edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
SpeechHARETE HIPANGO (National): Thank you Madam Chair. There's been a comment made by the Minister of Justice this morning about New Zealanders deserving to know who was buttering our bread and there's been a number of food references and there have been a number of kaikōrero in the House—speakers in the House.So it brings me to clause 3A the amended interpretation of the definition of party donation". So I've lead into this kōrero this discussion with reference to food. Many of our Māori communities koha kai by way of a donation. So Minister I've made inquiries with my colleagues who did sit on the Justice Committee—I didn't sit on it—but in my eye and my whakaaro my mind and my thoughts looking at this legislation I know that in many Māori communities—and this would have bearing and relevance not just to the Māori electorates but also the general electorates and the candidates—a koha or a donation is not always in monetary terms. It's often for many of our communities by way of kai. But also it's been identified that the definition of "party donation" means a donation "whether of money or of the equivalent of money or of goods or services or of a combination of those".So Minister how is this legislation going to address koha by way of donation to a candidate or to the party? Many of us have feasted at hākari when we're at the marae or at a gathering of a public place and that is a means of a koha or a donation in many instances. So I note Minister that there's been no interpretation. It appears that there's been no consideration as to how to define "koha" in a cultural context and whether advice was provided in terms of the information and the definition that's supplied by the Inland Revenue Department in terms of quantifying and also qualifying koha.Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Justice): I can assure the member that we are not making any changes to the equivalency functions and that unless any of us indulge in kai that exceeds the value of $1500 then we should all be absolutely fine.Look if somebody wants to koha the equivalent of—oh gosh what would that be these days?—maybe four pigs or four eight or 16 maybe you'd be getting up to about that value where you'd want to note that that is the fiscal equivalent of a $1500 donation to a candidate. So like you ordinarily would in any context when you receive a koha at the marae you note what it is you look to its value because you know you'll have to disclose that in your ordinary accounts—the same applies for parliamentarians and politicians and nothing there changes."
SpeechHon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Immigration): I am pleased to take a call in this discussion. I want to pick up on one of the themes that was touched on by the Hon Paul Goldsmith in his comments. He asked what I think is a legitimate question which is effectively the link between the rules and the thresholds that are expressed in Part 1 of the bill and public confidence.I want to come right to the heart of what I think is one of the main and most important changes that is in this bill and that is effectively the shrinking of the difference between thresholds for local donations and party donations and I have a question for the Minister as part of this. The question effectively is this: is the Minister aware of the fact that the current threshold difference that we have—that is the difference between $1500 at the local level and $15000 for direct declaration—potentially creates a significant arbitrage incentive? And that is that there is a practice that has been quite widely reported on in the media of some local candidates being approached for donations that are above the $1500 level that would have to be reported at the local level sending them to the party head office where the threshold is $15000—so these are donations between $1500 and $15000—and that the party head office then effectively bundles up the total amount of money that is received from that and donates it back to the local campaign as a global figure. So we've seen—and this has come through public reporting particularly through the National Party's reporting—that a number of local campaigns receive back donations from the National Party head office sometimes in the order of $30000 to $40000 that have come through donations that are between the $1500 and $15000 level and I wonder whether the Minister thinks that that practice might have some impact on public confidence in the integrity of the current system and whether she believes that effectively the closing of the arbitrage gap—which is currently $1500 to $15000 to $1500 and $5000—might help to mitigate against that practice which I consider to be abuse and I think might bring the current system into disrepute.
O'Connor GregELECTORAL AMENDMENT BILLIn CommitteePart 1 Amendments relating to donations and loansCHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Members we come first to the Electoral Amendment Bill. We come now to Part 1. This is the debate on clauses 3A to 18 Amendments relating to donations and loans". The question is that Part 1 stand part."
O'Connor GregHOUSE IN COMMITTEECHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Members the House is in committee on the Electoral Amendment Bill the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Smoked Tobacco) Amendment Bill and the Natural Hazards Insurance Bill.
Vote Correction
Boyack RachelVOTINGCorrection—Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Exemption for Race Meetings) Amendment BillRACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): I seek leave of the House to cast a proxy vote that was missed last night on the second reading of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Exemption for Race Meetings) Amendment Bill.SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.RACHEL BOYACK: Jo Luxton votes No".SPEAKER: The record will be corrected. Therefore the Ayes are 61 the Noes are 50 Abstentions are 1.I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Electoral Amendment Bill the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Smoked Tobacco) Amendment Bill and the Natural Hazards Insurance Bill."
