edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
3. Question No. 3—PoliceJAMES MEAGER (National—Rangitata) to the Minister of PoliceQuestion No. 3—Police3. JAMES MEAGER (National—Rangitata) to the Minister of Police: What reports has he seen recently on the policing of gangs?Hon MARK MITCHELL (Minister of Police): Recently as reported I was present as six gold-plated Harley-Davidson motorcycles formerly the prized possessions of the Comancheros were shredded into scrap metal. This is consistent with this Government's approach to the gangs and their ill-gotten gains. [Interruption]DEPUTY SPEAKER: Silence while questions are being asked please.James Meager: What message does it send to the gangs when police crush six of their gold-plated Harley-Davidsons?Hon MARK MITCHELL: It sends the message that police will keep crushing pressure on gangs; their illegal nefarious and violent activities; and assets. James Meager: Have there been any gang convoys recently and if so did police's response meet his expectations?Hon MARK MITCHELL: Yes. The policing of gang convoys is much tougher now with police controlling the convoys and protecting the rights of law-abiding Kiwis over and above those of criminal gangs.Hon Ginny Andersen: Can the Minister please outline what legislation was used for both the confiscation of the vehicles mentioned and also for the policing of the convoys that the Minister has mentioned?Hon MARK MITCHELL: I think it was probably legislation that Stuart Nash brought in because actually he was a very good police Minister unlike the three that followed him.James Meager: Are there any recent Government announcements that will help police ramp up their crackdown on gangs?Hon Member: Informative good question.Hon Member: Great questions from James.Hon MARK MITCHELL: Too good. Yes. On Sunday Minister Goldsmith Minister McKee and I announced part of the coalition Government's proposed crackdown on gangs including banning gang patches and insignia in public dispersal notices non-consorting orders and making gang membership an aggravating factor at sentencing. Gangs destroy lives and communities and the free ride is over under this coalition Government.Hon Ginny Andersen: If 12 front-line police officers have gone public to say that this gang patch ban is unworkable and that they are not resourced to enforce it how does he justify to the New Zealand public introducing this legislation?Hon MARK MITCHELL: I can justify it because unlike the Labour Party who are gang apologists we have a deeply capable New Zealand police force that is motivated and wants to go out there and protect the communities that they serve and clamp down on gangs.
Simpson Scott; O'Connor GregSITTINGS OF THE HOUSEHon SCOTT SIMPSON (Senior Whip—National): A point of order Mr Speaker. Given that the hour is about 10 minutes to the time when the House would normally rise and that the House has been busy this week and it's also a very solemn day for members of this House I seek leave for the House to adjourn 10 minutes early. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is no objection. The House will adjourn and can I reiterate those comments. There's been some excellent work done in the House this week by all sides of the House against the backdrop of our late colleague. So well done everyone and enjoy the weekend. The House will resume on Tuesday 5 March at 2 p.m. The House adjourned at 5.50 p.m.
Garcia PauloPAULO GARCIA (National—New Lynn): It's very fitting that I'm able to stand and contribute to this bill because just this afternoon we were in the Petitions Committee and we heard two petitioners who wanted to make an impact in this space. One was asking that remand prisoners' time in prison be limited and the other petition was to enable rehabilitation to occur even for prisoners in remand.This is a space that has been largely left unattended and over time we see that so many offenders are in this space in remand. In the Justice Committee we have gone through an overview of the Ministry of Justice and the Department of Corrections and the fact that the number of prisoners—whether in youth facilities or in Corrections facilities—are so many and that the time that they spend there is considerable: over one year sometimes close to two years. So this bill is timely. It's important; it addresses a concern for many and it gives hope for rehabilitation. I commend the member Todd Stephenson for being the member to bring this bill into the House. It is a very much-needed amendment.So the bill seeks to bring in through clause 4 a definition of what a rehabilitative programme" is. Through clause 5 it requires that offenders who have not done a rehabilitative programme be considered as ineligible for parole; but conversely for the Parole Board to then say to them that if they're able to do a programme within the next 12 months then that would be the best thing. Clause 6 also establishes a very strong incentive for offenders in that space in that once they complete a rehabilitative programme they would then become eligible for parole.The object of this bill is to reduce re-offending. Reducing re-offending takes many forms but what we are trying to achieve here is to reduce the vulnerability of the offenders in this space by giving them skills—life skills—that they could use as they exit Corrections and whether they go on parole or complete sentences at the end and leave they would then have opportunities to get back into life and have a potential opportunity for being able to get back on a path to improving their lives.Every time there is re-offending there is re-victimisation and we want to reduce that opportunity and break that cycle as well. The impacts are great. We will reduce the prison population in the process we will give people opportunities to improve themselves and ensure that victimisation is itself reduced.I would like to spend the last few seconds of my call to say that my heart goes out to the wife and daughters of Efeso and that they be courageous at this time."
