edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Brown SimeonSIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you very much Madam Deputy Speaker. It's a pleasure to take a very short call on the Courts Matters Bill and Tribunals Powers and Procedures Legislation Bill which we were debating a short while ago in this House. National supports these bills through their second reading and I just want to touch on a few of the elements of these bills. They are cognate bills as we know which we will be supporting. One of the key purposes that they do is they amend the Court Security Act 1999 and some of the key things that they do there is they extend the powers of court security officers to deny entry to remove and detain people who possess illegal drugs or who act threateningly or abusively or who commit minor crimes on court premises.I think this is an important part of these pieces of legislation because it gives some clarity and it gives some particular powers to court security officers to exercise those powers when they are in the court and it allows them to have the discretion not only when the court is in hearing but even when they're not directed to take action against people who may come into the courts with different paraphernalia or with drugs and to ensure that those matters are dealt with appropriately and quickly. It also just changes the definition of the court and clarifies what the court is and where they are able to exercise those powers.I think these changes are important to ensure that we can allow the process of justice to run smoothly and for the courts to be respected and the role that they play in our society to be respected. So I think those changes while small and technical will make a big difference to ensure that they make a big difference to the way our courts operate. So I'm not going to spend much longer on these pieces of legislation. They do change a large number of other pieces of legislation. I understand one of my other colleagues will be touching on other changes that this legislation does make and I commend these bills to the House. Thank you.
Tolley AnneCOURTS MATTERS BILLTRIBUNALS POWERS AND PROCEDURES LEGISLATION BILLSecond ReadingsDebate resumed from 3 July.DEPUTY SPEAKER: When we were last debating this Golriz Ghahraman had the floor and she has 4 minutes remaining to speak should she wish to do so. Apparently she does not. So I call Simeon Brown.
Mitchell MarkHon MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. It's a pleasure to take a call on this the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2). Can I acknowledge the Minister and the comments that he made in terms of the importance of having cross-party support and working together on a bill like this. It's largely minor changes that are being made but they are important ones in many cases. Can I also acknowledge Brett Hudson who has taken the lead for us and has done an outstanding job in making sure that there is close attention to detail and that the work is done for this bill; so can I acknowledge him as well.There are just two areas that I wanted to comment on. The Minister has already drawn our attention to one of them: the Parole Act 2002. I think this was a very good change because it did bring into alignment the treatment of interim supervision orders and also extended supervision orders. So with the insertion of that new clause clause 60A it now allows an arrest without warrant to be made for a breach of an interim supervision order. I think this has provided much-needed clarity. It's now going to be much easier to be administered and so I just congratulate the Governance and Administration Committee on the good work that was done around this piece of legislation.Also the Animal Welfare Act 1999—this is a really interesting one. This actually relates a lot to the work that the Department of Conservation do in their war against predators and the fact that it wasn't clear whether or not a trap—because often now they do use remote devices in terms of being able to monitor and watch the traps that they set. They get indications when they might have captured the predator that they're targeting or that they're after but it wasn't clear in the legislation as to whether or not—because there is a requirement within a 12-hour period of the sun rising that they have to get out and they actually have to check that trap manually and physically when in fact they might have had an electronic ability to be able to do that.With the amendment that's being made under the Animal Welfare Act it means now that within 24 hours after an animal is captured if the person monitors the trap with a reliable electronic monitoring system that promptly communicates details of any animal captured in the trap then they are entitled to use and they can use that system to be able to monitor and make sure that those traps are actually checked regularly rather—and you can understand the actual logistical challenge—than manually having to get out into vast areas of conservation land and trying to check these traps. So that was another very good amendment to one of these Acts.I'm very happy to have taken a call in support of this bill. Thank you.
