edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Bidois DanDAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): It's a pleasure to rise and join the chorus of support for the Regulatory Systems (Economic Development) Amendment Bill and the Regulatory Systems (Immigration and Workforce) Amendment Bill. This is a rats and mice bill which has been raised in the House from the other side that amends 24 Acts and associated regulations. It's a beautiful piece of legislation actually really when it comes down to it. When I look at some of the key changes across the 24 legislations a lot of the key phrases is around modernising updating clarifying and removing. These are all good things that aim to—Tim van de Molen: Prudent.DAN BIDOIS: —yes prudent changes that aim to improve the productive capacity of our country and this side of the House is very very supportive of that.Now I couldn't find a bill that began in the year that I was born like my colleague the member for Banks Peninsula but there were some very good things that I could mention—for example the Charitable Trusts Act and the change that we're looking at making there to update the information requirements and modernise the registration process. I think there will be a lot of charities throughout New Zealand and in my rohe of Northcote who will welcome that small but impactful change as a result.Another change is around the Crown Research Institutes Act removing the half-yearly reporting requirements. Not only is this going to save money for the taxpayer but it's going to save the time and associated resources as well.So look that is the kaupapa of why we're here—to streamline to simplify to clarify to remove barriers so we can get economic growth moving. That's what this side of the House is about because it's only through economic growth that we can afford the healthcare and social services and the education that we all want our kids and mokopuna to access. And it is on that basis that I commend this bill to the House.
Weenink VanessaDr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula): I rise in support of both of these bills. I'm looking forward in particular to the Regulatory Systems (Economic Development) Amendment Bill—excuse the time it took to get that out of mouth—coming forward to the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee. As the Minister mentioned there are 24 different amendments and changes to be made through this process. One of the ones that particularly caught my eye was the amendments to the Heavy Engineering Research Levy Act of 1978 mainly because that was the year that I was born but what this does—Dan Bidois: You've let the cat out of the bag!Dr VANESSA WEENINK: It's on Wikipedia—it's out of the way!So this is a very small amendment but very important because what it does is it removes gender-specific pronouns and updates references to customs and updates terminology relating to the presentation of reports to the House of Representatives. So this is changing some of the assumptions about who is involved in heavy engineering in New Zealand. My son Duncan is currently at university studying engineering and whilst he is in the majority of that class there are more women coming through and this is another way that we're showing to the young women of New Zealand that actually science technology engineering and medicine is something that they should get into.So I am looking forward to getting this process done because these are sensible bills that should be well and truly agreed to across the House and I commend the bill to the House.
Unkovich TanyaTANYA UNKOVICH (NZ First): On behalf of New Zealand First I rise to support both of these bills. I'm on the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee so we will be getting the Regulatory Systems (Economic Development) Bill to our committee.Now firstly I wanted to speak very briefly on the Regulatory Systems (Immigration and Workforce) Amendment Bill and to follow on from what the Hon Brooke van Velden was saying about public health and safety and our need to create awareness of some of the issues that are in existence and some of the amendments that need to be made in order to ensure that people are safe in their workplace.One of the things I did during the recess was I went and spoke to a few businesses and was made aware of an organisation that deals with asbestos and diseases that arise out of asbestos. I do feel that it's important that—well it was something that I didn't know a lot of and about and I do feel it's important that by speaking about these bills and there are so many that are being amended here but by speaking about them we're creating awareness for the public of some of the issues that are going on that we may not even know about it. Because it was very difficult to listen to some of the stories that I was hearing of people who were suffering as a result of asbestos. So I just wanted to bring that one up.Also just some of the tweaking that is being done in these bills it may not seem big but actually they are. And just little words like tweaking the definition of notifiable incident" you know it may not be much but it could be a big difference in one particular case. So I just wanted to note that it's important that these repairs and maintenance - type bills are put through.And just very briefly on the Regulatory Systems (Economic Development) Bill New Zealand First we're very committed to cutting red tape and that is why we will always support any bill that removes these compliance burdens and other issues that stop growth. We want to stimulate growth in our economy once again.One of the things about this bill is that it removes the requirement for Crown research institutes to deliver time-consuming and costly half-year reports. So we believe again New Zealand First that we can remove some of this regulatory burden and it will be a more positive flow-on effect for businesses and the wider economy and of course everyday New Zealanders."
