edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Nash StuartHon STUART NASH (Minister of Police): What I would say to that is in the ordinary course of events no I do not think that's appropriate whatsoever. My understanding—and I worked very closely with the communities up on the East Coast which is obviously Kiri's electorate—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): No actually it's mine.Hon STUART NASH: Sorry it's where she's based. It is the Chair's electorate; I apologise Madam Chair. It is the Chair's electorate but it is where Kiritapu Allan is based and I work closely with all the communities there. The Chair is probably well aware—and I don't mean to bring you into it Madam Chair—that there were conversations that were being had with every single stakeholder—from the city council from the New Zealand Police from iwi from the National Emergency Management Agency from Civil Defence—around these really vulnerable communities. We're talking about communities which have a high portion of elderly a high portion of Māori and of which there was really one road in and one road out. So there was no reason for anyone apart from those who live in that community to traverse these roads under alert level 4. But what I can say also is that these were not road blocks and I don't mean to enter into an argument around semantics because there is big difference between a checkpoint and a roadblock and people did not have to stop at these checkpoints. I have been made aware—and it is certainly my understanding—that if people did not want to stop at these checkpoints then they did not have to stop at these checkpoints. I'm also aware that there's been a little bit of disingenuous dialogue around what might have happened and what didn't happen and when we dig a little bit deeper we find that the truth is a little bit more innocent than maybe the story. But certainly my experience in terms of the checkpoints on the coast is that they were very well run. They were run in conjunction with the police and they were done to keep our community safe keeping in mind as mentioned that one of the missions of the New Zealand Police service is to deliver a more responsive community focused police service and obviously the overall mission is to be the safest country.
SpeechBRETT HUDSON (National): Surely if that were the case Minister Stuart Nash then Police or the Government could have been very clear to the public that although they wanted certain things to be done there was a limit to the lawful power of enforcement at the time and that being the case as you've said everyone would've just complied. But if we ended up with a situation where there was a threat of enforcement that the public didn't know possibly had a questionable legal basis then we had the potential for them to be operating under a State which is coercing them through threat at least in part rather than a lawful basis.I have another set of questions around COVID but I'm aware that there's another member too. I'm also worried of course that we will run out of time.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): You've got seven minutes.BRETT HUDSON: Well I'll just if I may briefly then. The community checkpoints Minister: do you Minister think it is appropriate for members of the public to stop traffic on roads that are otherwise open and to require personal information to be disclosed to them?
Nash StuartHon STUART NASH (Minister of Police): Everyone I have spoken to either those in my bubble—you know my wife and my kids—or those in the community that I've spoken to I understand took their direction not so much from the New Zealand Police but from what the Prime Minister was talking about was educating was elucidating every single day around what was expected of Kiwis. I would hesitate to believe that people thought that the risk of not doing this meant that they were going to be thrown into jail or they were going to be prosecuted. I firmly believe that people were under the impression that we were doing this because we needed to do it to keep our country safe to stop people from dying as opposed to any other reason.I am yet to receive personally—and my office might have so I can't confirm 100 percent—any sort of feedback that people only complied because they believed the price of non-compliance was prosecution. I do think the reason people complied is because they understood if we complied as a community—in our team of 5 million as the Prime Minister has talked about—and only if we all complied as a nation would we get on top of this. I think the expression at the time that we used was flattening the curve and I think we've done that. But I would like to say to the member that certainly I have not had any feedback whatsoever that the reason people complied is due to the threat of prosecution or punitive action on behalf of the New Zealand Police.
SpeechBRETT HUDSON (National): Does the Minister Stuart Nash then—for a view which I'll specify is not a legal opinion—agree that the threat of an enforcement is in itself coercive on the public? If they believe the power exists does that itself create some level of coercion upon them? To that extent then does he think it appropriate that the public could be allowed to believe that they were subject to a certain set of conditions with enforcement powers to go along with that if in fact the full extent of those powers was either unlawful or lawfully questionable?
Nash StuartHon STUART NASH (Minister of Police): As mentioned and I think has been traversed in this Chamber the police did seek Crown Law advice just to make sure they got it right. This situation we find ourselves in is new for everyone including the New Zealand Police service. That is why under the direction of Commissioner Mike Bush in the very early days and Andy Coster since then they have really taken an educational and softly softly approach to this.So I think you'll find in the first couple of days to which the member alludes there were no arrests for COVID-19 breaches. It was very much an educational approach as police worked to determine their role in enforcing the level 4 lockdown but also ensuring that New Zealanders knew where they stood what their obligations were and the role that police were going to play in policing the whole alert level 4 framework.Brett Hudson: Madam Chair?CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Just for Marama we're just letting that roll; I will make sure you get an opportunity.Marama Davidson: Sorry thank you.
