had the opportunity to fully hear and consider the views of the many interest groups that would submit on it. One of those interest groups is the New Zealand Law Society. I would invite the Minister of Justice to consider what the New Zealand Law Society had to say on this bill and to respond directly to the point that it made. I won't take long for this call because I think it's entirely appropriate for the Minister—because his officials can't do what they would usually do in the select committee and go through a submission analyse it capture its essence give options respond to it let the select committee decide which way to go and then present it back to this House. That all has to happen in the course of the next two or three hours here today.So the New Zealand Law Society—the president Frazer Barton was very clear in their submission that they saw this as restricting access to justice for people who couldn't afford these reports. And in the statement—because they issued a statement—that was made he was very clear that this fundamentally undermined human rights in terms of equal treatment before the law. So Minister I say to you that the submission of the Law Society is that this results in unequal treatment before the law it's a breach of human rights and it impedes access to justice for those who cannot afford these section 27 reports. What do you say to the Law Society?
Mooney JosephJOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): I move That debate on this question now close.
Prime Willow-JeanHon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour): Thank you Mr Chair. I was listening to the Minister's answers and I have some further questions for the Minister particularly regarding this. We heard this cottage industry. We heard about some of the report writers that the Minister named and is taking particular exception to. He talked about some of the effects of the reports that have been written and the effect of that on sentences given and questioning you know whether that was appropriate and also hinting that they intend to bring in further legislation around that.My question to the Minister is: did he give any real consideration to other options in the regulatory impact statement provided by officials that could have addressed some of those concerns that the Minister had without just wholesale removing—completely scrapping—the report funding for section 27 reports? Because to quote one of these articles To scrap the report funding completely is a retrograde step and if the information that was usually in those reports is presented to the courts it would blow out sentencing times and judge times." The options I refer to are: did he consider imposing a cap on the amount of legal aid funding available for section 27 reports? And option four: did he consider introducing an accreditation system for section 27 report writers? Also did he consider option five: amend the Sentencing Act 2002 to introduce a threshold for provision of section 27 reports based on the seriousness of the offence?CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Can I bring the member back to proposed new clause 3A.Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: Yes and I am asking the Minister questions based on the answers that he gave to an earlier contribution. It just raises further questions for me because what the Minister was I believe using to justify what they are doing and opposing the suggested amendment in fact speaks to some of the options that were put in the paper. So my question is: did he give those options? He talked about cottage industry. He talked about Harry Tam. He talked about the quality of the reports. He talked about the outcomes on the sentences. I'm asking the Minister: did he give due consideration to any of the other options? And can he tell us why he thought none of those were relevant to the issues that he was raising?"
Webb DuncanHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): In respect of that I would challenge the Minister because either he has not got good advice on the floor of the Chamber or his written parliamentary answers perhaps need revisiting. Because I asked him that exact question and it was framed as Please identify the names of the providers and the amounts that were provided to them in the preceding 12 months" and his response was "We do not keep figures of who gets this money in what amount. All we know about"—all he knows about—"is the amount the global amount given for these reports across the Legal Aid Budget." So Minister I would ask you to either revisit that and be clear to the committee because I put it to you that you have no idea how many reports Harry Tam has provided or how much. And it's just your reckon and it's the kind of laziness with the facts especially around these important reports that the National Party uses to attack other good practitioners who do prepare these reports and you slew them by calling them a cottage industry on the back of someone who you don't know has provided a single report; all you know is that he's touting for business. So I would put it to you that you either revisit your written answer or you clarify on the floor of this Chamber that you don't know."
Webb Duncan; Prime Willow-Jean; Goldsmith PaulHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Point of order. Mr Chair just for clarity: the Minister suggests we were looking at clause 4 I had understood we were looking at—supposed to have been—new clause 3A.CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): That's correct. This is the debate on your tabled amendment inserting new clause 3A.Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Thank you. That was really for clarity. That is my point of order.Minister I have a question and the question is: how many reports did Harry Tam provide under this legislation?Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour): While I believe that my colleague is probably wanting to have a backwards and forwards with the Minister which is the purpose of these committee stages— CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Do you want to do that?Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): Well I can answer the question only to say I don't have that figure right in front of me at the moment. There were some and there is an amount of money that's been referred to in the past. The website in particular that I was referring to said that they've conducted many many" reports."