Bennett GlenGLEN BENNETT (Labour): What she said Madam Speaker—and a bit more actually. I'm just agreeing with the Minister for Economic Development mostly on this piece of legislation. In many ways it's the rats and mice in terms of dealing with bits and pieces here and there. So it is interesting to listen to what the Minister had to say. Wholeheartedly on this side of the House we're happy to take this to select committee and move it forward.I guess the one challenge is speaking about being a pro-growth Government—and that's aspirational I agree with that. But the doubling exports in 10 years—let's be aspirational but let's actually have a plan and let's actually have investment to make sure that happens. That's the one thing I want to challenge the Minister on.I've been travelling the country over our recess meeting with businesses and economic development agencies and sort of hearing about the challenges and things. One of the things and with this legislation is about how much of what Government does is clunky how clunky the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment system is. So this tidies up a whole lot of stuff.Just again it's been a convention of this House for whoever's in Opposition to support the majority of what is done.So we do support this. But again the challenge is around how we get our systems working correctly so that business community and innovation can thrive. And that is my hope and challenge to the Minister but also to lay out the plan tell us how we're gonna spend money to double exports in 10 years.Just out of curiosity for the nobody who are in the gallery this morning I would like to just share a little bit about some of the things in this legislation because I know that that the nobody who are here—oh sorry there's the security guard. I know I shouldn't mention the galleries—apologies Madam Speaker. So there are things we're going to be mending are things like the Auctioneers Act 2013 the Building Societies Act 1965 the Charities Trusts Act 1957 or we can go all the way back to 1908 to the Industrial and Provident Societies Act. The amazing thing about this legislation is it is so interesting because that piece of legislation in the Regulatory Systems (Economic Development) Amendment Bill does something really important: it removes and replaces by the customers" with—sorry I'll repeat that. It replaces and I quote "by the Customs" with "Customs". So it takes out "the". So it's amazing stuff.This is really powerful legislation but it is important. I agree with the Minister it actually is stuff that we need to do just to clarify and keep moving forward so I commend this bill to the House."
Overseas Investment (Build-to-rent and Similar Rental Developments) Amendment Bill — First Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Overseas Investment (Build-to-rent and Similar Rental Developments) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 102New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 14Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14.Motion agreed to.Bill read a first time.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The question is That the Overseas Investment (Build-to-rent and Similar Rental Developments) Amendment Bill be considered by the Finance and Expenditure Committee.Motion agreed to.Bill referred to the Finance and Expenditure Committee.
Brown SimeonInstruction to the Finance and Expenditure CommitteeHon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Local Government) on behalf of the Minister of Housing: I move That the Overseas Investment (Build-to-rent and Similar Rental Developments) Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 1 November 2024.Motion agreed to.
Bidois DanDAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): Let's speak less and build more. I commend this bill to the House.
Garcia PauloPAULO GARCIA (National—New Lynn): The basis is clear. We need to increase the supply of secure affordable and quality rental developments of which there are very few. The bill will amend the Overseas Investment Act to incentivise to allow a fast-track consenting process to incentivise and get overseas investors to come in and build these rental accommodations. I commend this bill to the House.
Weenink VanessaDr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula): We have a crisis in housing in New Zealand and our Government is using a suite of tools to tackle that crisis. There is no one silver bullet as has been mentioned but build-to-rent is part of the solution. I commend the bill to the House.
Jones ShaneHon SHANE JONES (NZ First): A very short contribution in contrast to the blather that we heard from an earlier speaker. Naturally New Zealand First will support the bill and I want to acknowledge the wisdom rarely seen in the Hon Megan Woods' agreeing to support this bill.We all understand that the housing shortage is an issue. International capital can be deployed. Obviously we need to look after key essential interests that are of value to the broad swathe of the Kiwi population. But we must overcome the inflation and the spectacular explosion of costs driven by Kāinga Ora where it now costs for a bog-standard Kāinga Ora house $6500 whilst $1 million a day is spent to keep people in motels—sadly the majority are the tangata whenua. This will be a contribution to reverse the excesses and the egregious conduct of the last housing Minister. We support the bill.