SpeechBRETT HUDSON (National): Regrettably I don't have the ability to elongate my questions as a punishment for the Minister elongating his answers. Just a couple of points to that—first is his note about the operational guidance being released publicly. Well to the best of my knowledge certainly the operational guidance after the health notice on 3 April which clarified conditions and powers was released publicly—to the best of my knowledge the guidance prior to that was not and certainly wasn't at the time.So my questions also go to: has the Minister seen or is aware of the content of the advice police received prior to that clarifying health notice of 3 April? Was the police's approach to education first in any way driven or impacted by a view—which was expressed in an email even though we haven't seen the contents—that there were questions about whether they had the lawful authority to enforce fully the conditions that had been given publicly about the lockdown conditions; and how compromised were they given the public were told that they had to operate under certain conditions and yet the police clearly had some reservations as to whether or not they had the lawful power at the time—we're talking the first few days—to actually enforce to the standard or the set of conditions that were set down?
Nash StuartHon STUART NASH (Minister of Police): I haven't seen that particular email though of course I've heard of it. One thing I would say is police were very clear to get Crown Law advice on the powers they had but I would also say that police I believe have been very transparent and they published their operational direction. People knew exactly what they were doing because they put it out there and I think they have taken a very proactive response. One of their mission statements is to deliver a more responsive community-focused police service so they haven't gone out and arrested people and then asked questions later. What they have done is they have spoken to people; they've take an educational approach. Where necessary they've issued written warnings which is a new initiative under the COVID-19 response framework. Where it has been required they have taken a punitive approach and they have made a number of arrests and sent people forward for prosecution but by and large it is an educational working with the community as opposed to going in there with a really big hammer and you know arresting and then asking questions later. So I would like to say that I do believe that their operational response to COVID has been very appropriate to the circumstances within which we find ourselves.Certainly in the early stages where we were all trying to figure out what level 4 meant for all of us there had been persistent offenders—we acknowledge that—but over 99 percent of Kiwis have bought into the reasons for doing why we are doing and behind that. But it also plays into the Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern's narrative of be kind" and I think gone are the days where the police do bang down the door arrest people and ask questions later. They've flipped that culture around and they're working really hard with our communities to actually ensure that people are educated.When they don't get it—let's be honest. Now there was a guy that was prosecuted because he had been warned six times. That's when they do need to you know bring down the heavy hand of the law on these people. But just to wrap up I think the police have been very transparent in the operational approach to dealing with COVID-19 issues."
SpeechBRETT HUDSON (National): Thank you Madam Chair. Let me actually begin by endorsing what the Minister Stuart Nash just said then about our thanks to the men and women who serve in the New Zealand Police whether they are uniformed or sworn officers or indeed those that support them in the many functions that enable them to do the job of making New Zealand a safer place.We are time limited—we'll start with COVID-19 if we may. So my question begins: has the Minister seen reports regarding emails within the New Zealand Police that questioned at the very early stages of the lockdown—we're talking the sort of first few days—whether or not police had the lawful powers for the full range of enforcement measures that were put out publicly along with the public conditions of the lockdown?
Nash StuartHon STUART NASH (Minister of Police): The mission of the New Zealand Police is for New Zealand to be the safest country in the world. To enable this police need to be highly visible in the community concentrating on areas that are known to cause the most harm to those at risk. Police had the highest level of trust and confidence in April 2019 since the Citizens' Satisfaction Survey began with over 80 percent of people having high or very high trust and confidence in the New Zealand Police service. Since October 2017 2100 new constables have graduated from the Royal New Zealand Police College more than meeting the 1800 coalition agreement target. In March 2020 police achieved 10000 full-time equivalent constables for the first time ever. This means that total numbers taking into account attrition have increased by 1244 since June 2017. For some of these new recruits their first job could have been to attend the Tasman fires the March 15 terror attacks the Whakaari / White Island eruption and now the response to COVID-19. The 105 number was launched which has been a pivotal tool during COVID-19 for reporting breaches and during COVID-19 police have taken an education-first approach and where necessary they have taken enforcement action either through warnings or arrests for any serious or persistent breaches.The last thing I would say is I would like to thank outgoing commissioner former commissioner Mike Bush who I think did a fantastic job and has a very strong legacy in the New Zealand Police service. He took over the service at a point where Dame Margaret Bazley had written a report a couple of years earlier that highlighted that Police was a rather dysfunctional organisation with a culture that needed changing and thanks to former commissioner Mike Bush's six-year tenure he turned that culture around to the point where Dame Margaret Bazley wrote a follow-up report 10 years later and said that Police had pretty much addressed every single recommendation she'd made 10 years earlier. I would like to thank Mike for his fantastic service and his dedication and his vision for the New Zealand Police service. I'd also like to welcome new police commissioner Andrew Coster who is a man with energy and vision presence and drive and I think he will continue the innovative and positive way and culture and drive that cultural change that Mike certainly had the New Zealand Police service on. Finally I would also just like to say thank you very much to all the men and women of the New Zealand Police service for the job they do to keep us safe 24/7. The vast majority of us have no idea of the work they do the things they see and the hours they work to keep us safe and because of that I think we are close to achieving the New Zealand Police's mission of being the safest country. Thank you Madam Chair.