Webb DuncanHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Well before we do move on—I mean it was a little dismissive of the Minister which is disappointing. But in terms of the tabled amendment by the Hon Ginny Andersen I do want to make it clear—and look it's kind of circular: This amends the Legal Services Act so let's call it the Legal Services Amendment Bill." It's still not descriptive. We know that there's many amendments to that Act and they're indistinguishable from each other. But this is about poor people because this is about payment for reports and these reports cost between about $1800 and $2500 each. As I said in an earlier debate—Joseph Mooney: Used to be 800 bucks—they've gone up a bit.Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: As I said in an earlier debate your children are fine if they get into a bit strife because you can no doubt afford on your MP salary—as can I—these reports. But here this is saying what it really is: this is saying that poor people don't get access to justice and they don't have access to these reports because whether it's $800 or $1800 or $2200 that's too much for a lot of people out there who are on very low incomes indeed. So I'm pressing on this one because I think it's a really important point. I do want to put on record that these reports you know they're not $10000 reports—they're not some forensic scientist's report; they're a report about family context victim context cultural context. They have been recognised as really useful and they've been recognised not as making for lower sentences but making for better sentences—these are sentences that are a better match for the offender for the whānau for the offending and for the community. So let's call it what it is: it's the "No Access for Reports for Poor People Bill"."
Goldsmith PaulHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): Members are raising the policy issues of this bill and I'm very happy and the Government is very happy to debate the policy merits of this bill which will be appropriate in the clause 4 debate that we have.What we're doing at the moment for those tuning in to listen to Parliament is simply a very brief debate on the title of the bill. The title that the Government has given the bill is the Legal Services Amendment Bill" and that is because it is a bill that amends the Legal Services Act and that makes perfectly good sense. We can use up an hour or two of time coming up with silly names on the other side of things but if we want to debate the substance of the bill we can move to clause 4 and I'm very happy to answer any questions on the bill at that point.But in terms of the title we've got an obvious title. It says what it does and I don't think I need to engage in a long exercise of creativity such as Duncan Webb suggests."
Prime Willow-JeanHon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour): Thank you Mr Chair. I want to take a call in support of the tabled amendment to the title of this bill. I was going to suggest that it be the Non-legal Services Amendment Bill" because by taking away access to section 27 cultural reports there is a large group within our society who are not going to be able to access section 27 cultural reports. I want to support and endorse the comments of my colleague who has spoken previously to me because as I highlighted in my contributions in the earlier readings of this legislation I pointed to the fact that affordability is a particular issue for many in the justice system. I pointed to the fact that who will this disproportionately impact and what we know from the regulatory impact statement and what we know from commentary regarding this is that this will disproportionately impact Māori who are sadly disproportionately represented in the criminal justice system. To support that I want to refer to an article where the Law Society said that the withdrawal of funding "will significantly limit access to justice". So I'm speaking to my point that this might be the "Non-legal Services"—the Minister is just yawning there. I'm sorry if I'm boring you but this is important for us to discuss and debate this afternoon. What I was saying was that the New Zealand Law Society Te Kāhui Ture o Aotearoa said that the withdrawal of funding "will significantly limit access to justice. … With funding for these reports removed the only way a person facing sentencing will be able to access them is by paying privately. Those who can afford this would then have a greater level of representation in the Court than those receiving Legal Aid. That is a significant breach of fundamental rights." So I support the tabled amendment—sorry if the honourable member can just point me to; oh there it is—where the proposal is that it be called the "Legal Services (Removing Access to the Reports for Poor People) Amendment Bill". Can the Minister please speak to the points that we have raised about how he believes that this change will not impact on those who cannot afford to pay for section 27 reports?"