Wall LouisaLOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe Madam Chair. I actually wanted to make a contribution as a member of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee about Supplementary Order Paper 37 of my colleague the Hon Ron Mark because actually the whole philosophy of military justice has been about discipline and it's also been about guilt actually—the fact that you were charged meant you were guilty. So the philosophy has been completely flicked on its head. The alignment between our criminal justice system and our military justice system now says that actually you don't have to be disciplined and follow the orders of somebody if it's not right. I want to focus on that because I think the history of military justice has been about people doing what they're being told to do as opposed to being citizens. The alignment now between our military justice and our criminal justice system in fact says within the sphere of justice actually you have rights of citizenship over and above your role as a person in the military. So within the military system once you are charged you're guilty. In the criminal justice system actually you're innocent until proven guilty. The relevance of the Supplementary Order Paper is to be charged now are you actually mentally responsible for your actions? That should actually always be the first step in a criminal justice process. We should determine whether or not you had the capacity to take responsibility for your actions. The only other piece of information I wanted to highlight to the committee was that there were no recommended changes to this piece of legislation at second reading and in fact it has been as a response to the Courts Matters Bill—which is going through a parallel process in the Justice Committee—which has then led to the Minister of Defence presenting this Supplementary Order Paper to the House.So like everybody else I commend the Supplementary Order Paper and I look forward to the passage through this committee stage so we can have the third reading soon. Kia Ora.Part 3 agreed to.Schedule 1 agreed to.Schedule 2 agreed to.Schedule 3 agreed to.Clause 1 agreed to.Clause 2 agreed to.House resumed.The Chairperson reported the Social Security Legislation Rewrite Bill with amendment and that the committee had divided it into the Social Security Bill the Residential Care and Disability Support Services Bill and the Artificial Limb Service Bill and reported the Military Justice Legislation Amendment Bill with amendment.Report adopted.
Webb DuncanDr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you Madam Chair. As Mark Mitchell has noted this Military Justice Legislation Amendment Bill has been in the House for some time. It is an important but not contentious piece of legislation. Part 3 amends the Court Martial Appeals Act in some important ways and one of those important ways with Supplementary Order Paper 37 of course is dealing with fitness to stand trial. Fitness to stand trial is of course an important question and we can see that one of those questions that is dealt with in the amendments to that Act is the order of the inquiries because if someone is found unfit to stand trial then clearly that is a significant mark against them. Therefore the fact of the matter is that the inquiry is first to be under that Supplementary Order Paper whether or not the factors giving rise to the offence exist. That's a great improvement and as we know that is aligning it with the Courts Matters Bill so that we know before we start inquiring in trial whether someone is fit to stand trial; we know what the facts of the offence are.The other things that this does which are really important in amending the Act are to reinforce the rights of victims and essentially to put victims in military justice on the same footing as those in the civilian sphere. That is very very important indeed. Whilst it is the case that many victims of military offences are military personnel themselves that's not to belittle at all the trauma that may flow from that. There may perhaps have been a bit of a sense that in the military you need to harden up a bit. Well that's not the case. So these steps are very very important. They sit alongside some other matters that were heard about in the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee including the Operation RESPECT programme which of course is aiming at reducing sexual violence in particular in the military and in the armed forces. This is part of that programme to make sure that victims' rights are respected and that there is fairness and equality for military members alongside their civilian peers including knowing what's going on when for example prisoners are released they're on bail when they escape or indeed if they die in custody so that there is a real sense—so that's an excellent move because the matter of principle is that in so far as it is possible these two things should run in parallel. The other important change is onus of proof because onus of proof in respect of a defence needs to be the same as in any other part of a criminal prosecution and what this does is confirm that. So in respect of this Part 3 amending the Act we can see that it's achieving that in respect of appeals as well. It's absolutely right that it's fair and in step with a civilian system. As I've said it is an important piece of legislation and it's important to note that the submitters here—the National Council of Women of New Zealand the New Zealand Law Society—were largely in support of it with some technical observations. It is an excellent piece of legislation. I commend the Minister Mr Mark's work and I commend this bill to the committee.