Court SimonSIMON COURT (ACT): The ACT Party won't be supporting this bill to continue. While we recognise that there was a period during the pandemic where the former Labour Government locked entire cities like Auckland down told us to stay home and put a teddy in the window that time has passed—Hon Member: The team of 5 million.SIMON COURT: —that time has passed. I'll tell you what: the member asks whether we were part of a team of 5 million; in Auckland we felt like we were a million in a prison of the former Labour Government's making.Now having got that off my chest—you can tell it's still a bit of a sore point for Aucklanders—I want to make it clear why the ACT Party won't be supporting this bill. While there are occasions whether it's following a severe weather event where local government elected members may not be able to travel to hold meetings it is possible that in the future there may be occasions where there's a need for remote participation by exception. This should not become a matter of course. This Parliament which facilitated remote participation when the COVID19 controls were in place so that members like myself who were relegated to be the second-class citizens of New Zealand stuck in Auckland could participate—that is no longer the case. This Parliament has adapted to the return of the normal situation and so has local government therefore we won't be supporting this bill and we do not believe it should proceed. Thank you.
McKee NicoleHon NICOLE McKEE (Minister for Courts): Well well well what a run it has been for criminals over the last six years under the Labour Government—a soft on crime former Government so self-obsessed that it wrapped criminals in cotton wool and blamed the rest of New Zealand for their offending. In the last five years gangs have gained over 3000 new members—Tom Rutherford: How many?Hon NICOLE McKEE: —3000—elevating them up to nearly 10000 in membership; an untold 51 percent increase. Last year New Zealand experienced half its yearly average gun deaths in just 17 days. During this time there has also been an increase in violent crime of over 33 percent. Well I'm pleased to tell New Zealand that the smooth run for criminals is over.like 20This coalition Government has announced in the last week a comprehensive package on crime. That package will allow police to issue dispersal notices requiring gang members to immediately leave the area and to not associate with one another for seven days. It's also going to allow the courts to order non-consorting orders to stop specified gang members from associating or communicating with each other for up to three years. We are going to ban all gang insignia in public places.I am particularly proud of the inclusion of ACT's policy to give greater weight to gang membership as an aggravating factor at sentencing in this package. Making gang membership an aggravating factor during sentencing—Hon Dr Duncan Webb: It is already—it is already. Retread.Hon NICOLE McKEE: —will enable courts to impose more severe punishments on gang members.You may be thinking at this point Mr Webb What more could this National ACT New Zealand First Government do to tidy up the utter mess that Labour left behind?" Well I am pleased to let you know that we are not done yet. We will be giving police further powers to search gang members for illegally held firearms we will be bringing back three strikes to ensure that repeat offenders who do the crime willl most certainly do the time and we will introduce legislation to tackle money-laundering by organised criminals—we will disrupt their financial networks and hit them where it really hurts.This Government is wholly committed to targeting the gangs taking back our streets for everyday Kiwis and letting criminals know that if they want to do the crime then they most definitely will be doing the time. The joyride is over. Labour is out; the coalition Government is in. If you are a gang member or a criminal offender you better have a long hard think about it because under this Government I assure you that you will be punished for your offending."
Kuriger BarbaraDEPUTY SPEAKER: Just before I call the Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall when the Hon Dr Megan Woods was speaking I was referring to Speakers' ruling 55/5—this is for the House; not for the intended speaker—where It is in order to say that the Government is influenced but … not in order to say that in the carrying out of its administrative and governmental duties apart from the formulation of its policy … [that] the Government is dictated to by an outside body." So I just wanted to clarify that."
Kuriger Barbara; Bishop ChrisBUSINESS OF THE HOUSEDEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon Chris Bishop is there a motion?Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Leader of the House): My apologies. I seek leave to allow the whip or leader of another party to cast votes on behalf of any other party despite Standing Order 144(5).DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is there—Hon Grant Robertson: For today?DEPUTY SPEAKER: —any objection? Yes for today. Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is none.
Kuriger BarbaraPETITIONS PAPERS SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLSDEPUTY SPEAKER: No petitions have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation. A paper has been delivered for presentation.CLERK: 2023-27 statement of intent for the Independent Children's Monitor.DEPUTY SPEAKER: That paper is published under the authority of the House. No select committee reports have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation. The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of a bill.CLERK: Road User Charges (Light Electric RUC Vehicles) Amendment Bill introduction.DEPUTY SPEAKER: That bill is set down for first reading.