Webb DuncanHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): I invite the Minister to perhaps use his creative instincts—I know that he holds a related portfolio. I know there's another tabled amendment in the name of my friend Ginny Andersen because this tabled amendment actually also goes to the heart of the purpose of this bill. This is about legal aid and legal aid is for poor people and this is removing access to funding for reports from poor people. So rich people can have them because they can pay; poor people can't. Now that sentence is perhaps a bit lengthy. I think no good drafter would be quite that verbose so that's why the proposal in this tabled amendment A" is to call the Act the "Legal Services (Removing Access to Reports for Poor People) Amendment Act 2024".In a nutshell that's what this Minister is doing. I'll be quite frank I find it a repugnant thing to do. But let's call it what it is. People who can't pay for these don't get them but people who can do. "Access" is a good word to use here because it ties in with the concept of access to justice a concept that doesn't seem to be one with which this particular Minister of Justice is particularly familiar with.The suggestion that this isn't about access to justice because it's an evidential report of some sort makes no sense. This is as much a legal service as anything else and so let's just call it out. This amendment bill removes access to these important sentencing reports for poor people. So Minister I would challenge you. Unless you can be a little bit more poetic in there perhaps let's call it what it is: stuff the poor people; they can't have these reports. This bill should be called the "Removing Access to Reports for Poor People Amendment Bill"."
Genter Julie AnneHon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai): Firstly I just want to clarify: I'm pretty sure that I heard the Minister the Hon Simeon Brown recommend a report-back date of 14 March. That's only nine days from now. It's 5 March today. So that's not a four-week select committee period; that's less than a week. And it's really difficult to see how the public who will be affected by these changes and also other technical experts will be able to develop a submission and submit to the select committee and for the select committee to have enough time to deliberate and report back. I don't see how it's physically possible. So the Green Party would be opposing that motion. And while I fully support the Labour member Arena Williams' suggestion for a normal select committee report back date which would be six months at the very least four weeks would give the public and the select committee more time—some time—to be able to properly consider what has been put forward. And again this is because the bill deals with highly technical matters that have to do with specific vehicle weight classes and it is really important to get this right—this change is going to have far-reaching implications.I understand the Government may have set some time frames of its own that it wants to keep to but given that the bill has only had its first reading today to recommend a report-back date of next week seems completely farcical and unreasonable and even though we didn't support the bill at first reading if it is going to go to a select committee at the very least we should have four weeks to report it back. I think nine days is simply way too short to consider everything that needs to be considered from the public. One of the issues that I raised in my first reading speech was the significant discrepancy between what electric vehicle users and plug-in electric vehicle users will be paying on the same trip as a comparable car—that is a fossil fuel car like a conventional Prius hybrid. According to the Minister's data that he has given us they'll be paying more than twice as much. I think that there is an opportunity through the select committee to ensure that the rates that are set and the bands of vehicle they apply to are more fair. But I don't see how that can happen if the select committee has to report back in just nine days.
Reti ShaneINSTRUCTION TO THE TRANSPORT COMMITTEEHon Dr SHANE RETI (Minister of Health): Thank you Mr Speaker. I move That the Road User Charges (Light Electric RUC Vehicles) Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 14 March 2024 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House and outside of the Wellington area despite Standing Orders 193 195 and 196.It is worth noting that the need for this bill before 1 April has been known since 2021 when the previous Government extended its previous expiry date. The previous Government also consulted on the changes that we are making at the start of 2022. However they left us with responsibility for making the policy decisions and drafting the legislation which we have done at pace to allow for maximum possible time for the Transport and Infrastructure Committee to consider it. On that basis I ask that the House endorse a report-back date of 14 March 2024 for this piece of legislation.
MacLeod DavidDAVID MacLEOD (National—New Plymouth): I'm very pleased to stand and talk to this particular bill. I think it's very pleasing as a country to think that we've got up to 2 percent of these types of vehicles at the level here that are traveling upon our roads. But it's also of no surprise to any of us that we think it's only fair and reasonable that they actually now start to contribute to the cost of our roading itself. The fact that we're looking at moving this to the Transport and Infrastructure Committee—it's absolutely appropriate that they do take calls of submissions from the public about the rate at which those particular vehicles pay—whether it be the $53 for the hybrids or the $73 per thousand kilometres for the electric vehicles. So I'm very supportive of this bill moving to the next stage.