Mitchell MarkPart 3 Amendments to Court Martial Appeals Act 1953Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): Thank you Madam Chair. It's a pleasure to be able to take a call on this the Military Justice Legislation Amendment Bill. This is a very important bill. Can I acknowledge the Minister in the chair the Hon Ron Mark for his support in making sure that this bill remained in the House and saw a safe passage through the House.I only intend to take a short call but I think one of the points I really wanted to talk to was around victims' rights because we know our New Zealand Defence Force—whether it be army air force or navy—is quite a small family in terms of we're not talking about big numbers; we're talking about 5000 or 6000 people. So there's often less than a degree of separation and actually ensuring that victims are looked after and are given the rights and the care that they need through the process is actually fundamentally very important. So for the Military Justice Legislation Amendment Bill to be able to align and make sure that both the military justice system and our civilian criminal justice system are fully aligned and in particular that victims are afforded the same rights and recognised as being treated the same in both systems was a small part but a very important part of the overall legislation in terms of what this bill is trying to effect.This bill will ensure that victims of specified offences have rights and protections in the military justice system that are equivalent to those that they would receive in the civilian system. The bill also repeals a provision of the Armed Forces Discipline Act 1971 that places the onus of proof for the defence on a specific charge on to the accused. This is very important too. Although fundamentally our court system should always operate in the sense that the prosecution has to be able to prove an accused person's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt—that's a cornerstone of our justice system—there are times too when actually in relation to specific charges there is also an onus on the accused to be able to present a certain level of evidence in relation to certain cases.So I'd just finally like to wrap up and say that again this is a very good bill. I'm very pleased and would like to acknowledge that the Minister has seen fit to continue to support it. It was a bill that was introduced in our last term and I will just finish my contribution by highlighting again—and maybe the Minister will take a call on this—the importance of victims' rights within this system as well. Thank you Madam Chair.
Henare PeeniHon PEENI HENARE (Associate Minister for Social Development) on behalf of the Minister for Social Development: I move Supplementary Order Paper 26 dividing the bill.
Williams PotoCHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Any other members to take calls? Members the question is that the Minister's amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 25—[Interruption]—sorry. Apologies—[Interruption]—Order! Order! I'm actually conducting a vote here.
Williams Poto; Upston LouisePart 8 Other provisionsCHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): The debate is on clauses 395 to 438 and schedule 10 Consequential amendments".Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Yet again we have seen a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) tabled very late in the piece by the Minister for Social Development and I would be expecting a very full explanation as to why this SOP has been dropped on the committee. As I've said in earlier contributions a significant SOP 500 pages was tabled just before this committee stage commenced. So I will be expecting a full explanation from the Minister in the chair Peeni Henare as to SOP 49 and confirmation that there are absolutely zero policy changes in this as that's been the Minister's line all along. And I'm waiting for that explanation."
VoteTUESDAY 24 JULY 2018(continued on Wednesday 25 July 2018)SOCIAL SECURITY LEGISLATION REWRITE BILLIn CommitteeDebate resumed.Part 6 Administration (continued)CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): When we were last considering this bill we were debating Part 6. Matt King had the call and he has 4 minutes and 25 seconds remaining should he wish to take it. I guess he doesn't. Is anyone else wanting to take a call on Part 6?The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 35 in the name of the Hon Louise Upston to the proposed amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 25 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment to the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 56New Zealand National 56.Noes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Amendment to the amendments not agreed to.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 25 in the name of the Hon Carmel Sepuloni to Part 6 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Noes 56New Zealand National 56.Amendments agreed to.The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Jo Hayes to clause 280 be agreed to:in the heading to clause 280 after Exception during epidemic" insert "and disaster (man-made and act of god)"A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 56New Zealand National 56.Noes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Amendment not agreed to.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 51 in the name of the Hon Carmel Sepuloni to the proposed amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 25 in her name be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments to the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Noes 56New Zealand National 56.Amendments to amendments agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That Part 6 as amended be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Noes 56New Zealand National 56.Part 6 as amended agreed to.Part 7 Reviews and appealsCHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): This is the debate on clauses 369 to 394 and schedule 7 "Benefits review committees"; schedule 8 "Appeal authority"; and schedule 9 "Medical board".The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 25 in the name of the Hon Carmel Sepuloni to Part 7 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Noes 56New Zealand National 56.Amendments agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That Part 7 as amended be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Noes 56New Zealand National 56.Part 7 as amended agreed to."
Tuesday 3 July 2018 - Volume 730
Taxation (Annual Rates for 2018-19 Modernising Tax Administration and Remedial Matters) Bill — First Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2018-19 Modernising Tax Administration and Remedial Matters) Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Noes 56New Zealand National 56.Motion agreed to.Bill read a first time. Bill referred to the Finance and Expenditure Committee.