Bishop Chris; McAnulty KieranBUSINESS STATEMENTHon CHRIS BISHOP (Leader of the House): Next week the House will consider legislation under urgency to complete the final stages of the Government's 100-day plan. Legislation to be considered will include the first readings of the Road User Charges (Light Electric RUC Vehicles) Amendment Bill the Firearms Prohibition Orders Legislation Amendment Bill the Gangs Legislation Amendment Bill the Courts (Remote Participation) Amendment Bill the fast-track consenting bill and the Business Payment Practices Act Repeal Bill; and the remaining stages of the Legal Services Amendment Bill and the Land Transport Management (Repeal of Regional Fuel Tax) Amendment Bill. There will also be two maiden statements during the week.Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Could the Leader of the House please tell us when we can expect a piece of legislation to go through a full and proper process with no urgency no instruction to the select committee and hopefully with a regulatory impact statement being published?Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Leader of the House): Some of the legislation I've just read out is exactly that; the fast-track consenting bill will go to a committee the Courts (Remote Participation) Amendment Bill will go to a committee the Gangs Legislation Amendment Bill will go to a committee and the Firearms Prohibition Orders Legislation Amendment Bill will go to a committee. This is a very hard-working Government—we've got a lot on.Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Will they be going to a committee for a full time without instruction from the House?Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Leader of the House): That will be over to the House at the time.
Kuriger BarbaraTHURSDAY 29 FEBRUARY 2024The Deputy Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.KARAKIA/PRAYERSDEPUTY SPEAKER: Almighty God we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed on us. Laying aside all personal interests we acknowledge the King and pray for guidance in our deliberations that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom justice mercy and humility for the welfare and peace of New Zealand. Amen.
Brownlee GerryPETITIONS PAPERS SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLSSPEAKER: A petition has been delivered for presentation.CLERK: Petition of Ava Birkinshaw Janes requesting that the House urge the Government to make New Zealand Sign Language compulsory in all high schools.SPEAKER: That petition stands referred to the Petitions Committee. Ministers have delivered papers.CLERK:2023 annual report of Te Pūkenga2024–2028 statements of intent of the Electricity Authority and the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority2024/25 statements of performance expectations for the Electricity Authority and the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority.SPEAKER: Those papers are published under the authority of the House. Select committee reports have been delivered for presentation.CLERK:Reports of the Environment Committee on the 2024/25 Estimates forVote ConservationVote EnvironmentVote Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environmentreports of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee on the 2024/25 Estimates forAppropriations within Vote Business Science and Innovation related to New Zealand Trade and EnterpriseVote CustomsVote Defence and Vote Defence Forcereport of the Health Committee on the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) (Improving Mental Health Outcomes) Amendment Billreports of the Justice Committee on the 2024/25 Estimates forVote Attorney-General and Parliamentary CounselVote CorrectionsVote CourtsVote JusticeVote Police Vote Serious Fraud and appropriations relating to the Retail Crime Subsidyreport of the Māori Affairs Committee on the 2024/25 Estimates for Vote Te Arawhitireports of the Petitions Committee on the petitions ofCraig DawsonJennifer HeathOur Seas Our Future.SPEAKER: The bill is set down for second reading. The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of a bill.CLERK: Building (Earthquake-prone Building Deadlines and Other Matters) Amendment Bill introduction.SPEAKER: That bill is set down for first reading.