Rutherford TomTOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you Mr Speaker—really pleased to stand in support of the Road User Charges (Light Electric RUC Vehicles) Amendment Bill in the name of the Minister of Transport Simeon Brown. Quickly in 2009 the previous National Government exempted electric vehicles (EVs) and plug-in hybrid vehicles from paying road-user charges to encourage their uptake. This exemption was always planned to end when EVs hit around 2 percent of the light vehicle fleet and right now New Zealand has reached that target. This transition is about fairness and equity ensuring that all road users are contributing to the upkeep and maintenance of the roads irrespective of the type of vehicle they drive. I commend the bill to the House.
McCallum GrantGRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland): Thank you Mr Speaker. As I've been driving around the roads of Northland observing the state of those roads and observing the number of electric vehicles and hybrids along with all the other users on the road it's become apparent to me that all people using the road should pay their fair share. It's important that we have a fair transition to eventually go to a situation where we have a road-user charge applicable to everybody. On that basis I commend this bill to the House.
Kapa-Kingi MariamenoMARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI (Matarau—Te Pāti Māori): Tēnā koe e Te Pīka. Tēnā tātou katoa. If I may Mr Speaker just to acknowledge this is the first time back to the House since the tangi for Efeso: anana tēnā tātou katoa. Ka tū au just to speak to this pakē road-user charges. Te Pāti Māori do not support this Government's transport agenda. Our policy would see the use of both accessible and efficient free public transport: free for tamariki free for students free for community service cardholders and made free for everyone within five years. Our policy also ensures that urban planning and infrastructure allows for safe cycling and walking paths; cheap accessible public and active transport; and prioritising regional and rural Aotearoa.We know that cars and private transport will always be a reality. We know that most of us rely on petrol and diesel vehicles to get around to support our whānau. This is why it's necessary to bring down the costs of electric hybrid cars. We must make electric hybrid cars an affordable option for our whānau. In reality right now for many in Tai Tokerau and for many Māori across the motu it's just a bit of a pipe dream to be honest. This bill works directly against that. That is where this bill comes in and the whakaaro behind our position today.We understand that the road-user charges exemption is set to end in April. We also understand that this bill is setting a transition phase for that. However we also understand the bigger picture behind not extending this exemption. For example this Government has campaigned to build 15 new roads and are pledging $500 million to fix potholes. The one pothole they cannot fix however is the $24 billion pothole in their budget. Road users will end up paying for their reckless policies—regos are to be put up by $50. This money will go towards funding 50000 roadside drug tests which they will be making back by increasing fines—how does that work?The cancelation of cycleway and walkway projects will contribute to road congestion and by extension the increase of congestion charges at peak hour traffic. This Government is taking the option away from people to use reliable public transport forcing them to sit in traffic and then for them to pay for it because the Government cannot plan more than three years ahead. By disincentivising electric vehicles while at the same time cutting public transport this Government is fuelling climate change.The Government has put sustainable transport options out of reach making it harder for our people on lower incomes who already spend their income on transport to pay more to catch the bus. It makes no sense to justify more road-user charges to maintain roads and fix potholes with a policy platform that will lead to more congestion and creating more potholes. So I'm looking forward to seeing this go to select committee. Thank you Mr Speaker. Tēnā tātou.
Business Payment Practices Act Repeal Bill — Introduction
Personal Explanations — Unparliamentary Language—Apology
Speaker's Rulings — Points of Order—Appropriate Use
Luxton CameronCAMERON LUXTON (ACT): Thank you Mr Speaker. This was a well-signalled policy. As the previous speaker Julie Anne Genter has just said this was signalled by the previous Minister of Transport Simon Bridges when he was in that role that at 2 percent of the fleet this exemption would be removed and that time has come. It is fair that everybody pays their fair share including a reduced rate for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles.A two-month transition is also a good time for people to get prepped for this. As someone who's a diesel vehicle driver myself I understand how streamlined the process is when you're actually purchasing road-user charges so I do not believe this will be a huge imposition on people who have previously not needed to deal with this because of the type of vehicle that they drive.I look forward to hearing more submissions at the select committee about this and finding ways that people in the public think we can improve the income stream to pay for our roads because there is no free lunch and particularly when it comes to roading which has been underfunded by no small amount in the last six years—but I am glad to hear that Labour is supporting this bill. The coalition agreement also provides an investigation mechanism into electric road-user charging and when that is worked through I look forward to hearing about that but for the time being I support this bill. Thank you Mr Speaker.