SpeechRt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister of Foreign Affairs): Can I say to Jami-Lee Ross that when this matter first happened I said from the outset that it's illogical it's inconceivable for us not to find out what why and when this virus emerged particularly the when it emerged because the other matter will take inquiry. But when the first cases happened what did they do about it? A quarter of a million people have lost their lives and millions more will also lose their lives and the whole world's economy has been set on its head at a massive loss now to so many economies and people will be dying as a consequence of famine and starvation unless we can get help to them. It's absolutely illogical and inconceivable that any country would not want to—in cooperation with the rest of the world in their effort to defeat COVID-19—find out how it happened in the first place. I've made it very clear that that's what our position is. Maybe it's not the priority now because you're trying to get the COVID-19 plague out of our lives but there will come a time—and soon—when we need to have that inquiry independently reliably sourced and accountable to the rest of the world. The second thing of course is that when you hear certain comments from diplomats—and I heard that comment in Australia and I was asked on Australian TV what I thought. My response was well in a long experience of a relationship with the Chinese Government in Beijing they have promised me they don't behave that way—so there's probably a disconnect between Beijing and what was going on in that country. If you say We should be trusted." our responsibility is to say "Yeah we trust you. We believe you." and that's why when a thing like that happens—when a local diplomat gets out of line—we're not going to have our policy determined by that. The people who will determine our foreign policy are the people of this country and dare I say it every member of Parliament in this House.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Thank you Minister. Thank you members for the participation in that. We'll move now to Police."
SpeechRt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister of Foreign Affairs): Well Madam Chair you're right except that we work so closely together because it's a paradox in this country—a lot of people don't support the Defence Force until there's a humanitarian crisis. They wonder how it is when you have this disaster in Tonga—we're over there first. You have a disaster in Vanuatu—we're there first. All around the Pacific when you have a disaster our military are there first. Well they support that and the answer is well you've got to support them in other circumstances as well. We have a massive flood down the West Coast—who's down there? Our armed forces for goodness sake. I want to say yes I did have some say in Ron Mark being the Minister.The second thing is he did inherit a defence white paper but he rewrote it and one of the problems was he saw the defence white paper with $20 billion of expenditure and not $1 assigned. We were alarmed in the extreme and thought this cannot be and then we looked at property for example and realised the defence property had been run down for 20 years not just National's fault but the previous Labour Government's as well—just run down for 20 years. Are we addressing it? Right here right now.For example on Ōhākea's upgrade—are we addressing that? Yes right here and right now. So can I just say we looked at all those things we inherited but like that fast-food ad in America where the woman gets up and she looks at the product and says Well where's the beef?" that's what we said when we inherited their white paper and we did something about it.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I'm just very conscious that I've still got people wanting to talk on foreign affairs and we still have the Police Vote yet. We are now in the 20 minutes allocated for Police unless the Government's happy to continue as the Minister did yesterday. With extra time we would need leave to be sought for that to happen."