Speaker's Rulings — Parliamentary Standards—Inappropriate and Bullying Behaviour
Brownlee GerrySPEAKER'S RULINGSParliamentary Standards—Inappropriate and Bullying BehaviourSPEAKER: Members in recent days there's been considerable public comment and interest on parliamentary standards. There's been considerable focus on the Speaker's role in curbing inappropriate and bullying behaviour in Parliament in the parliamentary complex and on social media and other media. Sadly this is not a new phenomenon.In December of 2018 a previous Speaker commissioned Debbie Francis to investigate and report on such matters as it affected both MPs and parliamentary staff here in Parliament. The Francis report was presented in May of 2019. It contained a number of recommendations about how behaviours around Parliament might be improved. One of those recommendations was the appointment of a Commissioner for Parliamentary Standards. That appointment was made in August of 2022. Lyn Provost a former Auditor-General having been appointed to the role took up the position in January of 2023. The Commissioner's role is to receive and investigate complaints that assert contravention of acceptable parliamentary standards. The matters of public interest over recent days most certainly fall into that category.Parties by majority deemed that the Office of the Commissioner for Standards should be established and that it was necessary. Despite the views of some the Speaker is not and cannot be omnipresent nor can all the cross House comment always be clearly heard from the Speaker's Chair particularly if the mike is open to a member speaking. The Speaker can adjudicate when a point of order is raised by a member at the time. However the safe ground of the Commissioner for Parliamentary Standards provides members and staff with a less time sensitive opportunity to raise matters which reflect poorly on the culture of this House.As at 2 p.m. today the Commissioner for Parliamentary Standards has not received any formal complaints or reports on any matters relating to standards of behaviour in the parliamentary complex since her appointment.Since becoming Speaker I've taken a view that members should be trusted to behave in an appropriate way and participate in a manner that reflects the choice of voters to send them to this House. That was perhaps too hopeful a position. While free speech is important any comment that touches on personal reflection either individually or collectively is not acceptable. Presiding officers will be much more vigilant as we move forward and I encourage members to work with the Commissioner for Parliamentary Standards where appropriate.
Tuiono TeanauTUESDAY 6 AUGUST 2024The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.KARAKIA/PRAYERSASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Te Atua Mana te akameitaki atu nei matou iakoe no toou takinga meitaki taau i riringi mai ki runga ia matou. Te akaruke nei matou i to matou tu tangata te akamaara nei matou i te Ariki e te pure nei matou kia arataki koe i ta matou uriuri anga manako kia rave matou i ta matou angaanga i roto i teia ngutuare na roto i te pakari te tuatua tika e te akaaka no te meitaki e te au o to matou basileia Aotearoa. Amene.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That debate on this question now close.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 55New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6; Tana.Motion agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that the Minister's amendments to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 65 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 55New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6; Tana.Amendments agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Lan Pham's amendments to clause 5 set out on Amendment Paper 69 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 55New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6; Tana.Noes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Amendments not agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That Part 1 as amended be agreed to.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 55New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6; Tana.Part 1 as amended agreed to.
Local Government (Water Services Preliminary Arrangements) Bill — In Committee—Part 1
Brooking Rachel; Woods Megan; Brown Simeon; Kuriger BarbaraHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you Madam Chair. Just a very short question from me going back to the Minister's previous contribution in saying that this bill was about supporting councils. I did mention this in my first contribution—that there seems to be some irony here when this Government says that they're interested in what's happening at the local level but there's no funding from the centre. So can the Minister address that question? About: is there no funding from the centre? Is this just putting extra workload on to councils? Is that what it's doing? A clear answer on that. And what does he mean when he says the whole purpose of this bill is to support councils? It's very important.Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): Thank you Madam Chair. I just have a very quick follow-up question and I thank the Minister for his answer; for clarifying that he sees: that that is about the credit rating being established and that following that there can be disclosure. So what I would like some clarity from the Minister is when he sees that point being reached. Obviously the passage of this bill once it's passed but what is his expectation in terms of time frames afterwards? When will he consider that their credit rating is established enough given the processes that rating agencies go through in terms of monitoring? What is the point where he is satisfied that that is established?Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Local Government): That is a matter for Auckland Council which is going through the process of the financial separation for Watercare.CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members the time has come for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break. The House will resume in committee at 7.30 p.m.Sitting suspended from 5.56 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.
Brown SimeonHon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Local Government): Thank you Madam Chair. The member Tangi Utikere talked about the redactions again. I would just mention this is not my document; this is the Department of Internal Affairs' document the regulatory impact statement—Hon Dr Megan Woods: You're responsible for your commentary on your bill.Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well please feel free to put an Official Information Act request in if you wish.In regards to the question around the publicly disclose this is of course part of the disclosure requirements that are being imposed here around economic regulation and of course transparency requirements. And that is why that is being put in place.Also there was a question around I think the word prepare". And so this is obviously a thing in terms of the 3(2)(b): "prepare a water services delivery plan;". Ultimately again Part 2 deals with all of the criteria in relation to those interventions.There was a question from Lawrence Xu-Nan from the Green Party in relation to Amendment Paper 69. The current definition is broad enough to capture these matters. There is a risk that by adding "further matters" we limit the application of the definition to identify and assess financial sustainability.And the second question he asked around debt talks in there in terms of the words "long-term investment" and that obviously requires the consideration around those investments and decisions and obviously debt will play a part in terms of that.The questions from the Hon Deborah Russell—effectively she just outlined the difference between the Opposition's perspective and our perspective in relation to this entire issue. And her question was: can councils do the job? And that's why the last Government decided they couldn't and so they came in took away all their assets put in place these 10 mega - co-governed entities and effectively New Zealanders rejected that at the last election. And so we're putting in place the foundations for councils to be able to manage and to deliver water services in their community. We're putting in place a regime here which supports them to do that and it's something which many councils campaigned for."