8. Student Loans—Borrowing LimitsDr LIZ CRAIG (Labour) to the Minister of EducationStudent Loans—Borrowing Limits8. Dr LIZ CRAIG (Labour) to the Minister of Education: What action is the coalition Government taking to address cost barriers faced for New Zealanders studying medicine dentistry optometry or veterinary science?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Yesterday I announced that the student loan borrowing limit for those students in long undergraduate programmes such as medicine will be extended to a maximum of 10 equivalent full-time student (EFTS) of study. This means that those students who have been unable to complete their medical degrees because they have reached the student loan cap will now be able to finish their studies in a timely manner and get into the workforce.Dr Liz Craig: What response has he seen to this announcement?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The announcement has been very well received. The New Zealand Medical Students' Association has said the announcement is a huge relief for many of our students who can now focus on completing their medical degrees and serving their communities." while the New Zealand Union of Students' Associations has said "This doesn't just benefit students but also benefits the health and wellbeing of New Zealand."Dr Liz Craig: When will this change come into effect?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The Government was intending to make this change in next year's Budget to come into force at the beginning of 2020; however after listening to feedback we have brought that forward. This change will now take effect from 1 January 2019."
6. KiwiBuild—Eligibility and CostsSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki) to the Minister of Housing and Urban DevelopmentKiwiBuild—Eligibility and Costs6. SIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki) to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: Does he stand by his statement in relation to KiwiBuild that the Government will build high quality modest affordable starter homes"?Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Housing and Urban Development): Yes. For example the homes that we're building at McLennan will cost only just over half the average Auckland house price and will be affordable to more than half of Auckland families. At 99 to 112 square metres for a three bedroom home they are modest starter homes compared to the average new home built today which is 172 square metres. I'm confident that these will be quality homes that Kiwi families will enjoy for generations. Simon O'Connor: Does he agree with Auckland Council's chief economist that the "KiwiBuild scheme is likely to be out of reach for half of Auckland's households" and that such a household would need to be making over $105000 a year and would have to have a 20 percent deposit?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: It's not new that houses in Auckland are out of reach for many Kiwi families. That is why we have the KiwiBuild policy to build homes for less than $650000. It's why we are intervening in a failed market. Simon O'Connor: In light of that does he agree with the Acting Prime Minister's statement around affordability that it would be desirable to have house prices drop to five times the annual living wage; and if so does this mean that people who already own their houses will see their equity collapse?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I agree with the Acting Prime Minister when he said that it would be good to reduce the median multiple which currently stands at around 10 in Auckland and 11 in Queenstown—that is the median price of a house in those markets is in the case of Auckland 10 times the median household income. I agree with the Acting Prime Minister when he said it would be good to reduce that multiple to five.Simon O'Connor: Was the KiwiBuild eligibility criteria on the Cabinet agenda on Monday?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Yes.Simon O'Connor: If it was on the agenda on Monday how does he reconcile this with the Acting Prime Minister's suggestion that there was no discussion of it it was among a tranche of papers that went through automatically and had not been on the agenda?SPEAKER: Order! I don't think there's any responsibility for—oh no answer the question; it's probably easier than having the argument.Hon PHIL TWYFORD: There was no discussion of the item because it was adopted by Cabinet unanimously. All the discussion was had at Cabinet committee.Simon O'Connor: So how can the New Zealand public have confidence in Ministers who seem to routinely slip things past their colleagues in unexamined undiscussed heaps of paper?SPEAKER: No no—far too much irony in that."
5. Housing—Ownership Policies and ReportsMARJA LUBECK (Labour) to the Minister of Housing and Urban DevelopmentHousing—Ownership Policies and Reports5. MARJA LUBECK (Labour) to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: What recent reports has he seen on the increasing number of New Zealand families locked out of home ownership?Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Housing and Urban Development): A report by Auckland Council's chief economist released yesterday highlights the lack of affordable homes for families on middle incomes—people who were traditionally homeowners. The chief economist notes that these middle-income groups have been increasingly locked out of homeownership. The same report shows that families with a household income over $95000 which is the majority of Auckland families will be able to afford the first KiwiBuild homes which are expected to cost $579000. I also note that outside Auckland and Queenstown the price cap is $500000 making those homes affordable for most families.Marja Lubeck: Which families have experienced the worst decline in homeownership?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Data from the household economic survey shows that the biggest fall in homeownership has been experienced by families who were traditionally homeowners in New Zealand—that is young families on middle incomes with children. The income range from about $80000 to $189000 comprises half of all families with children and has experienced the most severe decline in homeownership in recent years. Even couples such as teachers tradies and office workers whose combined household income may be in the range of $150000 struggle to afford a home.Marja Lubeck: What is the Government's policy towards families on lower incomes who can't afford to buy?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Homeownership is out of reach for too many people. That's why we are improving renting by modernising the tenancy laws implementing insulation and heating standards and building more State houses. Also there are families who would like to but cannot afford a KiwiBuild home and that's why we are developing a shared equity scheme that will make it easier for so many families to own their own home.