Mitchell MarkHon MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): Thank you very much Madam Chair. To the Minister—so can I just firstly congratulate the Minister on his appointment or any involvement he had in appointing his defence Minister who of course is from his own party. It was an astute decision because his defence Minister immediately picked up the outgoing Government's defence white paper and capability paper and has been fundamentally implementing that which of course has allowed you to stay in a very strong position in terms of especially a focus on the Pacific. And in your opening comments you referred specifically to aid and support that's required in the Pacific which of course we support wholeheartedly on this side of the House.But one thing that has been a little bit concerning in terms of an observation is that the defence Minister that started off with a hiss and a roar in implementing our defence white paper and capability papers is beginning to look a bit shaky around investment into defence state. Of course you can't ask 40 squadron to go out and do the work that they do unless of course they're seeing investment into the property and the equipment too which is being maintained to be able to—[Interruption]CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I'm sorry. I'm sorry to interrupt the member. I was just observing the general spraying around of the disinfectant by the Hon Gerry Brownlee.Hon MARK MITCHELL: And the fastidious attention to detail by the Deputy Leader of the House—absolutely.Hon Member: He was fogging.Hon MARK MITCHELL: Yeah ha ha! So I guess my question to the Minister would be: is he confident—and maybe it's very good timing in the sense that he just indicated to the House that he's got a meeting with the finance Minister in an hour. Is he confident that the defence Minister is going to continue to be able to make the investment required into our New Zealand defence forces rather than starting to kick the can down the road which appears to be that can's getting kicked a little too much?CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): This is a defence question under the guise of foreign affairs.
SpeechRt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister of Foreign Affairs): That's a fascinating question. In an hour and a quarter I'm going to have a paper before the Minister of Finance getting ready to make sure we get our share of the action so to speak.Simon O'Connor: Do you want me to proofread it first?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I'm happy to show you later on but not today. But the point is that we're closing to the Budget next Thursday—it's the eleventh hour. But you asked a very good question.One of our problems is that a lot of the countries where we're trying to get people—take India for example; it's in lockdown right? Also when we had a good hard look at India this is this huge economy population 1.4 billion and you won't believe how few people we have in that country. Now this cannot be and I suppose our job is to persuade the Minister of Finance—and dare I say it others—that you cannot get a trade outcome and result particularly now when the business people can't travel if you don't have feet and qualified people on the ground. Me personally I'd look around at a lot of retired diplomats who've still got enough youth in them and enough drive and get them into the field as fast as possible. But I've got to wait and see the level of my success or otherwise—whilst being seriously confident I might add—coming into next Thursday's Budget.Hon Mark Mitchell: Madam Chair.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Are you moving to police? Hon Mark Mitchell: No.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Are we still going? OK.
O'Connor SimonSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Thank you again. A quick question and it's really around capacity. The Minister of Foreign Affairs has rightly mentioned the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) and this also applies in Defence amongst other places and Customs—that we need arguably more people be it to support MFAT here or in overseas posts. Does the Minister have any sense of how quickly we can get that capacity? The nature of the COVID crisis is it's happening now and so for argument's sake having the capacity built in a year or two years is arguably too late. So to the extent that the Minister is willing or can how quickly can we have the extra MFAT capacity? When we think in the area of Defence I know we've got the contracts for the P-8s. You're still discussing the heavy lift capacities. Obviously some of the frigates are still being upgraded. How quickly can we get those online? Is there any way? Have discussions been had to get that capacity here now? So both for MFAT and to the extent the Minister's willing the Defence side as well.
SpeechRt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister of Foreign Affairs): Can I thank Mr Mitchell for his question. In fact it's a fascinating one because sea transport is the major utility for our trade movements our cargo movements. When he says How much damage has been done?" we'd all love to know because it's a moveable feast and every day as other countries change their policies and go to a lower level—or some have gone to a higher level—of lockdown as it happens every day it depends on what that export in that country or our export that's going to that country is doing. I suppose the Minister for Trade and Export Growth and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) are working flat out trying to examine and work out what it all means. But it's as I say a seriously moveable feast and it depends also funnily enough on ensuring that a lot of pre-planning forward planning takes place to make sure that shipments that do happen happen in an organised way and that when they do arrive they'll land.It also depends on serious things like inspections—such as for example the apple industry. We do not want inspections when the cargo reaches America. That's so dangerous. If anything goes wrong you've wasted the whole cargo. We're doing our best to get the inspections to take place in this country and if we can change the rules to get the American inspections into this country then the product going offshore has already been inspected first and we'll have secured that aspect of the export.So again it's really critical that anybody out there in the business world who's got a concern makes contact with MFAT and makes contact with the other departments and lets us know as happened in the case of the people concerned with the apple and other industries who have made contact. It enables us to ensure that no stone's left unturned to prepare the way because after all clearing the way for our recovery is the job of Government and as I say the possibility—highly likely—that the Government and the civil service don't know everything depends on the wise interaction with the commercial community out there and the exporters and importers out there. I invite them to make their concerns known on a regular basis any concern they have so that we address their concerns with the greatest of speed.But you know we're an export-dependent nation here since 1882. From the first movement of frozen meat from this country our destiny was set. This has been a terrible upset at the moment but I believe—sincerely believe not wishfully—that if we get our response right and reactions right and learn from it every day even though we all make mistakes our recovery will be quicker than people think."