Xu-Nan LawrenceDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you so much Madam Chair. My question is around clause 5 Interpretation" particularly around financially the definition that has been given for "financially sustainable". Now looking at the commentary one of the things I noticed is what should be expanded in terms of this definition and what we've heard in terms of submission from local government—oh firstly I also want to thank the Minister for so clearly answering my previous two questions. Thank you so much. They were super super spot on.But in terms of what the local government has suggested in this case one of the things that it talked about is integration of the plan but integration with the existing plans and processes and future development strategy that they've had. That then leads to one of the Amendment Papers that my colleague Lan Pham has put forward in terms of adding a subclause (c) to what is "financially sustainable". I will really implore the Minister to consider this amendment and these additional three things because these additional three elements that have been touched on in Lan Pham's Amendment Paper 69 address some of the concerns that have been raised.But the first thing I want to speak on in this case is the fact that when we're looking at the existing definition of "financially sustainable" it talks about long-term investment and also talks about being financially able to meet the regulatory standard but what it doesn't mention is the consideration to debt and future borrowing. I think that is a really really crucial element of the financial sustainability and financial viability for local government when they are considering the work that they need to undertake for this. The second part of the Amendment Paper talks about affordability for communities. This is again something that my colleague Steve Abel has mentioned previously in terms of that level of affordability and again drawing attention to the regulatory impact statement paragraph 108 and Table 2 also specify the risk and caution on the increase in rates for that. So that is the second part of that Amendment Paper.The last part albeit one of the more important elements that haven't been addressed at all in this "financially sustainable" is around environmental sustainability—because of the fact that this is also a concern for local government. I won't mention too much around it because it has been something mentioned in terms of the environmental sustainability that for example faces Auckland last year due to the flood. So in terms of the Amendment Paper I would ask the Minister to seriously consider it particularly since it does affect Part 2—which I won't mention but I will be coming back to it later in terms of clause 8(1)(b)(ii).But if the Minister could consider those three elements of this Amendment Paper which are not currently within the definition of "financially sustainable"—and that is around debt and future borrowing affordability for communities and also environmental sustainability—that would be really great."
Brown SimeonHon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Local Government): Look I thank the members for their questions. In terms of the question around the definitions of manage and deliver ultimately this is about making it clear that local government is responsible for managing and delivering water services in their community. And I know that's a fundamental change from the last Government's approach where they consolidated and took the assets off local government and imposed their approach on local government. That was rejected resoundingly at the last election. We believe that local government should be responsible for managing and delivering water services and that is the approach this Government is taking.The questions raised by the Hon Megan Woods in relation to the word difficult"—that is in relation to the water services delivery plans that is not in relation to delivery and managing of water services. As I said there is in Part 2 obviously a lot of fulsome criteria around that—Hon Dr Megan Woods: We'll get to that but this is the purpose.Hon SIMEON BROWN: —and in relation to the—Hon Dr Megan Woods: We'll have a more fulsome discussion then but you need to answer about the purpose.Hon SIMEON BROWN: About the purpose yes. So in relation to the word "difficult" there may be a range of scenarios in which councils have challenges in relation to putting together a water service delivery plan. As is outlined in Part 2 there are a range of potential interventions or supports that councils can have provided. One of those could be that the council actually even writes to the Government and says "Can you assist us?" So there is a range of different levels of what that may mean. It is a broad term which is deliberately used but it is something which—ultimately our expectation as a Government is that all councils will follow the law and will put forward a water service delivery plan on how they're going to manage and deliver water services in their community.Now members have raised a range of potential examples around challenges that councils may face—I'm not going to pre-empt any of that. What we're saying here though is there is a range of tools and mechanisms in place which can be used if there is difficulty. I'm not going to preempt any of that because my expectation is that councils will work effectively and work together to put forward water service delivery plans for their communities."