Brownlee GerryBUSINESS PAYMENT PRACTICES ACT REPEAL BILLIntroductionSPEAKER: I understand the Government has the intention of introducing a bill.CLERK: Business Payment Practices Act Repeal Bill introduction.SPEAKER: This bill is set down for first reading presently.
Brown Simeon; Brownlee Gerry; Robertson GrantURGENCYHon SIMEON BROWN (Deputy Leader of the House): I move That urgency be accorded the first reading and referral to select committee of the Road User Charges (Light Electric RUC Vehicles) Amendment Bill the remaining stages of the Legal Services Amendment Bill the introduction and passing through all stages of the Business Payment Practices Act Repeal Bill the remaining stages of the Land Transport Management (Repeal of Regional Fuel Tax) Amendment Bill and the first reading and referral to select committee of the Firearms Prohibition Orders Legislation Amendment Bill. The Government is moving urgency today to progress some of the final pieces of legislation that are part of our 100-day plan.SPEAKER: Would the member give slightly more reason for the urgency? Could I ask that when members leave the House they do so without conversations on the way through.Hon SIMEON BROWN (Deputy Leader of the House): These bills are part of completing our 100-day plan and progressing some legislation also to select committee as a number of these bills are required to be passed by 1 April this year. Hence we are according urgency to them through the House today.Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour): Point of order. Mr Speaker. I thank you for asking the Minister to give a little bit more information. The Speakers' rulings do require a level of particularity about the individual bills themselves. The statements Mr Brown's made just simply don't go anywhere near meeting the Speakers' rulings requirement.SPEAKER: Well that would be your assessment. I will ask him to add some more to meet that particularity requirement.Hon SIMEON BROWN (Deputy Leader of the House): Thank you Mr Speaker. The Road User Charges (Light Electric RUC Vehicles) Amendment Bill is required to be put into legislation by 1 April. This is an issue that wasn't dealt with by the prior Government and so we're having to deal with that at pace. The remaining stages of the Legal Services Amendment Bill—that bill is part of our 100-day plan and is a commitment within our coalition arrangements. The introduction and passing through all stages of the Business Payment Practices Act Repeal Bill: the legislation that is repealing needs to be repealed prior to that Act coming into force. I believe that is in late April. The remaining stages of the Land Transport Management (Repeal of Regional Fuel Tax) Amendment bill: that is part of our 100-day plan. And the first reading and referral to a select committee of the Firearms Prohibition Orders Legislation Amendment Bill is part of our 100-day plan.SPEAKER: Thank you.
Brownlee GerryPETITIONS PAPERS SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLSSPEAKER: Petitions have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation.CLERK: Petition of Chris Hickson requesting that the House ensure that the Treaty principles bill does not go further than the select committeepetition of Christopher MacDonald requesting that the House pass legislation requiring all buses older than 10 years to have an additional compliance process between each certificate of fitnesspetition of Rasy Sao requesting that the House urge the Government to support the restoration of human rights in Cambodia in the context of the United Nations Universal Periodic Review.SPEAKER: Those petitions stand referred to the Petitions Committee. Ministers have delivered papers.CLERK:Report on unappropriated expenses in capital expenditure for the financial year ended 30 June 2023.Government responses:to the report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the inquiry into the future nature impact and risks of cryptocurrenciesto the report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the briefing on banks' processes and consumer protections for scamsto the report of the Petitions Committee on temporary post-earthquake visas; andto the report of the Standing Orders Committee on the Review of Standing Orders 2023.SPEAKER: I present the annual report of the Commissioner for Parliamentary Standards for the year ending 31 December 2023. Those papers are published under the authority of the House. A select committee report has been delivered for presentation.CLERK: Report of the Regulations Review Committee on the Complaint about the Resource Management (National Environmental Standards for Freshwater) Regulations 2020.SPEAKER: That report is set down for consideration. The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of bills.CLERK: Firearms Prohibition Orders Legislation Amendment Bill introduction.Appropriation (2022/23 Confirmation and Validation) Bill introduction.Evidence (Giving Evidence of Family Violence) Amendment Bill introduction.SPEAKER: Those bills are set down for first reading.