Court SimonSIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you Madam Speaker. It's so disappointing to hear the Green Party are opposed to building homes for people who might want to rent. Now it wasn't that long ago—in fact a couple of times in the past 10 years—that I've been one of those people queueing up to view a home hoping that I could convince the agent to let me rent it. There were lots of people in the queue—lots of professional people maybe people with a dog. It turned out there were not enough rental homes available for the number of people who want to rent but that doesn't seem to matter to the Green Party. They don't care about renters—that's what we've heard tonight.What this Government is doing by making these changes to the Overseas Investment Act 2005 no less—a piece of legislation which in 2005 probably seemed radical allowing people to send their money to New Zealand to invest it. Through these build-to-rent and similar rental developments we're going to remove barriers to overseas investment in rental property. It's going to allow medium- to large-scale developments—in fact any development over 20 dwellings—to take advantage of this investment opportunity to build homes for Kiwis who want to rent.When I look at some of the commentary from people involved in delivering rental apartments and complexes to their clients to people who want to rent actually it's not just about the social housing element that the Green Party complained we weren't doing enough of—well we certainly are. Actually there are a whole lot of people who come to New Zealand to work on major engineering projects and major corporates. They work in our businesses and when they arrive in a place like Auckland or Wellington or Christchurch or even Napier as I know somebody did just recently or Tauranga as I know an engineering company looking for staff there was nowhere for the people to live. There was nowhere for them to rent. This Government is going to sort this out. I'm very proud to support this bill tonight. I commend it to the House.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Forests (Log Traders and Forestry Advisers Repeal) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.Ayes 102New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 17Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 3.Motion agreed to.Bill read a third time.
Forests (Log Traders and Forestry Advisers Repeal) Amendment Bill — Third Reading
Maipi-Clarke Hana-RawhitiVOTINGCorrectionsHANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE (Te Pāti Māori—Hauraki-Waikato): I seek leave to correct the votes for Te Pāti Māori earlier today.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Can I just get you to repeat that because your mike didn't come on—just for the members.HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE: I seek leave to correct the votes cast for Te Pāti Māori earlier today.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE: The votes for Te Pati Māori on the Forests (Log Traders and Forestry Advisers Repeal) Amendment Bill first reading; the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Scheme Agricultural Obligations) Amendment Bill first reading; and the Sentencing (Reinstating Three Strikes) Amendment Bill first reading and instruction to the Justice Committee should be recorded as three opposed in each case.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The record will be corrected accordingly.Hon Chris Bishop: Hang on was there anyone in the House?HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE: I'm changing it from six to three.Hon Chris Bishop: Yeah but what did you vote when you voted?HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE: Six and I'm changing it to three.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): It's in order.
Butterick MikeMIKE BUTTERICK (National—Wairarapa): Thank you Madam Speaker. I'm thrilled that the member over there—Damien O'Connor—is supporting this bill. That's great news: $400 saved here $300 saved there all savings. As the member over there will know: if you look after the pennies the pounds will take care of themselves. This bill will save unnecessary costs and I'd hope that some of those savings will filter down to forest owners and also to those on the tools providing relief—just like the tax relief this Government's about to provide to hard-working New Zealanders. I commend this bill.
Meager JamesJAMES MEAGER (National—Rangitata): I invite all members to venture to the Riviera of the South" because if you visit PrimePort Timaru you will see logs for Africa. Except they aren't for Africa; they are stuck on shore because bad rules and bad regulations stop things from happening. Red tape green tape insulation tape sellotape whatever kind of tape is jamming up the system it has got to go and that is what this bill does. It is a good bill. Shortly it will be a good Act. Let's get it done."
Redmayne SuzeSUZE REDMAYNE (National—Rangitīkei): Forestry is our fourth-largest exporter. These changes will support the forestry sector to boost export growth and they will help rebuild our economy. I commend this bill to the House.
Anderson MilesMILES ANDERSON (National—Waitaki): Thank you Madam Speaker. Look as a small forestry block owner I'm very pleased to support this bill through the House and I commend it to the House.