Peters Winston; Williams PotoRt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Acting Prime Minister): I move an extension of time because we like a good joke over here and that's been the most comedic half-hour I've heard for a long long time.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): That's very generous of the honourable member but I don't think we'll be taking up that offer.
Woods MeganHon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Energy and Resources): Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. I'm very happy to take a short call on this bill and to follow the member Chris Penk who certainly did take the bait that was laid out for him. Look I would like to congratulate my colleague the Hon Aupito William Sio for bringing this bill back to the House in the state that we are seeing it today. It is a vastly improved bill than when he took over as the incoming Minister. What we have is an important piece of legislation and what we are doing is updating and modernising—Chris Bishop: He's had literally nothing to do with it.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! [Interruption] Order! Mr Bishop—[Interruption] Order! I cannot hear the member delivering her speech.Chris Bishop: You're not missing much.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Mr Bishop settle.Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. This is important. This is where over 30000 New Zealanders accessed justice last year—Greg O'Connor: A new rival arrived in the House.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Mr O'Connor you are not helping.Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The previous Government had allowed a backlog to build up within our tribunal system and it had not adequately resourced them. So I congratulate my colleague the Hon Aupito William Sio for actually making the necessary changes.It is clear to see that some of these needed updating. When we have a look at one of the bodies that—[Interruption]ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! Order! [Interruption] Order! I apologise to the Minister—[Interruption] Order! Now when I ask for order I expect it straight away. I cannot hear the member delivering the speech. I will ask for members to interject if it is witty and relevant but not for a general barrage across the House.Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker and I understand this is important legislation but it's good to see what lights the Opposition's fire—that this is what brings them down to the House tonight to get them so riled up in terms of that. But as I was saying before I was so inadequately interrupted by the Opposition actually it was obviously time for some modernisation for some of the tribunals on our book. I would like—given the member sitting next to me Kris Faafoi—to make special mention of the Birdlings Flat Land Titles Commissioner who is being disestablished under this bill. He was telling me that this was a favourite place of his as a child to go surfcasting. So a proud Cantabrian could not stand by and watch that.This is important legislation. These are the tribunals where ordinary New Zealanders do access justice. We need to make sure that we do adequately resource them and we don't allow the kind of backlogs to build up. When we hear the submissions such as Mr Rodger Haines QC who came to the Justice Committee and said For the past three years a workload of now five full-time decision-makers has been carried out by one person i.e. the present chairperson." we can see that this was just another area of neglect from the previous Government. Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker."
Kanongata'a-Suisuiki AnahilaANAHILA KANONGATA'A-SUISUIKI (Labour): Kia orana e Te Māngai. It's an absolute privilege to take the last call on the second reading of the Military Justice Legislation Amendment Bill.We've been in the House now for a while and we've heard members speak on how collegial it's been and how we can all work together in this House. There is one thing that I'd like to bring to members' attention which is that the men and women—in fact all genders—of the military of the Defence Force take the Oath of Allegiance just like we do just like members of Parliament do but the difference is that the men and women and all genders who are in the armed forces are there to lay their lives on the line to defend this nation we call Aotearoa New Zealand. So it is only fair that a justice system is provided to ensure that all behaviours conducted in the forces are fair and integral in terms of the men and women who have chosen to give their service their lives if they have to to defend this country. Like all the other members of this House I want to acknowledge the honour that those members of our society have chosen to take on our behalf.I believe that the amendments actually make sense and I believe that these amendments are exactly about this: they are about justice and they are about fairness of behaviours expected of everybody that serves our country. I'm not a member of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee but I am a person who subs into most committees.I want to conclude by reading a caution from the National Council of Women of New Zealand where they said that although they agree with the bill they have reservations about possible conflicts of interest …" and if the select committee can take note of the last paragraph of the select committee evidence provided by the National Council of Women of New Zealand. Other than that all members have actually covered most points and I'd like to commend this bill to the House. Malo.Bill read a second time."