Brown SimeonHon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Local Government): I thank the members for their questions. There was a question initially around the Watercare provisions. Watercare remains owned by Auckland Council but this obviously provides that they have a prohibition for financial support that enables a council-controlled organisation to be financially separate but it remains owned by the council. So hopefully that addresses that question. In relation to the question of must" versus "may" that was a request from councils as part of the select committee process and so we're responding to their submissions. In relation to the questions from the Hon Rachel Brooking and the question around Northland councils being required under this to put forward a water service delivery plan—in terms of intervention thresholds that's a question for Part 2. In terms of waste-water standards it's a question for Part 5. In terms of the definition around "price" as it says in the report from the select committee that is the reason why that has been inserted. It is in terms of aligning language with the Commerce Act. In terms of "urban area" that's the definition and it's a common definition. It can always be amended later via changes to any other legislation. In terms of Schedule 1 that's a style guide apparently. So I have had that question asked on previous legislation and a Schedule 1 is inserted in order that if changes are made or something happens then there is a Schedule 1 available for that to happen."
Butterick MikeMIKE BUTTERICK (National—Wairarapa): Isn't it great to have the Opposition wholeheartedly support us in promoting this bill through the House? I was thinking how good it would have been if that supported the tax relief the hard-working low and middle income earners are now getting in their back pockets. Not only didn't they support it some of them even asked for it to be donated to them.This bill addresses somewhat minor but nevertheless important and necessary changes to modernise the legislation. It will preserve the legacy and mana of the 28th Māori Battalion into the future support the work of the Pacific Education Foundation and ensure that education regulatory systems are fit for purpose such as amending the Health and Safety at Work Act. Regarding the Ngarimu VC and 28th (Maori) Battalion Memorial Scholarship Fund Act this bill will clear up some legal confusion regarding the administration of the scholarship fund and also management of the use of the Māori Battalion's names and emblems—this bill will provide clarity as to who can administer the fund. Only one member of the Māori Battalion is still alive and this bill will help preserve the legacy and mana of the Māori Battalion by ensuring there is representation of Māori soldiers or veterans on the board. This bill replaces New Zealand Defence Force" with "Armed Forces" which ensures that only soldiers—rather than civilian staff—are eligible to be the representative on the board.I would take a moment to reflect on the dedication and sacrifice of those who have and do serve New Zealand and thank them for their service. Lest we forget as we stand here surrounded by the names of the battles that have been fought to give us the freedom that we enjoy today—lest we forget.This bill also makes amendments to the list of Pacific people in New Zealand who can benefit from the Pacific Education Foundation easier and this ensures the definition reflects the diversity we have in this country now and into the future. This also updates the Pacific Education Foundation board's function and reporting requirements enabling better support of Pacific education outcomes. On this side of the House we recognise the importance of education—a good solid one—as evidenced by Minister Stanford and this side of the House's unwavering and relentless focus on improved educational outcomes for all New Zealanders and anything that contributes to this such as this bill should be commended. On that note I commend this bill to the House."
Xu-Nan LawrenceDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you Madam Chair. First of all I want to just get a point of clarification from Madam Chair if that's OK. If we're also currently debating Amendment Paper 65 as well because the previous Chair—OK. I'm seeing not. That's excellent. Thank you.So my question to the Minister around this is also around purpose so we're looking at clause 3(1) first—that's my first question. Now my question is around the points of legality and inconsistency within the legislation because clause 3(1) talks about establishing a framework for local government to manage and deliver but an important part of this if we're looking at the commentary on pages 2 and 3 is about separating Watercare away from local government and in terms of the fact that we are shifting the obligation but also prohibiting Auckland Council from providing financial support to Watercare. So I kind of wanted to see if the Minister wouldn't mind clarifying whether the separation of Watercare from Auckland Council actually is contradictory to the purpose of the Act in subclause (1) because numerically (1) precedes everything else. So I do actually genuinely want to know that because we have seen that in other legislation as well where that level of inconsistency could be arguable.The second question I have in terms of purpose is around clause 3(2)(d) and this is in reference to the Amendment Paper that the Minister has put forward Amendment Paper 65 where it talks about replacing (d) with processes for territorial authorities to use" whereas the previous wording is "may use". This is also in relation to the amendment that the Minister put forward in terms of clause 4 but we can talk about clause 4 a little bit later.Now "for territorial authorities to use" and "may use" can be vastly different in terms of legislative interpretation and statutory interpretation so I want to get clarification from the Minister if the amendment that the Minister put forward where it says "providing specific consultation and decision-making processes for territorial authorities to use" should be interpreted as a "must" or should maintain the current version we have and be interpreted as a "may".So those are the two questions for the Minister. The first one is whether the separation of Watercare and Auckland Council which I'm sure will be discussed later on as well overrides the overall purpose under clause 3(1) and whether the Amendment Paper that the Minister put forward for clause 3(2)(d) should be still interpreted as a "may" as opposed to a "must"."