McAnulty Kieran; Rurawhe AdrianHon KIERAN McANULTY (Deputy Leader of the House): Point of order. Thank you Mr Speaker. I deliberately waited to the end of the speech out of courtesy to the member but I just wanted to ask for clarification around Speakers' Ruling 128/5 and the definition of a passing reference to debate on Supplementary Order Papers which were resolved the committee stage.SPEAKER: I contemplated interrupting the member—actually not particularly on that. Members can mention that in passing but that was quite a detailed passing comment is what I'd say. The issue that I was going to raise was the inferences made from it. In the end I decided not to but it's a general warning. I know this is a controversial issue and I will listen very carefully. I'm obviously going to give some latitude on the extensive debate so far but that's not a licence for members to break the rules.Hon Michael Woodhouse: It's not going away Kieran.SPEAKER: Who was that? No. One could describe that immediately after a ruling as a comment on the ruling. You shouldn't do it.
Wednesday 7 December 2022 - Volume 765
VoteA personal vote was called for on the question That the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Exemption for Race Meetings) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.Ayes 61Baillie CHipango HO'Connor SStanford E (P)Bayly A (P)Kanongata'a-Suisuiki A (P)Parker DTirikatene RBennett D (P)Kuriger B (P)Peke-Mason SUffindell SBishop C (P)Leary I (P)Penk C (P)Upston LBrown SLee MPugh MUtikere TBrownlee G (P)Lorck A (P)Reti S (P)van de Molen T (P)Cameron MLuxon C (P)Roberts Avan Velden BChhour KMcDowall J (P)Rosewarne DWatts SCoffey T (P)McKee NRurawhe AWhaitiri M (P)Collins J (P)McKelvie ISeverin TWhite HCourt SMcLellan TSeymour D (P)Willis NDean JMitchell M (P)Simmonds P (P)Woodhouse MDoocey M (P)Mooney JSimpson SEagle P (P)Muller T (P)Sio A (P)Goldsmith PNgobi T (P)Smith DTeller:Grigg N (P)O'Connor GSmith SMcClay TNoes 50Allan K (P)Henare P (P)Nash S (P)Tinetti J (P)Andersen V (P)Henderson EOmer ITuiono T (P)Ardern J (P)Hipkins C (P)Pallett STwyford PBelich C (P)Kerekere E (P)Prime W (P)Verrall A (P)Boyack RLeavasa N (P)Radhakrishnan P (P)Walters VChen NLewis S (P)Robertson G (P)Warren-Clark A (P)Clark D (P)Little A (P)Russell D (P)Webb D (P)Craig E (P)Logie JSage EWilliams ADavidson M (P)Lubeck M (P)Salesa JWood M (P)Edmonds B (P)Luxton J (P)Sepuloni C (P)Woods MGenter J (P)Mahuta N (P)Shaw JGhahraman GMcAnulty K (P)Sosene LTeller:Halbert SMenéndez March RSwarbrick CBennett GAbstentions 1Brooking RMotion agreed to.Bill read a second time.The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 61 Noes 49 Abstentions 1.
Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Exemption for Race Meetings) Amendment Bill — Second Reading
Thomas Cawthron Trust Amendment Bill — First Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Thomas Cawthron Trust Amendment Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 104New Zealand Labour 64; New Zealand National 30; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Noes 10ACT New Zealand 10.Motion agreed to.Bill read a first time. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is That the Thomas Cawthron Trust Amendment Bill be considered by the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee.Motion agreed to.Bill referred to the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the motion be agreed to.Ayes 76New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 40New Zealand National 30; ACT New Zealand 10.Motion agreed to.The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 73 Noes 40.
1. Question No. 1—Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Harm Minimisation) Amendment BillHon JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green) to the Member in charge of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Harm Minimisation) Amendment BillQUESTIONS TO MEMBERSQuestion No. 1—Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Harm Minimisation) Amendment Bill1. Hon JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green) to the Member in charge of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Harm Minimisation) Amendment Bill: Why is tackling alcohol advertising as proposed in Part 2 of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Harm Minimisation) Amendment Bill important?CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Member in charge of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Harm Minimisation) Amendment Bill): It's important because alcohol like all drugs can cause harm. Alcohol is the most commonly used drug in Aotearoa New Zealand consumed by 80 percent of adults a quarter of those to harmful ends. As the Cancer Society says it is a class 1 carcinogen and known to cause many cancers while economists estimate it costs our country up to $7.85 billion annually. In 2014 the then National Government commissioned a ministerial forum on alcohol advertising and sponsorship in sports to consider whether restrictions on marketing could reduce alcohol harm. The forum chaired by Sir Graham Lowe found very clearly that they could reduce alcohol normalisation and glamorisation and therefore alcohol harm by ultimately phasing out all alcohol marketing in sports like we did with tobacco in the 1990s. The alcohol harm minimisation bill would implement three of the recommendations in that report.Hon James Shaw: How would ending broadcast alcohol advertising impact funding for sports organisations?CHLÖE SWARBRICK: Well I have asked the alcohol advertising and sports sector for the 2022 value of sports sponsorship. All of them have said that they cannot provide the figures but they estimate that it is less than the $20 million that was estimated back in the 2014 ministerial forum. I have written to many members in this House outlining the two key mechanisms that we could use to assist with the phasing out of alcohol sponsorship in sports; namely they are first a time-limited fund like the one set up to phase out tobacco sponsorship in sports—as actually recommended by that 2014 ministerial forum—or secondly to use the pre-existing health promotion levy recycling an extra approximate 2c on a can of beer 2c on a ready-to-drink 5c on a bottle of wine and 6c on a bottle of spirits.