Military Justice Legislation Amendment Bill — Second Reading
Wall LouisaLOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. Tēnā koutou katoa. It's my pleasure to speak on this the second reading of the Military Justice Legislation Amendment Bill as a member of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee. I just want to highlight one aspect of this bill actually and it's the matter of principle that this Government believes that the military justice system should grant to our armed forces personnel the same rights enjoyed by civilians in the criminal justice system. So in wondering why we would state that which is the intention of this piece of legislation I found some international research and it is by Arne Willy Dahl from the University of Oslo. It was published in 2011 and it's called International trends in Military Justice.The interesting thing in all of this actually stems from a European Court of Human Rights case called Findlay v the United Kingdom dated 25 February 1997. Essentially it was a challenge to the independence and impartiality of the court martial system and a challenge to the UK Army Act of 1955. In this particular case—and I think we all should know where the history of philosophies come from and changes come from. But in this case the governing officer who played a central role actually decided what the charges were. He convened the court martial. He appointed the members and the prosecuting and defending officers. All military personnel were subordinate to his rank as convening officer. And so this whole human rights case in the European Court of Human Rights was about conflicts of interest power and the military actually having a system that did not uphold this individual's rights as a civilian. So if he'd gone through a civilian court—obviously we'd take care of conflicts of interest. We make sure that people are adequately represented. There's fairness and justice in the system.And so the reason I highlight that is because it seems that all the changes in the military justice system aligning the military justice system—and it actually has gone through several iterations. From courts martial convened for individual cases standing military courts specialised civilian courts general civilian courts in peacetime to now which is kind of like this intersection between a stand-alone military and our—what I would call a normal and ordinary court system but the coming together of those to uphold these principles which is that people deserve the right to be heard to be represented in a fair and just way. But also central to everything we do now is putting victims at the centre of a criminal justice system where we're innocent until we're proven guilty. And so this piece of legislation that has gone through the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee actually made no recommendations but with a caveat that there does have to be a cross-reference between our legislation and the Courts Matters Bill that is going through this Parliament at the same time so there may be a Supplementary Order Paper introduced by the Minister at committee stage. We're fully aware of it as a committee. So I won't speak any longer other than to commend the bill to the House. Kia ora.
Tolley AnneMILITARY JUSTICE LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILLSecond ReadingDebate resumed from 28 June.DEPUTY SPEAKER: When the House was considering the Military Justice Legislation Amendment Bill last time Chris Penk had the call. He has nine minutes and 45 seconds remaining to speak.
Webb DuncanDr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. It gives me great pleasure to be the last speaker in this first reading. I don't want to go too much into the detail of the bill but I do want to touch on the matter of—Hon Members: Oh do it. Come on!Dr DUNCAN WEBB: —I expected that kind of response. I want to talk about the principle underlying this bill because it's a very important one. It's really a principle about freedom of navigation on the high seas. What this bill does is it essentially curtails freedom of navigation. It says Yes everyone has freedom of navigation on the high seas except in certain instances." I want to sound a word of caution because freedom of navigation has been a pretty fundamental element of international law since it was first propounded by Hugo Grotius in 1609. The idea that trading nations can freely ply the seas is absolutely pivotal. What we have here is a recognition that trafficking in drugs along with some other serious maritime offences is an incursion into that.The bill as we've heard Minister Mark explain has some constraints—the fact that a flag State must give consent for a vessel to be boarded—but nevertheless what we have is an extension of sovereignty of one State on to the high seas. I'm sure that when this matter comes before the courts as it inevitably will that will be viewed with caution that any extension of a power to encroach on this freedom of the high seas will be restrictively interpreted.This is the interface between both the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and the United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances. It's recognised in the UN convention that firstly there is freedom on the high seas but that that is for peaceful purposes—it is for navigation for trade—and that no State can exercise sovereignty on the high seas. However that convention itself recognises that there are limits on that in terms of piracy and also in terms of narcotics.So really all I want to do in this final contribution on this bill is to say that this is an important piece of legislation. We do absolutely want to confer these powers on our customs officers in cooperation with other States but let us also recognise the very high value of these ancient principles of navigation. On that basis I commend this bill to the House.Bill read a first time. Bill referred to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee."