Mitchell MarkHon MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): Thank you Madam Chair. Can I also just support the comments and acknowledge the Ministers responsible for trade and defence and their departments and ministries that have responded throughout the COVID-19 state of emergency.But my question is to the Minister of Foreign Affairs. I'm just wondering we are a trading nation we are a small island nation down the bottom of the world so our supply chain is always a challenge for us in terms of being able to remain competitive and connected and as would be expected most trade at the moment is being done on the sea and not by air. I was wondering whether or not the Minister could give a report to the committee in terms of what work and analysis is being done in terms of how much damage is being done to the existing supply chain in terms of goods coming into the country and exports leaving and how long it's going to take us to try and recover back to some normal form of trade; and also in the long term how we're situated in terms of being able to get the goods specially to New Zealand when you've seen especially with seaborne freight carriers a consolidation to the mega-ships and the mega-carriers to try and cut costs in what's an extremely competitive market and how that's going to impact and affect New Zealand and us as a nation moving forward.
SpeechRt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister of Foreign Affairs): I thank the member for her question. Well I don't think I was. I'd have to check with my staff but I have no recollection of any invitation to the Epidemic Response Committee. Mind you I have to observe that had I been invited over those six weeks that committee would not have had just only two Māoris turn up in front of it they'd have had three.
Allan KiritapuKIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour): I hadn't intended on taking a call this afternoon but listening to the Minister of Foreign Affairs just walk through a couple of numbers just prior if I understand or if I heard correctly I think I heard that there was the movement of 130000 people—80000 of which were New Zealanders 50000 of which were foreign nationals—and this all occurred whilst the country was under alert level 4 in what I heard the Minister coin the eye of the COVID storm". Noting the work of the ministry at that time and I guess the gravity of both our diplomatic relationships or the necessity of those diplomatic relationships to enable the travel of those passengers and the significance of the relationships that he must have relied on I guess my question is: was the Minister asked to talk through that response to the Epidemic Response Committee that is charged with undertaking the inquiry into the Government's COVID-19 response?"
SpeechRt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister of Foreign Affairs): I thank the member for raising those questions one of which of course is exercising the minds of everybody in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade because in the end the moment the face of COVID-19 was known countries like Singapore and dare I say it Korea said We need food security. We need to ensure that we have arrangements that will hold up." Singapore was very serious about that. We had conversations with them with Korea and also with countries like for example the United Arab Emirates—where again there is a country that is actually very modern very visionary and that understands the need for food security and of course they're looking with new eyes at New Zealand because we represent with our brand food security.So it was a dual initiative both on their part and ours. That said of course we have to be dependent upon trade and look at every opportunity. We do not for example think that we should be hindered from trade with for example Taiwan. Why would we be particularly when their COVID-19 response is the world's leading response? But at the same time you've got to have a look at your existing markets whilst trying to develop new ones. But I suppose the lesson for us is diversification diversification diversification—add value here as much as we can and deal with the economies like for example Singapore and Korea that have as I say in the COVID crisis looked at us with new eyes.It's an ill wind that doesn't blow some country or somebody some good and if there is a benefit from COVID-19 it's the lessons that they and we are mutually learning."
Brownlee GerryHon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): That's very encouraging I must say from the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Yet I suppose at some point we may even look at areas like Queenstown being considered isolation bubbles particularly for those crucial months of July through to September. But look there's also been the issue raised of having another look at some of our trading areas. There's no question at the moment that the trade that we are doing with China and the volumes that are going there are very very valuable and we'd want to keep that up but I think the Minister in recent times has talked about a new arrangement with other countries that are part of the Asian bloc. I'm wondering exactly what is the work programme that might see some of that come to fruition and how do you do that particularly the engagement with Taiwan without putting at risk some of the trade we currently have with China?