9. Question No. 9—WomenSARAH PALLETT (Labour—Ilam) to the Minister for WomenQuestion No. 9—WomenSARAH PALLETT (Labour—Ilam): Thank you Mr Speaker. My question is to—[Members interjecting]SPEAKER: Sorry can we start that again? And I'm warning Dr Megan Woods and Nicola Willis—cut that out.9. SARAH PALLETT (Labour—Ilam) to the Minister for Women: Thank you Mr Speaker. What recent announcements have been made on the Government's progress on pay equity?Hon JAN TINETTI (Minister for Women): The Government has announced that we will extend pay equity to all community and iwi organisations who employ social workers and receive funding from the Crown. This is expected to reach approximately 4600 social workers who as a result will be paid more fairly for the incredible work they do with some of our most vulnerable in society. This extension comes after a pay equity settlement for almost 500 social workers employed in five community and iwi organisations.Sarah Pallett: What other claims have been settled since the passing of the amendments to the Equal Pay Act?Hon JAN TINETTI: Five claims have been settled under the new amendments to the Act so far. These amendments have enabled the settlement of historic pay equity claims in female-dominated industries. As a result of these settlements there has been an average pay correction of 33 percent. This has made a significant impact on the lives of New Zealand women.Sarah Pallett: What feedback has she heard from social workers on the impact their pay equity settlement has had on their lives?Hon JAN TINETTI: I'd like to share with the House a quote from a social worker at Oranga Tamariki who said—and I quote—When the social workers' pay equity settlement was reached the impact on me was huge. The impact on the social work profession was huge. It righted the wrong. It ensured that the front-line social workers at Oranga Tamariki were going to be paid what they should have been if they had not experienced gender undervaluation."Sarah Pallett: What are the next steps in the Government's work programme for pay equity?Hon JAN TINETTI: There are currently 27 active pay equity claims across the economy. This is complex work and as a world leader New Zealand is doing well to right the wrongs that many women have faced in the workplace but it does take time. This year—2022—has seen a significant increase in the claims with 18 percent of all claims ever raised being in this calendar year. However this Government believes in fair pay for fair work and in ending gender discrimination in the workplace. We are committed to doing that."
4. Question No. 4—PoliceWILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour—Northland) to the Minister of PoliceQuestion No. 4—Police4. WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour—Northland) to the Minister of Police: What recent announcements has the Government made about helping Police respond to fleeing drivers?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Police): Last week the Minister of Justice and I announced a range of legislative measures designed to give police greater enforcement tools when dealing with dangerous and reckless driving on our roads. Overall the changes will mean drivers can be disqualified for longer have their vehicle taken away for good or that the owner of a car could have their vehicle impounded if they choose not to help police track down the driver of a fleeing vehicle. Put simply if you flee from the police be prepared to lose your car. Willow-Jean Prime: Why are these changes important and how will they actually support police?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Police have told us that these changes will help discourage people from fleeing because they're now likely to lose their vehicle for longer or for good. There were 8673 fleeing driver events in the last 12 months—that's the 12 months ending 31 August—which is an increase a substantial increase on last year's 6757 events. While no law enforcement can ever stop an offender from choosing to flee evidence does indicate that the changes most likely to influence offender behaviour are those that create a greater likelihood of getting caught and then losing access to their vehicle. Willow-Jean Prime: What exactly will the changes do?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The changes will increase the maximum driver licence disqualification period for a second offence of failing to stop or remain stopped from 12 months to between 12 months and 24 months. They'll amend the Sentencing Act so that a vehicle can be forfeited on conviction for failing to stop—which would mean that offenders could have their vehicle permanently removed and they would not get any proceeds back from the sale of it—and they allow police to impound a vehicle for 28 days if the owner fails refuses or provides false or misleading information about the identity of a driver from a fleeing vehicle event.