Maritime Powers Extension Bill — First Reading (continued)
Tinetti JanJAN TINETTI (Labour): Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. Not being on the select committee where this bill is eventually heading to—and it sounds like it will eventually be heading there after tonight—I had to do a bit of research around this bill more so than normal for me. So I thought what is this bill about? Is it just a little bill the Maritime Powers Extension Bill? But then when I did my research I found that actually this is a really really important bill that we're putting through here tonight in its first reading because as we've heard here from every member that has spoken so far we are a country that is in the midst of a drug epidemic.Why I think it's so important for me personally is that we've seen this—more so probably than in a lot of places—in the middle of Tauranga. Everywhere I go in Tauranga one of the main issues that people talk to me about is the rise in the use of methamphetamine. People are really really concerned about the access to the boats the drugs coming in from the boats and the spreading of that use of those particular drugs throughout the community. This was really brought home to us last year in November when there was a $20 million cocaine seizure. That was horrific for our community to actually hear that that was so close to being distributed throughout our community and had that happened it would've caused significant destruction within our community.We need to see and we are seeing a commitment from all sides of the House here to attack this issue from multiple angles and that's what's so exciting: to see that people are on board with actually attacking this. The powers contained in this bill will make it harder to get illicit drugs into New Zealand. We need to do whatever we can to protect vulnerable people who use the drug. So it's about not just stopping the illicit drugs getting in but also protecting those vulnerable people and on that I will commend this bill to the House.
Maiden Statement — Dan Bidois
Maritime Powers Extension Bill — First Reading
Luxton JoJO LUXTON (Labour): I just have to say Mr King that it's so not like you to be all full of doom and gloom. It's a bit depressing.Hon Member: Disappointing.JO LUXTON: Yeah. But anyway thanks for the opportunity to speak on the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Amendment Bill. I want to acknowledge the Hon David Parker for his work on this. I think it's important to acknowledge the Environment Committee which I am not a part of but it sounds like it's been a process that they have worked well together on to get to this point.So what the purpose of this bill is is just to allow the Minister to recover from an applicant the costs incurred in relation to a board of inquiry appointed under the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act 2012. Whilst this is a minor and technical amendment it's actually a really important amendment to this bill because without this amendment it will cost taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars. As Minister Salesa mentioned it is about fairness. It's about the taxpayer not having to foot the bill for this but it also allows the opportunity for those that are applicants of a publicly notifiable marine consent to seek an estimate of costs likely to be recovered by the Minister; so it makes it fair for everybody all round.As Angie Warren-Clark said this Government values the marine environment and is committed to a sustainable approach to the management of our seas and sea life. This is something that I think is important to all New Zealanders now and moving into the future. So when we have people that want to do something to the seabed that may be disruptive in some way it is really important that we have these boards of inquiry to look at the potential implications or things that may happen because of it. So it's important that the taxpayer doesn't foot this bill—that it is a user-pays system when it comes to this. So I'm not going to go on for any longer. I just wish to say I commend this bill to the House.Bill read a second time.
Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Amendment Bill — Second Reading
Warren-Clark AngieANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. I rise and—let's face it—this speech is going to be probably about as long as the name of this bill. It's a pleasure to take a short call on this second reading of the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Amendment Bill (EEZ) which amends the principal Act of the same name in 2012 which was in turn amended by the Resource Legislation Amendment Act in 2017 to include basically a board of inquiry for marine consents. We all have heard that there has been an error that was left off and there's been no cost recovery. So quite simply this EEZ amendment bill adopts a user-pays system.Now it's been a real pleasure to listen across the House. We've all accepted except for the member Maureen Pugh that there has been error across both sides and I'd actually like to acknowledge Dr—Tim van de Molen: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I draw your attention to Speakers' ruling 59/1 with regards to the member Deborah Russell who interjected on the previous speaker. I didn't want to interrupt her speech at that time. She interjected while she was on her feet moving about the Chamber and was encouraged by those members around her at that time. I'd just like to I guess commend Maureen Pugh for her professionalism in continuing through that. I remind members that that is actually disorderly and would encourage through you Mr Assistant Speaker reflection on that Speakers' ruling.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Thank you for bringing that to my attention. I didn't witness Dr Russell on her feet. I did hear the interjection but the member is correct. I'll take some advice on what the correct course of action will be. I thank the member for his intervention.ANGIE WARREN-CLARK: I would just finally like to make the comment that Dr Deborah Russell made a comment with real humility and acknowledged that there was a different way that we did these things and perhaps we can do better. Actually I think that mea culpa on her part was probably a little bit overblown. She did a really good job chairing and I think we across the floor can acknowledge that.Finally I would just say in commending this bill to the House that our Government values our marine environment. We have committed to a genuinely sustainable approach to the management of our seas and sea life. Let's get on with it. I commend this bill to the House.