Costley TimPERSONAL EXPLANATIONSUnparliamentary Language—ApologyTIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki): Point of order Mr Speaker. I seek leave to make a personal explanation.SPEAKER: Leave is sought. Is there any objection for that purpose? There appears to be none.TIM COSTLEY: Last Thursday in debate towards the end of the day I made an unparliamentary remark which I know some members took offence at. I'd like to apologise unreservedly for this; I did not mean to cause offence.SPEAKER: Thank you.
Brownlee GerrySPEAKER'S RULINGSPoints of Order—Appropriate UseSPEAKER: Members—this may be helpful for the member—a number of members have raised with me the issue of too frequent a use of the point of order process to raise trivial points of order. In future when a member raises a point of order I expect them to indicate the rule or practice of the House that they think has been breached. Raising a point of order without doing so will be considered disorderly. Of course members may continue to use points of order to draw my attention to their wish to exercise a right given by Standing Orders such as to seek leave to make a personal explanation or to move a motion.
Brownlee GerryTUESDAY 5 MARCH 2024The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.KARAKIA/PRAYERSSPEAKER: Almighty God we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed on us. Laying aside all personal interests we acknowledge the King and pray for guidance in our deliberations that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom justice mercy and humility for the welfare and peace of New Zealand. Amen.Tim Costley: Point of order Mr Speaker.SPEAKER: Nope too soon—sit down.
Tuesday 30 January 2024 - Volume 773
New Zealand Productivity Commission Act Repeal Bill — Second Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the New Zealand Productivity Commission Act Repeal Bill be now read a second time.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 55New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.Motion agreed to.Bill read a second time.
New Zealand Productivity Commission Act Repeal Bill — First Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the New Zealand Productivity Commission Act Repeal Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 55New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.Motion agreed to.Bill read a first time.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That urgency be accorded.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 55New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 6.Motion agreed to.The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 74 Noes 49.
Urgency Motion
10. Question No. 10—EducationPAULO GARCIA (National—New Lynn) to the Minister of EducationQuestion No. 10—Education10. PAULO GARCIA (National—New Lynn) to the Minister of Education: What is the Government focusing on for the start of the school year?Hon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education): As schools start back for 2024 there will be a relentless focus on lifting student achievement. This Government's ambitious target of getting 80 percent of our tamariki to curriculum by the time they finish intermediate by 2030 is our North Star. Recent release of provisional NCEA data showed for the third year rates of achievement have declined and we are going to turn this around. As we begin the school year I am focused on strengthening our curriculum to be knowledge-rich and underpinned by the science of learning ensuring we spend enough time on the basics and that we are removing distractions in the classroom so we set our kids up for success at school.Paulo Garcia: What can parents expect will be in place for students this term?Hon ERICA STANFORD: Well around New Zealand students are returning or starting school this week to find new timetables in place that mean that no matter where they go to school or who their teacher is they have consistent delivery of at least an hour a day of reading writing and maths. I'm already starting to hear stories from teachers with their new timetables promoting literacy and numeracy. New regulations are in place around the use of cellphones at school requiring them to be off and away all day. School policies must be in place for the start of term 2 but it is my expectation that many of these plans will be implemented by the start of term 1 so that students can focus on their learning and interact with their friends.Paulo Garcia: What progress has been made by the ministerial advisory group reviewing the curriculum?Hon ERICA STANFORD: The ministerial advisory group had their first full-day meeting over the Christmas break. This group brings together curriculum and subject-matter experts who will ensure that our curriculum is knowledge-rich detailed grounded in the science of learning and internationally comparable. Their work programme is well under way and on track to be tested with the sector later this year so that we can remain on track with the scheduled curriculum roll-out dates.Paulo Garcia: What feedback has the Minister received about the changes in the 100-day plan?Hon ERICA STANFORD: I've received lots of positive feedback about our plans but in particular an Auckland high school principal wrote to me saying that he is excited about our plans; that the cellphone ban will remove a major distraction to learning reduce cyberbullying and promote social interaction between students"; and that a timetable focused on the basic subjects will ultimately lift educational achievement for all students. Furthermore Newshub reported the Cashmere High School principal saying and I quote "It's not healthy for students to come to school and … sit … and be glued to [their] digital device"."