2. Question No. 2—FinanceBARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) to the Minister of FinanceQuestion No. 2—Finance2. BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): The resilience of the economy has been reflected in the latest Crown accounts. For the four months to the end of October the operating balance before gains and losses (OBEGAL) recorded a deficit of $2.8 billion—this is $274 million lower than forecast at Budget 2022 in May and $5 billion lower than for the same period a year ago. Tax revenue also came in slightly below expectations. We know that 2023 is going to be a difficult year for the global economy and for New Zealand. We will not be immune to what happens overseas with a period of high inflation to be followed by what is now forecast to be a shallow recession. Government actions to grow the economy and support New Zealanders mean we are well positioned to face these global challenges with a solid balance sheet near-record low unemployment more people in paid work and wages increasing. Barbara Edmonds: What else did the report say about the impact of the economy on the Government's books?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Net debt stood at 19.5 percent of GDP in these accounts which was above forecast mainly due to market conditions affecting the New Zealand super fund's financial portfolio. Using the old measure net core Crown debt was below forecast at 39.4 percent of GDP compared with projections of 40.4 percent. Our debt levels remain among the lowest in the OECD and well below the Government's debt ceiling of 30 percent ensuring we are well positioned to weather further economic shocks.Barbara Edmonds: What other reports has he seen on the economy?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The situation and outlook for primary industries was released by the Ministry for Primary Industries and it shows that food and fibre exports are projected to reach a new record high of $55 billion in 2023—$2.9 billion more than in June 2022. In addition tourists and holidaymakers are returning in greater numbers and our immigration reset is working to attract the overseas workers we need to rebuild the economy. This will all go some significant way to help protect New Zealanders from the sharp edges of a global downturn.Barbara Edmonds: What reports has he seen on the international context for the New Zealand economy?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The credit rating agency Fitch has revised downwards its forecast for the global economy. Fitch is projecting global GDP to grow 1.4 percent in 2023 down from 1.7 percent in its September economic outlook. It has lowered its forecast for growth in both the US and China. New Zealand finds itself as well placed as any country in the world in a volatile and uncertain global environment. We will continue to take a balanced and responsible approach in managing our finances. We remain focused on prioritising our spending without adding to inflation pressures and returning to surplus as soon as possible.
O'Connor GregDEPUTY SPEAKER: I have determined that the subject of this vote will be treated as a conscience issue. In this case I know that there are members who want a personal vote and I am prepared to accept one. This is the process we are going to follow: I'm going to put the question I'm going to announce the result. At that stage any member can ask for a personal vote.
Pugh Maureen; O'Connor GregMAUREEN PUGH (National): OK Thank you Mr Speaker. I just wanted to take a short call to go on record just to put my own local racing club which I imagine that my friend and colleague Ian McKelvie was actually considering when he put this bill together—small-country racing clubs that are the heart of some little communities and especially in the racing circuit.I was the clerk of scales for many years on the West Coast and I did the whole West Coast circuit over the summer. I can tell you that those little community events are very important to community connectedness. They're run by volunteers who work all year to provide a day out for one or maybe two days a year.They've gone through some hard times in the past. A lot of them are aged facilities so they rely on fund-raising and they rely on the income that they derive from their race meetings to maintain those facilities and keep up with the constant changes of rules health and safety regulations etc. that they have to implement on the day.Security has played a big part in sucking some of the revenue out of those small organisations. The last thing we need is the fun police to come along and shut down one of the main sources of income on race day. I can tell you that the security is so tight that if you trip over a rock the police will deem you intoxicated and remove you from the track. There is no way that people are going to be able to abuse the system on race days because of the tight rules that are now around in terms of security and watching for people who do abuse the alcohol intake.I'm standing in support of this piece of legislation that I hope will go through tonight or at least—yes it is its third reading tonight because I think it's really sensible that we include small race meetings in a different category than we do to others. I totally commend my colleague Ian McKelvie for raising this issue in defence of these small clubs around New Zealand. We've even lost clubs on the West Coast due to some of the retrenchment that happened under the former Labour coalition Government. That was a real disaster for some of our small clubs that have been around for over 100 years and now those places are abandoned. It's a real tragedy and a dishonour to the people who maintained them for many many years. So I speak in support of this bill. Thank you Mr Speaker.DEPUTY SPEAKER: I just indicate there are two five-minute calls available in call nine.