Russell Deborah; Rurawhe AdrianDr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn): Mr Assistant Speaker we're talking about the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Amendment Bill but to be honest I think we should really call it the Well We Could Have Done That Better Bill" because actually it's kind of characterised it all along. To be honest it did start from a drafting mistake in the big set of legislation that went through the Resource Management Act in the previous Parliament and drafting errors do occur in complex legislation—there's no doubt about it—but well we could have done that better. Then it came back into the House so that we could fix it and as part of that process we had a very truncated select committee process. Now in part that was driven by the report-back dates in part by Parliament's sitting schedule and because of that very truncated process as a committee led by me we elected not to hear submissions on the bill. Frankly looking back I'm going "Urgh! Well we could have done that better." We asked for some advice from the Law Society but we had to report back to the House before it came in and again if perhaps if we'd waited—well we could have done that better. I think the fact is that there are a lot of lessons to be learnt in this. It is only a minor matter but we could have done it better. And although I'm saying "we" at some stage of this I'm going to say "I could have done this better in terms of the leadership of the select committee." A week or two ago we heard Speaker Trevor Mallard in this House talking about how when he got advice from officials it was advice but if he signed his name on it then it was his decision. I signed my name to that in the select committee so actually I could have done that better.But so be it. We've got it in front of the House now back in the House. We think we're going to get it right this time. We're certainly working on it hard—all of us together—to get it right. And here I'd like to especially acknowledge the words that the Hon Scott Simpson spoke earlier this evening about really the hard way we worked together to try to get it right even though we could have got it better. I think it augurs well for the process that we'll be going through talking about climate change legislation later this year. As a committee we do work well together we try to get it right and we're hoping that we won't be coming back on that one saying we could have got it better. I'd also like to acknowledge the deputy chair Mr Todd Muller who is great in terms of advice and actually helping that committee to work effectively.So we could have got that better; could have done it better. What we're trying to do now is get it right. We're doing our best on that and we want to get it right because it is about our environment which is critical to us. We're doing the best we can.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): A five-minute call—I call Maureen Pugh."
Sage EugenieHon EUGENIE SAGE (Minister of Conservation): Tēnā koe Mr Assistant Speaker. Thank you. Similarly I will not be taking very much time to speak on this bill the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Amendment Bill. It's a very slender bill: three pages with an explanatory note.It's all very well to say that it was always intended that this happen but the former Opposition opposed the Resource Legislation Amendment Bill quite strongly for being quite shambolic in the way it went through select committee and in the House under the former environment Minister the Hon Dr Nick Smith because of the scale of the changes and the fact that they weren't integrated. So this is yet another example of the Government having to fix up some problems created by the former administration.So of course it makes sense that the cost of applications for marine consents which are publicly notified under the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act (EEZ) should be borne by the applicant because unless this bill goes through those costs are borne by the Crown. When applicants are seeking a private benefit—Hon Scott Simpson: A very sanctimonious hill the Minister's climbing.Hon EUGENIE SAGE: —for the use of public space it's appropriate that they pay for those costs. Now Mr Simpson's saying it's a sanctimonious bill—Hon Scott Simpson: No it's a sanctimonious hill that the Minister's climbing.Hon EUGENIE SAGE: The issue is that we get this fix to the legislation. Mr Simpson obviously isn't interested in listening at all with the number of his injections.So this is moving to ensuring that under the EEZ Act we have the same regime as under the Resource Management Act: that the costs of the boards of inquiry are recovered from the applicant. So it is a very short and simple bill. The sooner it goes through the better because already there is one application which is before the Environmental Protection Authority and the Crown will have to bear some of the costs of that. So it's a good fix and it should proceed.