Brownlee GerryHon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): Can I just say to the Minister of Foreign Affairs right from the outset that the way in which his staff have responded to the various concerns that have gone through electorate offices about New Zealanders stranded overseas—or for that matter foreign nationals stranded in the homes of New Zealanders—over the last couple of weeks has been outstanding. I'd hope that he passes that on to them—I'm sure he will. They've done a very good job. It's been I think interesting to listen to the Minister's speech because there's an instant recognition that everything that we're supposed to be reviewing today—what happened over that 2018/19 year—now changes completely. I was very pleased to hear the way in which the Minister so forthrightly expressed the desire to see that change. What I am interested in though is how that's being manifest at the moment. So while it's easy to sort of say yes we've got to go and do this and do this and do this it does take a lot of work it does take a lot of effort and it requires that there are people back home here who are focusing in on that. Particularly I'm interested to know what have been the discussions—albeit electronically or perhaps by telephone or Skype or Zoom or whatever might have been the medium—between the New Zealand Government and the Australian Government on the idea of the trans-Tasman bubble and to get some sort of sense as to what sort of process has to be gone through before there might be a timeline emerge for that coming. While we've got this sort of free exchange that's going on I won't sit down just yet but just ask what does he see the prospects for the likes of the Realm countries becoming part of that bubble as well because quite clearly as he has just outlined the threats to their economies are just extraordinary compared to our own.
O'Connor SimonSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): It's actually Madam Chair an expression of the diplomatic nature on this side and the courtesies we extend one another. I'd like to thank the Minister of Foreign Affairs obviously first and foremost for the work that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) is doing. Actually we had a very good briefing in the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee today just giving us some good indications of what they are looking towards in the Pacific.With MFAT in particular it would be good if the Minister would take some time to talk a little bit more specifically around who we will be working with—in particular engagement I would hope with our traditional allies including the United States; Australia of course; and the Pacific; and the likes of the United Kingdom. It's very clear that crises of this nature across the globe provide an opportunity for geopolitical mischief—I might phrase it as—from different countries. One thing I certainly don't want to see is our Pacific Island neighbours in particular—but it also applies to New Zealand—in a weaker position which allows us to be if you will manipulated to see various assets or forms of support taken away by other foreign powers which are not in our interests. So I'd be keen for the Minister to elaborate a little bit more about how he sees his ministry working more closely with our traditional allies.I think it would also be quite helpful to understand if he can what this extra support into the Pacific is going to look like. It clearly seems to me that a lot more money and resources is going to be needed. I will acknowledge the Pacific reset has seen more money and the Minister is welcome to if you will contradict or challenge me but I don't think that's going to be enough moving forward. What's that monetary support going to look like? What's that structural support going to look like? We've heard as well from officials that there could well be if you will democratic challenges developing into the Pacific as well and that's going to have implications not only of how this Parliament supports it and MFAT supports it but perhaps too even to our defence forces or our police forces. I know that Police strictly sits outside external affairs but what sort of thought has been put into that space there? It's going to have a cost implication.I might just leave it there. Actually one last point and then I'll sit down and defer. I think Madam Chair your idea of the quicker questions is helpful. It would be interesting to know too Minister if you can outside of aid tell us what it looks like in terms of our agreements. Our committee looked very closely at the implications of Brexit. So our relationship with the UK our free-trade agreement with the EU—are they continuing positively or are they being put on hold? And perhaps if I'm trying to link it to the aid is there some conversation we can have again with our traditional allies—the likes of the UK—of how we use these trade agreements obviously to help each other but also into the Pacific?
SpeechANNUAL REVIEW DEBATEIn CommitteeDebate resumed from 6 May on the Appropriation (2018/19 Confirmation and Validation) Bill.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): All annual reviews are available for debate but only specific Ministers have been available each day to respond. The Government has indicated the Ministers available today will be the Rt Hon Winston Peters Minister of Foreign Affairs Minister for State Owned Enterprises and Minister for Racing; and the Hon Stuart Nash Minister of Police Minister of Fisheries Minister of Revenue and Minister for Small Business.I remind members that the House has suspended the four-speech limit for each member during the committee of the whole House to allow improved interaction with the Minister during the debate. I intend to run that as I did yesterday where it's a bit like supplementary questions where a member asks a question of a Minister the Minister's able to stand and answer that question and the member then can ask another question so that we get a conversation happening in the House which was very successful yesterday in particular. The time remaining in this debate is 59 minutes. Obviously I'm remaining here to keep a safe distance and the Ministers can remain in their seats.Kieran McAnulty moved yesterday that progress be reported and the call is now available to him if he so wishes.