Cameron MarkMARK CAMERON (ACT): Thank you Mr Speaker and thank you for the contribution from my colleague. The crux of the matter of this bill the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Exemption for Race Meetings) Amendment Bill—and I like the collegial nature of the debate. I live in rural New Zealand and this speaks to all things rural. And we've canvassed it previously tonight. Going to enjoy the carnival reality of small races in and around provincial New Zealand—it happens all the time although it's a diminishing reality—and sharing in a lovely meal a lunchtime meal and perhaps a bottle of wine with family and maybe one or two beers; this is not an environment that perhaps the previous member articulated which is an environment that would purport to create an environment of binge drinking. I've been to several race meetings in my 30-plus years living in rural New Zealand. These are usually small gatherings and this bill has spoken to that very reality by virtue of putting a caveat in it which said that this applies to the small race meetings in these venues that gather no more than three times per year. I mean suffice it to say—and I think we've got to just go over this—this is another slow decline or degradation of rural New Zealand. This is not just an environment you give a whole lot of country people an excuse to drink. This is a simple reality that people go to rural New Zealand events. Somebody in the country happens to be horse racing why shouldn't they enjoy in a licensed environment the ability to share one or two beers with a few friends and drink?Hon Member: They can.MARK CAMERON: No not in this instance they can't and this is the point. This is the point. This creates an environment—I'm sorry to the member over there. I'm not sure if she actually lives in a rural community like I do but it is a reality that without BYO a lot of these people and their patrons don't attend. And in the free marketplace of ideas and debate which is this House I'm sorry to the member on the other side of the House. You've actually got it fundamentally wrong. This bill seeks to balance that reality. The ACT Party does support that rationale. And to the previous member of the ACT Party that spoke this evening New Zealanders are becoming more conscious of alcohol and the potential harm and abuse that it can cause in urban and rural New Zealand. That notwithstanding New Zealanders are now much more cognisant of it. We see routinely young people more cognisant of the damage that's happening to themselves and their surrounding persons and community. We maintain this is a balanced view. It balances up the wellbeing of small rural communities and those that go to race meetings and the potentiality for any harm. We support this legislation. Thanks very much.
Swarbrick ChlöeCHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green—Auckland Central): E te Māngai tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. I am glad to be able to take a short call on this bill tonight—Simeon Brown: We're all merry—a very merry Christmas!CHLÖE SWARBRICK: —you're feeling very merry about it Simeon Brown—and part of the reason for that is actually just to address the actual content of the legislation which pertains to the ability to bring your own not as the previous speaker Simon Court was referring to with regard to sale and supply. It is of course an amendment to the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act but it does not enable more sale and supply at the place that these horse racing events are occurring; it enables people to bring their own alcohol.So in a nutshell as was already expressed by the member for Nelson very ably in canvassing the select committee process here a licensing regime for events like this already exists. And it was really fascinating just listening to the contribution before and some of the heckling that was going back and forth. The speaker prior to me Simon Court was saying that people should be able to make a mistake and the same member who is now heckling was saying that that's a revolutionary notion.We were also hearing from the speaker prior about the equivalence between alcohol and cannabis. So let's talk about those equivalences because if we were to take the same logically consistent approach to cannabis as we do to alcohol for example—as was proposed in the Cannabis Legalisation and Control Bill—we would be looking at placing far more restrictions on the way that we currently offer the sale and supply of alcohol in this country. I'd ask the member heckling before Simeon Brown whether he's comfortable with those 120000 New Zealanders who made the mistake of personally possessing cannabis—Simeon Brown: Where's the member's consistency?CHLÖE SWARBRICK: —who went on to get convictions since the 1980s. The consistency Simeon Brown has been laid out for you many times before including when I offered to meet with you about this many times which is that there is a spectrum of approaches that we can take to substances in this country whether they be alcohol or tobacco or cannabis.Mr Speaker if I may we have heard wide-ranging debate on the equivalence of cannabis prior from other speakers and I think that it's really important that we do address this because we are talking about consistency of approaches to drug-harm reduction. Alcohol of course is the drug which has the highest amount of macro harm in this country. A quarter of New Zealanders who engage in drinking do so to harmful ends.DEPUTY SPEAKER: And let's just do it in the context of the bill which other speakers have done.CHLÖE SWARBRICK: Yes and so have I Mr Speaker. A licensing regime already exists—DEPUTY SPEAKER: No you haven't.CHLÖE SWARBRICK: This bill is therefore not necessary.