Cameron MarkMARK CAMERON (ACT): I enjoy these debates. Thank you very much by the way for the opportunity to speak in this third reading on this piece of legislation and litigate some of the points made by the Green member Hūhana Lyndon and sort of highlight the fact that I think they're sort of Noddy-no-mates in this instance—they're out on a limb. This is a good piece of legislation. I mean they always seem to advocate for the little guy and the little guy in rural New Zealand absolutely loves legislation like this. We would argue it's making life in rural New Zealand a little bit less onerous. I for the life of me can't reconcile a lot of the remarks that seem somewhat contradictory given we are having a debate in this third reading about the premise of the legislation and who it actually helps.The primary industry sector's worth billions of dollars—I think we've all reconciled that. The forestry sector as we sit here today is the fourth-largest one. It is worth billions of dollars and I think you would all agree—and Green members included—that we would like to see as the Government has asserted a doubling of revenue export earnings inside the next decade. Well I make the point: in the absence of this legislation should it not come to pass what's the Greens' vision of the forestry sector?I just want to touch on one point that Hūhana Lyndon did raise about the trust mechanism that would be needed for the sector to self-regulate. Well I'll just make the point—and I think some of the other members may agree with me in this House—I really trust Kiwis. They're bloody good people. They work exceptionally hard in rural New Zealand to make a bread to make a crust to add a bit of coin to their community. For the life of me I cannot reconcile why the Green member who's just sat down resumed her seat wouldn't support that reality. I think her arguments—respectfully to the member—are poor.This is a great piece of legislation. We as a Government campaigned on reducing the red tape for everyday Kiwis. Our colleagues on the left—the Labour Party by virtue of that narrative—they've seen the light; not always but they've certainly seen it here. And this emboldens that outcome. I just want to touch on the remarks from the Hon Peeni Henare when he did highlight that iwi Māori are big investors in this industry. Well go them" is what I say because they are some of the hardest-working people in New Zealand—and how dare we stand in their way? The disestablishment of the registration system that puts a trust model back into the equation to me to the ACT Party to every other party excluding our mates in the Greens who are on a limb is a good thing.Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Because we're principled.MARK CAMERON: Well I would argue that your principles in this instance are flawed. This is great for rural New Zealand. We absolutely support iwi Māori small communities and the foresters that this bill enables. I commend the bill to the House."
Wednesday 28 August 2024 - Volume 777
Victims of Family Violence (Strengthening Legal Protections) Legislation Bill — Second Reading
Thursday 22 August 2024 - Volume 777
Firearms Prohibition Orders Legislation Amendment Bill — Second Reading
Firearms Prohibition Orders Legislation Amendment Bill — In Committee—Part 2
Firearms Prohibition Orders Legislation Amendment Bill — In Committee—Part 1
Firearms Prohibition Orders Legislation Amendment Bill — In Committee—Clauses 1 and 2
Thursday 29 August 2024 - Volume 777
Firearms Prohibition Orders Legislation Amendment Bill — Third Reading
Taxation (Annual Rates for 2024–25 Emergency Response and Remedial Measures) Bill — First Reading
Courts (Remote Participation) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Part 2 and Clauses 1 and 2
VoteARENA WILLIAMS (Assistant Whip—Labour): I move That debate on this question now close.A party vote was called for on the question That debate on this question now close.Ayes 59New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; ACT New Zealand 11; Tana.Noes 57New Zealand National 49; New Zealand First 8.Motion agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb's tabled amendment to delete clause 14 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 48New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Tana.Noes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Amendment not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb's tabled amendment to clause 14 inserting new section 18AA(1)(ca) be agreed to.Amendment not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb's tabled amendment to clause 14 replacing words in new section 18AA(1) be agreed to.Amendment not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb's tabled amendment to clause 14 amending new section 18AA(2) be agreed to.Amendment not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Scott Willis' tabled amendment to clause 14 inserting new section 18AA(4) be agreed to.Amendment not agreed to.Part 2 agreed to.Simon Court: The Ayes have it—let's have a party vote.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): A party vote is called for. Please conduct a party vote.Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): I raise a point of order Mr Chair. You can't be given the vote and call for a party vote. It's well established to be in breach of Standing Orders to call for a vote when the Chair has given you the question.Hon Members: Speaking to the point of order.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): I'll take a little advice on this before I speak to any points. There is a Speakers' ruling that if you've voted for an amendment or for a vote question then you can't call for a party vote.Simon Court: Speaking to the point of order Mr Chair.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Well—Simon Court: I'm not seeking to challenge your ruling.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): So what has been explained to me is the fact that if I've called the vote for the Ayes which the member voted for—you can only ask for a party vote if you disagree with that. But I'll hear your point.SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you Mr Chair. It's a point of order—I seek leave to make a personal explanation.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection.James Meager: Point of order.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Is it a full moon tonight?JAMES MEAGER (National—Rangitata): Point of order Mr Chair. I wondered whether the personal explanation was going to be to do with some of the proxy votes that ACT carried and whether they can call for party votes on behalf of proxies.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Well I'm sorry but leave has been sought and leave has been denied. So we'll carry on.
O'Connor GregHouse resumed.REPORT OF COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE HOUSECHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Madam Speaker the committee has considered the Courts (Remote Participation) Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment. The committee has also further considered the Corrections Amendment Bill and reports it with amendment. The committee has also considered the Firearms Prohibition Orders Legislation Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment. I move That the report be adopted.Motion agreed to.Report adopted.