Brownlee GerryHon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): It is indeed a very important role and just to make it clear we have both the GCSB and the SIS looking after New Zealand's security effectively. One of the things that has been a little bit of a concern to some of us in recent times has been the extent to which the office that we are now talking about has almost put itself into a veto role when it comes to the issue of warrants and other such and sort of a not necessarily retrospective inspection but a prospective approval process for some of the activities that our security services have to engage in. I think that's unfortunate. I do hope that Mr Horsley has a good look at the operation that he inherits and then is able to refer back to his legislation and to work with the directors of the two security agencies to ensure that they have their own confidence about being able to do the work that they are required to do on behalf of New Zealand to look after our security. Sort of interesting over the last five or six weeks we've heard very little about many of the issues that consumed the world in a security sense just a short time ago. That's because of the focus that the whole world's had on fighting the COVID-19 virus. But the many threats the many dangers and the many pitfalls that could be out there for New Zealand not only in a personal security sense but in a commercial security sense as well still exist. We do have to have active SIS and GCSB operatives looking after our country's best interests. So while we agree with the appointment of Mr Horsley and see him as being eminently qualified for the job I do hope that he has a good look at the operations of the inspector-general's office with a view to it being a retrospective rather than prospective operation.Motion agreed to.
Parker DavidAPPOINTMENTSInspector-General of Intelligence and SecurityHon DAVID PARKER (Attorney-General): I move That pursuant to section 157 of the Intelligence and Security Act 2017 this House recommend to Her Excellency the Governor-General the appointment of Brendan John Horsley as the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security for a term of five years.The Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security is a statutory office established to provide independent oversight of the intelligence and securities agencies and those are the SIS and the GCSB. The IGIS as the role is called in abbreviated form is responsible for ensuring that security and intelligence agencies carry out their activities lawfully and properly they have the role to independently investigate complaints about those agencies and they provide advice about oversight of those agencies to the New Zealand Government and the Intelligence Security Committee of Parliament. As is required by law the proposed appointment of Mr Horsley has been consulted with that committee.This role I think is pretty well known to the House at the moment as a consequence of the overhaul of those security laws in recent years which was led by the Hon Chris Finlayson very ably.Could I before closing with some of Mr Horsley's earlier experience thank the former IGIS Cheryl Gwyn for her service—I thought she served the country well in that role before being appointed as a judge to the High Court—and the Deputy IGIS Madeleine Laracy who has held that role in an interim sense since July 2019.Mr Horsley has most recently been the Deputy Solicitor-General in the criminal field at Crown Law from 2014 to 2020. Before that he was the first national director of the Public Defence Service from 2011 to 2014. In earlier days he was at the Commerce Commission and before that he was a Crown prosecutor. So he's had a wide range of Government service. I've had some dealings with him for quite a while as have other members of this House. I'm sure that he is well equipped to carry out this role important as it is.
Brownlee GerryHon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): There's probably in recent times never been a more important job than being the auditor of the Government's accounts—effectively all the activities that take place in the name of the Government. Effectively we are seeing at the moment billions of extra dollars being spent necessarily in the economy to keep things afloat as we deal with the COVID-19 fallout. But I think it is totally then appropriate that the auditor's office is well supported and that while there's a little bit of to-ing and fro-ing here over some capital commitments and various other things it is none the less no different to saying that anybody who is doing a job needs to have the tools to do the job and that job has just got considerably bigger. So we do also support the Officers of Parliament decision for this capital injection.Motion agreed to.
Hipkins ChrisOFFICES OF PARLIAMENTAddress to Governor-GeneralHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I move That a respectful Address be presented to Her Excellency the Governor-General commending to Her Excellency the alterations to the appropriations and the capital injection for the 2019/20 financial year in respect of Vote Audit.Supply for Officers of Parliament including the Auditor-General is subject to a different process from other Votes. Appropriations have to be specifically approved by the House. By agreeing to this motion the House is approving an increase in the appropriation of $15 million in the 2019-20 year to allow for the potential increased deficit in the audit and assurance services and a capital injection of $15 million in 2019/20 to fund the potential increased deficit in the audit and assurance services. These alterations reflect the impact of the COVID-19 lockdown on the timing of audit work between 2019-20 and 2020-21 financial years with most audits experiencing delays as the auditors and public entities shifted to working remotely. The immediate financial impact of the change in audit timing will be reduced revenue in the audit and assurance services revenue dependent appropriation for the 2019-20 financial year. There's expected to be a larger deficit in this output class for the 2019-20 year. Incurring a larger deficit requires an increase in the audit and assurance services appropriation. Again I understand that this alteration is made on the recommendation of the Treasury and was supported unanimously by the Officers of Parliament Committee.