White HelenHELEN WHITE (Labour): Thank you. It's a pleasure to take a call on this matter and it's my first call on a conscience vote. I thought very very carefully about this bill and I wasn't at all decided at the beginning because things do pull in different directions. I'd probably be what Mr Woodhouse called an alcohol watch - type but I'm going to vote in support of the bill and I'd just like to explain why.I think that alcohol does an enormous amount of harm but I have real issues with prohibition of any of these substances and I voted for the legalisation of marijuana because I don't think that these kinds of prohibitions work. I think that Government has a really strong role but it should focus on things where it can—by evidence—actually reduce harm. And I think that's an incredibly important principle in this area. So I want the law to have a light touch. I'm not at all convinced there won't be people who drink to excess at such events and I'm not actually a particular fan of gambling either. But I do appreciate that the problem of alcohol can live in your own home it can live absolutely everywhere and that it's not particularly associated with picnics at racing events.I think that it's really important that we do simplify people's lives as much as we can. So I don't think it's been that hard to make a decision in support of this bill. I think it's important that these local events are encouraged. I don't particularly want bars to make money out of such events and I really do want those events to happen because we have been a little disconnected over the last couple of years and it would be nice if we can be reconnected. I hope that isn't through alcohol but I don't think that that's the purpose of the bill.So I'm going to vote in support of this bill and I'm going to vote in support of Chlöe Swarbrick's bill later when it comes up because I see that bill as very much targeted at where the harm is occurring with alcohol. So I hope that the consistency of that position can be seen by the explanation I've given now. Thank you.
Report of Committee of the Whole House
SpeechREPORT OF COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE HOUSECHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Mr Speaker the committee has considered the Crimes (Child Exploitation Offences) Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment. The committee has also considered the Employment Relations (Extended Time for Personal Grievance for Sexual Harassment) Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment. I move That the report be adopted.Motion agreed to.Report adopted.
Belich CamillaCAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you Madam Chair. It's a pleasure to ask the member in charge of this bill a few questions about it at this committee stage. I was delighted to be part of the select committee that considered this bill and has now reported it back to the House with as the member has said not a great deal of amendment but I would say from the select committee side some valuable clarifications in terms of the way that this bill works.The matters that I really wanted to ask the member in charge about are the key changes that did come up at the Education and Workforce Committee. There's a clear part where it's made very clear that this bill is not retrospective so it only has effect from when it comes into force in relation to the longer period which is obviously 90 days to one year. I wanted to also just note as some members have around the Chamber that this bill would make sexual harassment complaint time frames consistent in the Human Rights Commission jurisdiction and also in the employment relations jurisdiction. I just wanted to ask her about the benefits perhaps of that simplicity in relation to human rights claims and employment relations claims and how that might make the choice of jurisdiction in which to take a sexual harassment claim somewhat simpler by not having that longer period of time in one jurisdiction. I think that in the past it might have been the case that people were perhaps forced to choose the area with the longer jurisdiction.I also wanted to just touch on something that was said by a colleague across the Chamber in relation to the narrow nature of this bill and how the select committee did in fact look at making sure that this only relates to personal grievances for sexual harassment and not other personal grievances. It was something specifically that was looked at in select committee: whether it would be possible to subsequently extend additional claims. Those of us who've practiced in employment law and discrimination law know that often it's not just one grievance that people bring up; it's perhaps a few different grievances. So the work that the select committee did and the clarification which is now in the bill before the committee is to ensure that it is a narrow bill that affects the particular grievance of sexual harassment and the clarity that brings. So I'd be grateful if the member could elucidate some thoughts on that.
White HelenHELEN WHITE (Labour): Madam Chair thank you. I want to take a call on this because I wanted to ask you about quite similar things to my friend across the floor. I want to know a little bit more about what the submitters said in terms of their experience of sexual harassment and that necessary time. In my practice I had often young women who were not necessarily identifying this behaviour as being as problematic as it was and minimising it and that does tend to be a feature of it. I note that people could take such matters under the Human Rights Act. Can you tell me about the actual experiences that you've heard about that prompted—sorry Madam Chair—the experiences that the member Dr Russell heard about that made her consider it appropriate to look at a different time frame and what kinds of people may access this system and particularly the Employment Relations Authority rather than the Human Rights Commission as a result.
Goldsmith PaulHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you Madam Chair and to Deborah Russell who has brought in this bill and to her parents. One can always rely on the support of one's parents hopefully and that's good to know.I suppose the basic question that we had—the National Party supports this bill focused as it is on extending the period for raising personal grievances only to matters which relate to sexual harassment. People might ask Well why do you limit it to 90 days in the first place?" and that is because the vast majority of businesses in this country are small businesses. They have maybe five or three or eight or 12 employees and the uncertainty that's created by having an extended period where general personal grievances can be held and then raised with the employers 11 months later would create a very difficult situation particularly for small businesses. So that's why it's limited to 90 days. But the argument put forward by the member in this bill is that sexual harassment is of a different category because of the impact that it has on those who are affected by it and the fact that it sometimes takes quite a long period of time for people to come to terms with it in so far as they would raise it. There's no question that sexual harassment has been for a very long time and will continue to be and it is currently an issue that can have enormous impact on the lives of workers up and down the country and many of us will have experienced it or would have known people who have experienced it and so we were supportive of that. But the thing that I want to clarify from the member responsible for the bill is this. I want to clarify on the record here in Hansard that it is clearly her intention that it is only personal grievances relating to sexual harassment that will be given this extended period and not other sorts of personal grievances and that by doing this she isn't sort of trying to create some sort of loophole for the system that a personal grievance that may have a tangential element of it that may—well I suppose that's the question I have for her: how is it that she is going to ensure that this isn't used as a way to extend virtually all personal grievances to 12 months which would have a very different impact on the working environment particularly for those small businesses that are affected? So the first question is: can she reassure the committee that it is her intention that this should be focused purely on those matters which are particularly sexual harassment claims?"