Abel SteveSTEVE ABEL (Green): I move that debate on this matter be brought to a close.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that debate on this question—[Interruption] Actually I'm sorry—just to point out that's not quite the right words.
Xu-Nan LawrenceDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): I move That debate on this question now close.
McKee NicoleHon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice): Thank you. In answer to the ACT member's question a licenced firearm owner has certain obligations and one of the main obligations is to keep their firearms secured. A question that—Hon Dr Duncan Webb: You can't filibuster your own bill Minister.Hon NICOLE McKEE: I actually think it's quite an important question that he's asked which is: if a person with a firearms prohibition order (FPO) attends at a firearm owner's home and the firearm owner does not know that they have an FPO could their firearms be seized? Now that's going to become an operational issue for New Zealand Police at the time but the reality is if those firearms are not secured at the time that police attend upon the home where the person with an FPO is I would suggest it's more than likely that a firearm would be seized. But the onus would also be on police to determine that that individual knew or was aware that an FPO was placed on the individual that was in their home. Now the same could be said for if a person attended into a retail shop how does the retailer know that the FPO has walked into their premises if they don't know that that person is actually an FPO?So that's going to come down again to the operational manner of New Zealand Police and the investigation as to the knowledge of the other individual—whether they knew that that person had an FPO or not. Now if it's determined that they did know then I think there would be dire consequences for the licensed firearm owner. But we need to make sure that if a person did not have any knowledge that there was an FPO on the person that's come into the premises then there should be a way of police being able to determine that knowledge or not. But if they did know and they had unsecured firearms in their premises then I expect that they would feel the full force of the law.
McKee NicoleHon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice): Thank you Madam Chair. To the member the chair of the Justice Committee you summed it up very very well and also quite correctly especially the point around the fact that the ownership of a property had been removed from the original draft for reasons that you just suggested which is a person may own a property and be actually renting it out to somebody else it does not mean that they should be able to go in there and search for firearms. This is about the person with the firearms prohibition order not their property but the ability for New Zealand Police to be able to search their premises where they occupy and control certain areas. So I may have actually been misrepresenting there in reflection on a person who could be staying in the boarding house that is an associate of a gang member also being searched. That would only occur if they actually had a firearms prohibition order upon them as well. So my apologies for the error in what I suggested there and my thanks to the chair of the Justice Committee for seeking clarification on those points.While I'm on my feet I've just been given some information for the member Arena Williams who'd asked me some questions about the Privacy Act earlier and the collection of information and what happens to that information. I'm advised that the interplay of the Privacy Act in regards to information that is obtained by police when searching and how long that information can be kept is actually already within legislation. Information privacy principle number 9 in the Privacy Act provides that an agency must not keep that information for [any] longer than is required for the purposes for which the information may lawfully be used." So they must get rid of the information if it's no longer required in order for them to make their prosecution."
Hernandez FranciscoFRANCISCO HERNANDEZ (Green): Thank you for giving me my first and probably last call on this bill Madam Chair.CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): You've been very patient I must add.FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ: Ha ha! My contribution might seem a little bit pedantic but I think this is the purpose of this stage of legislation. I'm a bit concerned about new section 18AA(d) search any [vehicles] in which the person is present and any other persons present in the vehicle whom the constable has reasonable grounds to believe are in possession of arms:" and (f) "seize and detain any arms found."I've looked back—and I do appreciate Madam Chair that I'm straying a little bit into Part 1—but Part 1 defines "firearms" but it doesn't define "arms". So are we to take that the definition for "firearms" stands for the arms here? I think that is definitely important to get clarified because otherwise the definition for arms might be overly expansive. For example a baseball bat might in some context be considered arms and then that could be grounds—I mean I know we are talking about firearms here so I think it'd be good to have a little bit more specificity and clarification from the Minister that it is meant "firearms" here.I don't want to ask in scenarios where it is actually meant "firearms". I noticed that the definition covers imitation firearms and any part of a firearm. For example if there was a makeshift firearm and a component of that was a steel pipe or a trigger would that be grounds for activating the provisions for the search under this? It does seem like a little bit of a pedantic contribution but I do want some clarification around whether "arms" does mean firearms and whether the Minister might be open to clarify or to an amendment that kind of explicitly states that it actually does just mean "firearms". Thank you."