Bates Carl; Kuriger BarbaraCARL BATES (National—Whanganui): Thank you Madam Speaker and thank you to members opposite who were involved in bringing this piece of legislation to the House. I want to acknowledge the Minister of Education who is shepherding this through the House and the significant work and workload that she's doing—that she's finding time for this piece of legislation.I think one particular point I would like to make in relation to this bill is the interesting context that we have with this bill coming through the House today: tomorrow we are seeing a tax relief after 14 long years and in this bill we're seeing the inflation adjustment of the expenditure amounts from 1972 to today of $500 to $10000—important context if you think about the timing when we are shepherding that tax relief through the House tomorrow. I think that that's a wonderful note to end the evening on this evening so I commend this bill to the House.DEPUTY SPEAKER: Members the time has come for me to leave the Chair. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow.Debate interrupted.The House adjourned at 9.57 p.m.
Nimon KatieKATIE NIMON (National—Napier): Thank you Madam Speaker Look it's great to be here on the third reading of this bill. We have discussed it at great length—the intricate details the not so intricate details. I have said many times that I had the great pleasure of being up in Gisborne for the Ngārimu VC and 28th (Māori) Battalion most recent awards and it was a great experience for me to see that firsthand and to see the importance of making sure that we set this up in such a sustainable way that it doesn't require our constant intervention. So that's really the premise of all of this and the moral of the story here is that we've got three items in an omnibus bill regulatory amendments that really are important for us to set up for the future so we don't have to keep coming back changing the law and making adjustments when things change.As we hopefully all know in 2012 the Māori Battalion Association was wound up for various reasons but as a result the memorial scholarships have been in an uncertain place so this bill enables us to make sure that that's safe doing its best for the future generations that come through that—and really they are impressive—so that that's set up in a really sustainable way.Likewise the same thing with the childcare police vetting: I have worked in an environment where I've seen how important that is and so it's important that we address all of the intricacies of the changing industries and environment.And then of course with the Pacific Education Foundation changing the wording so again when something changes we don't have to keep going and amending the Act.These things are really important for us and it's great to see that we have almost unanimous support across the House. So with that no further words required—I commend this bill to the House.
Foster Andy; Kuriger BarbaraANDY FOSTER (NZ First): I'm just going to say a few quick things. Just in response to Lawrence Xu-Nan who called this an omnibus bill these scholarships are really really important scholarships. They have a proud heritage but it is nevertheless a small omnibus and I just think it's curious that sometimes we have bills on issues of this scale when there are much much larger things which don't require legislation at all.I was also interested Lawrence in your comments about the decline in educational performance over the last couple of years. It's good that you've come to that realisation and that we've got something to fix on this side of the House.The final thing I wanted to say is New Zealand First has always been a very very strong supporter of first in family" scholarships and both the Pacific and the Ngārimu 28th Māori Battalion trusts do those things: inspire give opportunities. I commend this bill to the House.DEPUTY SPEAKER: The next call is a split call."
Trask LauraLAURA TRASK (ACT): Thank you Madam Speaker. I rise in support of this bill. It is the third reading and there are obviously some minor changes and I think they have been well traversed in the House and we're all in support. So I commend this bill to the House.
Tinetti JanHon JAN TINETTI (Labour): Thank you Madam Speaker. I'm delighted to take a call on the Regulatory Systems (Education) Amendment Bill. This is one that our Government brought to the House in the first place. It's really important. It makes some small changes but incredibly important changes too as the Minister has pointed out to particularly the Ngarimu Act and also around the Pacific Education Foundation. It's good to see that the Government has come on board with this. In the first reading they did vote against it because they felt that it was a small bill. They said that it didn't do enough. I think now that they're in Government they realise that sometimes when you're looking at these regulations actually they may seem small but they make a big difference to the overall legislation and particularly around the two areas that I just briefly want to talk about.The Ngarimu Act is an incredibly important Act to ensure that we've got the Ngarimu fund there that provides funding for Māori students who are undertaking university study or vocational education and training. This has been an incredibly important fund that has come through since 1945 and is based as the Minister said on the Ngarimu VC and 28th (Māori) Battalion. That was particularly after World War II notably to commemorate the service of Second Lieutenant Te Moana-nui-a-Kiwa Ngarimu. The fact is that the bill amends the Ngarimu Act to create this new position for the Ngarimu Board for a person of Māori descent who has served or is currently serving in the armed forces. This means that there is absolutely an assurance that the board can preserve its military legacy and uphold the mana of the battalion in the future. That is incredibly important going forward and it was something that people that were on that board and serving on that board were worried was not going to happen. So this is something that will preserve that into the future.Also the definition of Aotearoa Pacific person" is also