8. Question No. 8—Local GovernmentJAMES MEAGER (National—Rangitata) to the Minister of Local GovernmentQuestion No. 8—Local Government8. JAMES MEAGER (National—Rangitata) to the Minister of Local Government: What recent announcements has he made about the voting age for local government?Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Local Government): On 26 January I announced that this Government will not proceed with the previous Government's plans to lower the voting age to allow 16- to 17-year-olds to vote in local elections. Changing the voting age for local government is not a priority for this Government. We want to see councils focused on efficient delivery of local infrastructure and services for their communities.James Meager: What actions has he taken to give action to the Government's intentions on this bill?Hon SIMEON BROWN: I have written to the chairperson of the Justice Committee to inform him that the coalition Government does not intend to support the Electoral (Lowering Voting Age for Local Elections and Polls) Legislation Bill through further parliamentary stages and request that the committee ends consideration of this bill. We intend to focus local government on providing good-quality local infrastructure delivering public services at the least possible cost to their communities and businesses.James Meager: Why is lowering the voting age not a priority for this Government?Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well this would be a distraction for local government when they should be focused on making sure that they are efficiently delivering local infrastructure and services for their communities. Lowering the voting age is not a priority for this Government.Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Who is correct: the Minister when he said it'd be a waste of Parliament's time to be progressing a bill and hearing select committee submissions on a bill that we are not going to be supporting or the Prime Minister when he said we will pursue a Treaty principles bill to select committee and that's as far as it will go."?Hon SIMEON BROWN: Lowering the voting age is not a priority for this Government but we have made coalition commitments around the Treaty principles bill which we will progress.James Meager: Does the Minister think that the voting age for central and local government should be the same?Hon SIMEON BROWN: Yes it is important that there is a clear and constant age for voting in a democracy. A split age would create an imbalance in terms of the voting ages between central and local government. That is not a priority for this Government. Furthermore the last Government could not conjure up one single reason why lowering the voting age was a good idea."
3. Question No. 3—Prime MinisterTAKUTAI TARSH KEMP (Te Pāti Māori—Tāmaki Makaurau) to the Prime MinisterQuestion No. 3—Prime Minister3. TAKUTAI TARSH KEMP (Te Pāti Māori—Tāmaki Makaurau) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his Government's statements and policies? Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes I do in the context they were given.Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke: Supplementary Mr Speaker.SPEAKER: Supplementary question—sorry having to go to my sheet. My deep apologies—I'm sorry about this. Sorry I'm lost here; someone's going to have to help me here. My apologies. Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke: Hana-Rawhiti.SPEAKER: Hana my sincere apologies. I do apologise. Please ask your question.Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke: Does he agree with the Ministry of Justice that his Government's Treaty principles bill to redefine Te Tiriti o Waitangi goes against the spirit of the Treaty or the text of the Treaty?Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: The Government hasn't received any Cabinet paper or any draft Treaty principles bill legislation. Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke: If he has no intention of supporting the Treaty principles bill beyond the select committee stage why has he appointed a new Associate Minister with specific responsibility for the bill?Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: So that the programme can be progressed.Takutai Tarsh Kemp: By delegating ministerial responsibility for the Treaty principles bill to an ACT Party Minister is he attempting to distance himself from division that this attempt to erase Te Tiriti o Waitangi has caused while at the same time leveraging off it?Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I reject the question. We're not changing the Treaty of Waitangi nor Treaty settlements. What we have is a coalition agreement which we are actioning. [Interruption]SPEAKER: No no comments; just a question.Takutai Tarsh Kemp: If he believes the Treaty principles bill is unhelpful and divisive will he commit to voting against it after the select committee stage?Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: As has been well canvassed there is no commitment to support the bill after first reading.
New Zealand Productivity Commission Act Repeal Bill — In Committee—Part 1
Simpson Scott; Pugh Maureen; Kuriger BarbaraHon SCOTT SIMPSON (Senior Whip—National): I move That the committee report progress.Motion agreed to.House resumed.CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Madam Speaker the committee has considered the New Zealand Productivity Commission Act Repeal Bill and reports progress. I move That the report be adopted.Motion agreed to.Report adopted.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Barbara Kuriger): Members the Government has indicated that it no longer wishes to continue with urgency. Accordingly the House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow.The House adjourned at 9.58 p.m.