Courts (Remote Participation) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Part 1
Courts (Remote Participation) Amendment Bill — Third Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Firearms Prohibition Orders Legislation Amendment Bill be now read a third time.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 48New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Tana.Motion agreed to.Bill read a third time.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday 10 September 2024.The House adjourned at 5.58 p.m.
Brewer CameronCAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour): There is a reason why gang members were campaigning against this Government last year. There is a reason why gang members were campaigning against the ACT Party were campaigning against the National Party and were campaigning against New Zealand First. And now we've got the unedifying sight of Labour Te Pāti Māori and the Greens vying for their votes in 2026. What we are seeing are apologists for gangs. What we are seeing are promoters of gangs protectors of gangs and defenders of gangs. The gangs know that this Government is going to make it easier to take the guns off them and we're going to make it easier to search them. That's exactly what this Firearms Prohibition Orders Legislation Amendment Bill does.Many New Zealanders" was the quote from the Green Party a couple of weeks ago "would rather find themselves down a dark alleyway with a patched gang member than a police officer." Can I give that to you again? For those listening on Truth radio and on Parliament TV "Many New Zealanders would rather find themselves down a dark alley with a patched gang member than a police officer." This is how deluded the Opposition is. This is how deluded they are and this is why they lost so badly at the last election. If they want to go out on a pro-gang mandate in 2026 well this is the beginning of it. They are the apologists for gangs they are the protectors of gangs they are the defenders of gangs and they are the promoters of gangs. I commend the bill to the House."
McLellan TraceyDr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour): Thank you Mr Speaker. I was going to start with proclaiming this to be a little bit of window dressing from the National Party but my colleague Cameron Brewer just stood up and acted out the window dressing so one doesn't really need to spell that out any further. The dramatics and the scraping the bottom of the barrel to make some sort of vacuous point is a little bit silly.But the Firearms Prohibition Orders Legislation Amendment Bill nevertheless is before us in this House today and it is facing its third reading which feels like a bit of a waste of time because let's begin by acknowledging the fact that the existing framework is in place—2021 the previous Government introduced legislation that essentially does this—and it hasn't had enough time to actually bed in properly. We haven't had enough time to evaluate it. We don't know whether it's working or not but never miss an opportunity for the Government to go Let's just pretend we can do something that says we're tough on gangs we're tough on crime." A little bit of window dressing; a little bit of nothing that sounds good but does nothing. All talk no trousers at the end of the day.These orders that are already in place are a critical tool and they do do something. They're a critical tool for the courts to prevent individuals—particularly those involved in criminal activities—from owning or using dangerous firearms. The current legislation we believe is comprehensive. It covers not only firearms but also ammunition. It covers restricted weapons and other related items.To be going through this process now in the third reading to do something that makes it seem even more tough or strengthens it is a little bit silly. We don't need to make the changes. We don't support this piece of legislation. We think it has fish-hooks in it that create dangerous situations that have been well traversed by colleagues on this side of the House. So we do not commend this bill to the House."
Nakhle RimaRIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini): Thank you Mr Speaker. This is the third reading of the Firearms Prohibition Orders Legislation Amendment Bill. It's really sad when we just think that in South Auckland two weeks ago there was a drive-by shooting in Papakura at a gang pad; one month ago a drive-by shooting in Māngere South Auckland at an alleged gang pad; early July a home was shot at in Ōtara South Auckland—the list goes on and that's only in the last month and a half. There's a reason why we're pushing ahead with this bill.Window dressing" is a term that is being thrown around a lot by the Opposition. In the Cambridge Dictionary: "a person or thing that is used to make an activity appear more important or attractive than it really is". That is what the Opposition is saying we're trying to do with this bill but I know what we're trying to do; we're trying to protect families we're trying to protect rangatahi and tamariki. We commend this bill to the House."
Radhakrishnan PriyancaHon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): Thank you Mr Speaker. I tell you what's really sad about this bill is that what we're seeing is a Government that is so divided and wants to sound like they're tough on crime. On the one hand National is trying to strengthen firearms prohibition orders (FPOs). On the other hand the Minister Nicole McKee's name is synonymous with the pro-gun lobby in New Zealand—everyone knows that—and they want to bring back military-style semi-automatic weapons. So which is it? Pick a lane. Just trying to sound tough on crime really isn't cutting it and I think people will start seeing through this pretty quickly.I'll be very quick because my colleagues have traversed the reasons why we on this side oppose this piece of legislation but the two points that I wanted to make really quickly are the fact that it's firstly too soon. FPOs as members opposite have also acknowledged were brought into play in 2021 so whether they need to be strengthened to the level that we're seeing in this proposed legislation remains to be seen. We don't actually have the evidence. There's been no evaluation that has been undertaken of the current legislation let alone knowing whether widening the current police powers to such warrantless and causeless searches is even necessary. So as my colleague Dr Duncan Webb has outlined this is an unnecessary piece of legislation that's occupying the House's time.The second point that he also made very clearly and I just wanted to highlight was the fact that these are warrantless causeless searches that will come into play as a result of this legislation being passed. There is of course the potential to misuse this. It is incredibly broad it is unwarranted it is unnecessary and for all those reasons I do not commend this bill to the House.