another incredibly important part and change that these regulations make. The changes to that definition will ensure that the Pacific Education Foundation Act reflects the diversity of our present day Aotearoa New Zealand society and more reflects the learners with indigenous Pacific culture and language and heritage to enable them to get assistance from the foundation which is an incredibly important part for those young people and the changing face of the New Zealand Pacific population. It is important that we are now acknowledging that within this particular Act.It is does seem small. There are a lot of important parts to this though. The Minister quite rightly pointed out all the different elements there. As I said they seem quite small. It's really good to see that the Government has come on board to understand that while it might seem small they are very important to these groups of people. I absolutely commend this bill to the House"
10. Question No. 10—Internal AffairsTODD STEPHENSON (ACT) to the Minister of Internal AffairsQuestion No. 10—Internal Affairs10. TODD STEPHENSON (ACT) to the Minister of Internal Affairs: What recent announcements has she made about passports? Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister of Internal Affairs): I was pleased to announce yesterday that wait times for New Zealand passports have halved and New Zealanders should now allow up to five weeks for a standard New Zealand passport down from a peak of 10 weeks. I've been advised that many passports are being issued faster than this time frame as well. The recent delay in passport wait times was caused by a software upgrade in March. Since then the department and I have been focused on reducing passport processing times as a top priority. Getting passport wait times down to the standard two weeks continues to be a priority for me. I want to provide Kiwi families and businesses with certainty on how long it will take to receive their passport. SPEAKER: I'd just note that the Minister's microphone is not picking up as audibly as it should so if there's someone in the box who can look at that and maybe she can just stand a little closer to it. Todd Stephenson: What benefits have New Zealanders received from the upgrade to the passport system? Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: The new system allows families applying as a group to use one online form rather than multiple paper ones. Kiwi families are making good use of this feature as 91 percent of passports last month were applied for online and 32 percent of these were group applications. The upgrade also makes it easier to report a lost or stolen passport and allows referees to verify an applicant's identity online rather than through a phone call. This is the largest upgrade to the passport system in over a decade. Todd Stephenson: How can New Zealanders ensure they get their passports in time for their overseas trips? Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: The top action New Zealanders can take to ensure they get their passport on time is to apply as soon as they start planning an overseas trip and secondly it's to make sure that the photo they send through is of a good quality and meets the requirements. For context 11598 photos were rejected by the Passport Office in February alone this year which delays the application process. There is an online photo checker available to use on the passport website and remember selfies are not accepted.
8. Question No. 8—JusticeDr CARLOS CHEUNG (National—Mt Roskill) to the Minister of JusticeQuestion No. 8—Justice8. Dr CARLOS CHEUNG (National—Mt Roskill) to the Minister of Justice: What actions is the Government taking to reduce harms caused by gangs and make communities safer?Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): The Government is taking action to reduce harm caused by gangs by progressing legislation that will reduce the ability of gangs to operate and cause fear intimidation and disruption to the public. The Gangs Legislation Amendment Bill which inched closer to its third reading last night is a significant step in making our communities safer. Gangs pedal misery cause fear and intimidation and this Government is taking the safety of the public seriously.Dr Carlos Cheung: What examples if any has he heard of the fear intimidation and disruption that gangs cause in our communities?Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well I heard an example from a member of Parliament from the Greens last night saying we don't really wear red in Tokoroa and that's just the way things are." and the only reason why people wouldn't wear a particular colour in a particular place is because of fear of the consequences—ultimately fear of violence. No New Zealander should live in fear. That's why this Government is intending to ban the display of gang insignia and passing this piece of legislation.SPEAKER: Yeah—keep the answers to answers and not reference to past debating points.Dr Carlos Cheung: What other examples has the Minister heard of the fear the intimidation and disruption that gangs cause in our communities?Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well I heard another example from another member of Parliament also from the Greens last night. It said "I know just like in Tokoroa don't wear red. Don't wear red in Whangārei". Like I said before no New Zealander should be living in fear and the Gangs Legislation Amendment Bill will provide extra tools for the police to deal effectively with gangs.Dr Carlos Cheung: Why is the Government taking action against the fear intimidation and disruption that gangs cause in our communities?Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well because gang membership increased by 51 percent in the previous six years and at the same time violent crime in our communities had gone up by 33 percent. New Zealanders should be able to go about their normal lives without fear of being intimidated or preyed upon by organised crime. If that means banning the presence of gangs and gang patches in public this Government is quite happy to justify that. So people can expect to go about their lives in safety."