Brownlee GerryHon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I think that has been a fairly full explanation of the circumstances that surround this appointment. We also concur with the decision of the Officers of Parliament Committee the reappointment of Mr Schollum and wish him every success in that role in the years ahead.Motion agreed to.
Hipkins ChrisAuditor-General and Deputy ControllerHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I move That pursuant to section 11(2) and clause 2(2) of Schedule 3 of the Public Audit Act 2001 the House recommend to the Governor-General that Greg Mark Schollum be reappointed as Deputy Controller and Auditor-General for a term expiring on 30 April 2023 commencing on 28 September 2020.The Office of the Auditor-General provides independent assurance that public entities are operating and accounting for their performance in keeping with Parliament's intentions. As with the previous notice of motion this motion extends the appointment of a senior officer of Parliament Greg Schollum who has served with distinction as the Deputy Controller and Auditor-General since he was appointed in 2015 including a period where he was acting as the Acting Controller and Auditor-General when he led the Office of the Auditor-General I think at what would be fair to say was quite a challenging time. I understand that Mr Schollum's reappointment for three years was agreed unanimously by the Officers of Parliament Committee with all of the parties in Parliament being consulted on it.
Brownlee GerryHon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): While it's interesting to hear the Leader of the House saying it's not his appointment I could make the same claim. It's not my appointment. It's not my caucus's appointment. It is the Officers of Parliament Committee's. But it would be completely wrong to suggest that those who are charged with that responsibility don't in fact consult with their caucuses prior to the appointments being made. So it is appropriate that it does come before the Parliament for its final ratification.Can I just say I think it was also—if I may pick up on the comment by the Leader of the House that Judge Boshier in this role has been somewhat of a galvanising character. There are various ways to interpret that. Can I just say that I don't think any Opposition has ever been overly or completely happy with the way some of their requirements of the Ombudsman have been dealt with. That unfortunately is just the nature of the role. I think it is very very poignant that you point out that under Mr Boshier's tenure the way in which these complaints have been dealt with swiftly is something that we're all very grateful for and would like to see more of. He is a completely independent person and rightly so. And accordingly we support the decision of the Officers of Parliament Committee for the reappointment today.Motion agreed to.
Hipkins ChrisChief OmbudsmanHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I move That pursuant to sections 3(1) 3(4) and 5(1) of the Ombudsmen Act 1975 the House recommend to the Governor-General that Peter Francis Boshier be reappointed as an Ombudsman and as Chief Ombudsman for a term of 5 years with effect from 10 December 2020.This is not my appointment. I'm bringing the appointment before the House because it has been the appointment recommended by the Officers of Parliament Committee. This is Parliament's appointment quite rightly so. The Ombudsman plays a very important role in scrutinising the actions of the executive part of the Government and on investigating matters brought to him or her by members of the public. It is an incredibly important role within our constitutional framework. The investigation of complaints in particular is a very very significant role.Peter Boshier was appointed as the Chief Ombudsman in 2015 so he is approaching the end of his first five-year term and he has agreed to continue in the role. I think it would be fair to say that Judge Boshier has brought a galvanising approach to the Office of the Ombudsman and one that I think generally speaking should be welcomed by the public. One of the big frustrations with the functioning of the Office of the Ombudsman up until the time he was appointed was the length of time it would often take to have a complaint investigated and then finally resolved. I remember as an Opposition member of Parliament lodging complaints about Official Information Act request denials that sometimes would take up to 18 months before someone would even start to investigate them. Some members have reported that the time frame for that was even longer than that. I can say that Judge Boshier does not tolerate those kinds of tardy time lines and actually I think that as a result of that compliance with the Official Information Act across Government has improved significantly and that is a very very welcome development. So whilst this is not my appointment it is certainly an appointment that I endorse.
Brownlee GerryHon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): Just a few brief comments. The National Opposition does support the appointment of these two persons to the role of the Police Complaints Authority. I think it is an important body and it is important that the Parliament itself has confidence in the people who hold these particular roles.I don't intend to say too much more other than to—Rt Hon Winston Peters: Thank God!Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Well perhaps I could say a little bit more just to elucidate a little bit that in both cases we all have high respect for the individuals concerned. I have personally worked with Mr Murdoch. I know what an excellent fellow he is and what a genuine State servant he has been over a number of years where the best interests of New Zealand are very much to the fore in his thinking. I'm sure that being joined by Ms Sinclair will—as they have been a good team for a time now—give us continued confidence that the Police Complaints Authority are doing a good job protecting the interests of New Zealanders.Motion agreed to.