Bennett GlenGLEN BENNETT (Labour): Kia ora Mr Speaker. It's interesting to hear the previous National Party member Sam Uffindell speak in the way—Hon Member: More interesting than this!GLEN BENNETT: Gangs are a scourge on our society. Gangs are bad and this side of the House is in complete agreement with that. What's happened today in Christchurch—yeah it's good. But also that doesn't mean that the gang is gone. The gang has been arrested. And that's the thing: for us on this side of the House it's how do we deal with the causes of gangs? How do we deal with the causes of crime?Rima Nakhle: What about the victims?GLEN BENNETT: How do we get tough on the causes on crime? And I hear from the other side What about the victims?" And that is absolutely what we support as well. And we look at this piece of legislation. Is this victim centred? I'm not sure. But when I come from working in restorative justice where it's completely victim focused and victim centred I know a little bit about that and want to make sure whatever we do from this side of the House is around supporting victims which also is dealing with the causes of crime.Now the Firearms Prohibition Orders Legislation Amendment Bill is something that we cannot support—whether it's around the warrantless searches whether it's just around the fact this is the thin end of the wedge in terms of gun reform for us here. We need to look at a bigger picture. How do we change the way we engage not only with criminals not only with gangs but with looking at our young people looking at our rangatahi and looking at the ways that we can actually change the systems.Now what was mentioned before was that we are sympathetic to gang members and I take offence to that because we are not sympathetic at all. We are sympathetic to ensuring that New Zealand is a place where no one finds the need or desire to join a gang. And we are going to work day and night as an Opposition and then as a Government to ensure that we can get tough on the causes of crime.Now we need to look at our gun reforms. We need to look at what we have done and what we are going to do. This isn't it. This legislation isn't going to fix the problem. Therefore we cannot support this bill."
Arbuckle Jamie; O'Connor GregJAMIE ARBUCKLE (NZ First): Thank you Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on the Firearms Prohibition Orders Legislation Amendment Bill. This is another effort by the Government to give the tools to the police that they need to take care of serious crime.New Zealand First fully supports this bill. It's about protecting public safety it's about getting our communities safe it's about stopping violent crime and unlike the Opposition who's trying to protect their voter base—which I must say is getting smaller—it is about restoring law and order. It is about common sense.New Zealand First supports this bill because it strikes the right balance between enhancing public safety and ensuring fairness in its application. The amendment recommended by the Justice Committee improved the bill by focusing its reach on those who it generally poses a risk to without overreaching into the lives of innocent individuals.New Zealand First supports this bill because it is a necessary step in protecting New Zealanders from the threat of gun violence particularly in the context of gang and organised crime. It is a sensible focused and balanced piece of legislation that New Zealand needs. It has contributed to what New Zealand First believes in and I commend this bill to the House.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): Five minutes—Fernando Hernandez.
Meager JamesJAMES MEAGER (National—Rangitata): Thank you Mr Speaker. Time to clear up a bit of confusion because there's been a large amount of confusion on this bill in the House over the past couple of days. The first bit of confusion is I'm confused that members opposite are taking very very long calls because last night they were desperate to shut down debate. They hate the bill so much that they were desperate to shut down debate vote on it through committee stage and see it here for third reading and now here they are speaking at length about how much they continue to dislike the bill. Well members opposite need to change their attitudes and change their minds and support this bill because it is a good bill.Last night we had a history lesson from Arena Williams a history lesson on the firearms prohibition orders—not protection orders; prohibition orders to clear up another bit of confusion. Arena Williams correctly stated that these were introduced by Labour in the last Government. What she forgot to mention was that they were first proposed in 2017 by National. They were put up as members' bills by National voted down by Labour and then surprise surprise as violent gun crime went up as gang membership went up Labour changed their tune and they put in firearms prohibition orders. Now the Green Party also think firearms prohibition orders are a good idea; they just don't like the fact that we are strengthening them.This is a good bill. It will strengthen the protections being put in place by these firearms prohibition orders. The bill strikes the right balance between enhancing public safety and ensuring fair application of the law. I'm not going to criticise the contribution from Dr Duncan Webb. He has a lot of experience in this area as an advocate for people who are subject to these kinds of orders. I'm not going to criticise his lived experience in this area but I am going to criticise his contribution to the House. It is wrong. He needs to change his mind and support the bill. I commend it to the House.