Russell DeborahDr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn): Madam Chair if I may I begin with my thanks to Mr Goldsmith. Just a few remarks to start the discussion: the object of this bill is to extend the time in which a person may make a personal grievance claim in respect of sexual harassment from 90 days to a year so it extends the time in which the person can make the claim. The reason for doing this is because of the nature of sexual harassment. It is the sort of offence that can floor a person. It can render them unable to act. It can put them in such a position that they really don't feel capable of facing in this instance their employer so it can take longer than 90 days to have the capacity to make a complaint of sexual harassment. That is why we have asked for the time to be extended to one year. Now the bill has come back from the select committee virtually unchanged in its essence so that central premise of the bill remains as is—the extension from 90 days to a whole year. The changes that members will see in the bill as it has come back from the committee are matters of clarification or matters where they are ensuring that the bill stacks up with other parts of the Employment Relations Act just to make sure that there's no confusion. So the original premise of the bill is unamended by the select committee but there are matters of clarification. However I'm happy to speak to those matters of clarification and the matters where we're linking the bill up with other parts of the Act. But just before I sit down I do just want to take this opportunity to thank the submitters on the bill and the officials from the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment for their extensive knowledge and expertise. My thanks go to the Education and Workforce Committee ably chaired by Marja Lubeck; my intern from Victoria University of Wellington Rowan Selwood-Isles who helped with this bill; and lawyer Zoë Lawton who raised the matter in the first place. And one slightly unusual last thank-you—that's to my dad who rang me today to say Deborah your bill is up today isn't it?" and I said "Well yes it is." He said "I'll be watching." So Dad thank you for your support.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): No pressure!"
Goldsmith PaulEMPLOYMENT RELATIONS (EXTENDED TIME FOR PERSONAL GRIEVANCE FOR SEXUAL HARASSMENT) AMENDMENT BILLIn CommitteeClauses 1 to 8 and the ScheduleCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members we come now to the Employment Relations (Extended Time for Personal Grievance for Sexual Harassment) Amendment Bill. We begin with the debate on clause 1 with clause 1 being the title of the bill. The question is that clause 1 stand part. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Point of order Madam Chairperson. I move that the debate be heard as one part. Hon Member: One question. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Oh that the question should be considered as one part.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. The question is that clauses 1 to 8 and the Schedule stand part.
SpeechSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Can I thank the member in the chair Ginny Andersen for that. I would just like to put on the record that I do have an excellent recollection; I just don't have a recollection—which is now happily on Hansard—where both of us can agree on what was discussed. Thank you very much.Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.Bill to be reported without amendment.
Crimes (Child Exploitation Offences) Amendment Bill — In Committee
Andersen GinnySIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Look a very quick question. Again I think the member responsible has done a very good bill a good tweak. At the moment there's a lot of discussion broader than this bill around age—18 17 16—for various jurisdictions. I just wonder if the member might like to comment that if there were changes to the likes of—I don't know—the voting age to 16—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): No no.SIMON O'CONNOR: Well actually it is relevant to what—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): No no no—oh unless the member can convince me.SIMON O'CONNOR: Absolutely because in clause 4 new section 131AB Grooming for sexual conduct with young person" states in subclause (1) that "A person aged 18 years or over is liable". The question following is whether or not we see change to ages such as the voting age—will that change consequently? It is a stretch at one level Madam Chair I'd acknowledge but actually it is just trying to get a bit of an indication of whether the member would see some wider changes. CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Yeah yeah thank you. Before I go on thank you for that. I think it's on the margins but if the member in charge of the bill wishes to reply then it is up to her.GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour—Hutt South): Well I probably would say that if the member had been paying attention in committee he might have known the answer to that but I recall that we were having quite a good discussion around what we wanted to capture and where to set those ages. So the idea would be that we didn't want to capture essentially—and this was after I remember Louisa Wall's bill where we discussed the same issue—young people exchanging nude photographs with each other which occurs quite frequently so I'm told. If you had everything at 16 you would then be potentially criminalising that. There was a discussion I remember that we wanted to set the bar where there was a clear difference. If someone over 18 was having an ongoing communication with someone under 16 and there was sexual content then those would be the grounds or the sphere to take a look at whether there was inappropriate conduct going on in that space. So that was my recollection of that discussion as to where to set those ages and I would not see the voting age having an impact upon that. Maybe the change for lawful sex which is 16—if you wanted to talk about changing that that may have an impact but I couldn't see how the voting age would have an impact upon those ages."