Xu-Nan LawrenceVICTIMS OF FAMILY VIOLENCE (STRENGTHENING LEGAL PROTECTIONS) LEGISLATION BILLSecond ReadingDebate resumed from 28 August.Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you Madam Speaker. I follow on from our previous speaker Kahurangi Carter in speaking to the Victims of Family Violence (Strengthening Legal Protections) Legislation Bill and firstly I would like to echo what the previous speakers have said already which is our gratitude towards both the Hon Ginny Andersen for bringing this bill to the House and then the Hon Paul Goldsmith for carrying this bill on as well as for the fact that we have support from all parties on this particular bill. This bill is incredibly important because it allows us to make further improvements to our court system where victims of family violence are being further abused or are further experiencing trauma as a result of everything they have already been going through in what the commentary on this bill has mentioned as being litigant abuse. In terms of this particular bill there are a number of areas that we wanted to highlight in terms of the fact that it does allow judges to provide this order in order to prevent such litigant abuse that may be used and there are some measures being put in place if a judge is satisfied that it's not going to be done in a way that is going to cause the victims further trauma. There are obviously some concerns around this particularly when it comes to the fact that this may allow for more unrecorded incidents of family violence and domestic and sexual violence. I think this is somewhere that we need to be quite vigilant and keep monitoring and to also keep supporting and keep raising awareness and be proactive in our approaches in preventing such domestic and sexual violence—approaches undertaken by both the previous Minister for prevention of domestic and sexual violence as well as the present Minister. The other couple of areas I wanted to highlight as well are that in this particular case what is really important in this bill is that it will help victims to regain trust in our court system knowing that the court system is sympathetic and it is also really really important that we do take a very victim-centred approach when we are looking at victims of family violence. One of the things that I would like to see is this and this is carrying on from other bills that we have been speaking on in the House as well particularly when it comes to the Courts (Remote Participation) Amendment Bill. I think that the whole idea here is that we want to make our court system and our justice system one that is approachable and that is welcoming. So I would also like to see things further improve in the context of what has been released in the Turuki! Turuki! report particularly around having access to something like a Whānau Ora navigator which may be able to help victims of family violence to also navigate the court system in a way that means that they are able to go through that process in dignity. I think that this bill is pretty straightforward and it has got everyone's support. The Green Party supports this bill and we commend this bill to the House.
Brewer CameronCAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour): It's with great pleasure that I stand here in support of the Victims of Family Violence (Strengthening Legal Protections) Legislation Bill. This reflects our victim-centric approach from this Government that has somehow stretched out and won support across the aisle. So I am very pleased that here on the last day of our sitting this winter that again we have got support across the House. It also shows people listening to Truth Radio or watching Parliament TV they can see just how much we as a Government are focused on not just a victim-centric approach but on law and order and on cracking down on law and order.It gives me great pleasure to support this bill. This bill will of course make amendments that strengthen the court's ability to identify and to respond to instances where an individual attempts to use court systems and family proceedings to harass annoy harm or psychologically abuse people.There were not a lot of submissions but in the submissions that we got there were some key themes that I just want to touch on. Submitters said that litigation abuse is a frequently occurring family violence issue. There are a number of comments relating to justice rights. Approximately ¼ of submitters raised concerns about the bill's impact on children. Submitters also expressed concern that the provision could harm victims and submitters also highlighted the need for systemic change.So the Justice Committee recommended refinements to the bill to ensure the new provision better recognises the impact of litigation abuse on victims. In response to submitters' concerns the revised bill now focuses on the harm to the targeted party rather than focusing on this behaviour being in the abuse of the court's process and uses wording to further signal the serious nature of litigation abuse while still ensuring protections and access to victims.To wind up the bill will make amendments that will strengthen the court's ability to identify and respond to instances where an individual's attempt to use the court system in family proceedings to harass annoy harm or psychologically abuse people is limited and victims are protected. I finish as I began: the focus of our approach as a Government is not on defending the offender or protecting the offender but protecting the victim. I commend the bill to the House.