Andersen GinnySIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Thank you very much. I'm happy to take a short call. Can I start if I might by acknowledging the member who is in the chair. Ginny Andersen has done actually a really sterling job of ushering this through. It is I think a good policy intention. Also as she acknowledged it has changed quite a bit and those who look at the bill will see that actually a good part of it has been struck out—but I think it might be a mistake and the member in the chair is welcome to comment on this—but even though a vast majority of the bill has been struck out the core intention remains.So my questions to the member are relatively simple. It's just really seeking an opportunity for her to respond to what this is able to give this particular bill—what's it adding on top of existing legislation because a lot of what we heard was that the likes of the digital harm and harmful communications bill covered a lot of this and other elements of our criminal Acts. I would appreciate it if she would be able to just elaborate a little bit about what this is achieving beyond what we already have within existing legislation. GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour—Hutt South): Thank you Madam Chair. The new section 126B would make it an offence for someone over the age of 18 to digitally communicate with a person under the age of 16 intending to cause harm to the young person or being reckless as to whether the young person is harmed—so it replaces that.In the past in the previous offence that sat in the Crimes Act there was an explicit requirement in the Crimes Act for the perpetrator to travel to and so it basically excluded any ability for online harm to be included and it also made it really difficult for a prosecution to be brought when there was an ongoing relationship with the child and the perpetrator. So if they had not made arrangements to travel to an area but yet there was still sexual grooming occurring that—from police information that was provided to the committee—made it quite difficult to demonstrate before a court of law that there had been sexual grooming. So I think the most significant change that this bill does is it brings both online and in real life into the same space and it removes that requirement for travelling to a point or a place or a park in order for sexual grooming to be deemed to have occurred.
Andersen GinnyGINNY ANDERSEN (Labour—Hutt South): Thank you Madam Chair. I'd like to take a short call just to outline where this bill got to at select committee and also where we've arrived in terms of trying to crystallise the law in this area. The law in terms of particularly child grooming and child sex offences is a complex area. It's one that is carried in a number of different pieces of legislation. What this bill has attempted to achieve is to bring things into one place and to also acknowledge the fact that the grooming of children happens both online and in real life as well and sometimes those two instances can be occurring simultaneously. So in the past we had one offence that sat in the Crimes Act and that required the perpetrator to travel to and to meet up at a designated location in order for it to qualify in the Crimes Act as sexual grooming. There needed to be a travelling to a point which seemed quite antiquated. The other part of legislation was in the digital harms space when there was posting of online content and so what this bill does is it brings together both the online offences and also the in-real-life offences into one space to say that if there are actions from someone over the age of 18 towards someone under the age of 16 that are sexual in their intent and there is harm in that intent and it can be proved before a court of law then that is a simpler way of trying to describe what is going on as sexual grooming. The intent here is to make it more straightforward to bring a prosecution if possible and in saying so it'll always need to be proven in a court of law for that to take place. The submissions we heard on this bill changed the direction of the bill quite significantly. When we heard from those non-governmental organisations who work at the coalface of dealing with child sexual abuse a lot of their comments in the submissions were that the bill needed to change in order to respond to the fact that grooming happened in real life and more often than not from those known to the child—known to the victim. So this bill has taken on board all of those submissions. We have taken advice from officials from the Ministry of Justice and we have also worked collegially across all those members in the committee—who I'd like to thank for their contribution—to arrive at a bill that we hope strengthens the law and hopefully makes our country safer for young people.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that clauses 1 to 4 stand part.
Webb DuncanCRIMES (CHILD EXPLOITATION OFFENCES) AMENDMENT BILLIn CommitteeClauses 1 to 4CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): We come first to the Crimes (Child Exploitation Offences) Amendment Bill and we begin with the debate on clause 1. Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Chief Whip—Labour): Point of order Madam Chairperson. Sorry I didn't want to interrupt but I seek leave for all questions to be taken as one debate. CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. The question is that clauses 1 to 4 stand part.
SpeechHOUSE IN COMMITTEECHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members the House is in committee on the Crimes (Child Exploitation Offences) Amendment Bill and the Employment Relations (Extended Time for Personal Grievance for Sexual Harassment) Amendment Bill.