edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Brown Simeon; Rurawhe AdrianSIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you very much Mr Assistant Speaker. It's a pleasure to take a quick call on the Corrections Amendment Bill and in so doing wish my colleague Chris Penk a very happy New Year as well. I'd like to return that to him. He can read that in the Hansard I'm sure.I've just been listening to the Green Party talking about this bill and I'm not quite sure what they're sort of feeling about it—whether they're supporting it whether they're not supporting it. They've gone from talking about how the prisons are expensive and reckless to talking about how there are some Green wins and I'm sort of not sure which way they're going to be voting on this piece of legislation. I guess it's because they're not quite sure what they actually think in regard to this coalition and its desire to make sure that we pass National Party pieces of legislation like this one which makes some sensible changes to the Corrections Act or whether they're going to try and catch and release so they can fulfil their 30 percent reduction in the prison population. I'm not sure whether they're still deciding who that 30 percent might be.So the National Party will support this piece of legislation to select committee because in large it is a piece of legislation which was started by the Hon Louise Upston while she was Minister of Corrections—an excellent piece of legislation which she did. We made a large number of changes over the nine years while we were in Government and this was the latest in a suite of changes to ensure that we continued to work in this area of law and order. So we will be supporting it to select committee but one of our concerns is around the fact that this Government has removed some of the work that was in place around enhancing rehabilitation. I find that really fascinating. They have an opportunity here to continue some of the work that we were doing around rehabilitation and they've taken it out. I guess that raises the question of whether they are more focused on rehab or release and I think it probably goes towards the latter.So we will be sending this to select committee. I am pleased with a large number of the changes which are proposed in this piece of legislation and in particular one of them which relates to a member's bill in my name the Psychoactive Substances (Increasing Penalty for Supply and Distribution) Amendment Bill around the Psychoactive Substances Act. I'm pleased to see that this bill will be defining these drugs as drugs so that the corrections system are able to deal with them appropriately and test for them as they should be. That's a particularly important change which will be made. It makes changes to the use of police jail cells segregation of prisoners at risk of self-harm and a large number of other important issues. So we look forward to addressing those through the select committee process and we'll see what comes back from that. Thank you very much Mr Assistant Speaker.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): This is a split call—five minutes. I call Greg O'Connor.
Rurawhe AdrianCORRECTIONS AMENDMENT BILLFirst ReadingDebate resumed from 28 March. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): When the House was last considering the Corrections Amendment Bill Chris Bishop had the call and he has five minutes 30 seconds remaining should he wish to take his call.
Earthquake Commission Amendment Bill — First Reading
Hipkins Chris; Brownlee GerryBUSINESS STATEMENTHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): On Tuesday 3 April the annual review debate will begin. It will continue over the following two weeks interspersed with other Government business. On Tuesday evening the third reading of the Criminal Records (Expungement of Convictions for Historical Homosexual Offences) Bill will take place. On Thursday 5 April the Heretaunga Tamatea Claims Settlement Bill will have its second reading. There will also be first readings of the Privacy Bill and the Coroners (Access to Body of Dead Person) Amendment Bill. Wednesday will be a members' day.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I thank the Leader of the House for his indication of House business in the coming week. Two questions for him though: I wonder firstly would he consider cognating the Residential Tenancies (Prohibiting Letting Fees) Amendment Bill with the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill (No 2) that is being introduced to the House today? They are at different stages but would rapidly catch up.The second point is I wonder if he might speak to some of his ministerial colleagues about their timeliness around replying to written questions. There are some written questions in the name of a number of people on this side of the House that are up to five weeks late when the deadline under the Standing Orders is five days.Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): In answer to the first question absolutely I'm happy to consider cognating bills where it is logical to do so. Of course if they're at different stages that can be more problematic but it's something that I'd be happy to discuss through the Business Committee who have the authority to do so.In terms of written parliamentary questions if there are such examples five weeks overdue is clearly unacceptable and if he raises those with me or with my office I will approach those Ministers directly to ensure answers are delivered as quickly as possible.
Mallard TrevorTHURSDAY 29 MARCH 2018The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.RESIGNATIONSHon Dr Jonathan Coleman NorthcoteSPEAKER: I wish to advise the House that I have received a letter from Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman resigning his seat in the House with effect at midnight on 15 April 2018.
Wednesday 28 March 2018 - Volume 728
Land Transport Management (Regional Fuel Tax) Amendment Bill — First Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Land Transport Management (Regional Fuel Tax) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 56; ACT New Zealand 1.Bill read a first time.The question was put that the Land Transport Management (Regional Fuel Tax) Amendment Bill be referred to the Finance and Expenditure Committee.A party vote was called for on the question That the question be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 56; ACT New Zealand 1.Question agreed to.
12. Civil Defence—Emergency Management UpdateRINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga) to the Minister of Civil DefenceCivil Defence—Emergency Management Update12. RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga) to the Minister of Civil Defence: What engagements has he recently had regarding improving responses to emergencies?Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Civil Defence): Thank you for remembering us. The Government is considering its response to the technical advisory group (TAG) review recommendations and is mindful that many communities and sectors and people in the sector have first-hand experience of what has been effective in responding to natural disasters and other emergencies. We are mindful too that other stakeholders including iwi have a significant contribution to make. Earlier this week I was in Christchurch where I met with the mayor the Canterbury civil defence emergency management group Environment Canterbury and Ngāi Tahu. The perspectives from Christchurch and Canterbury as we design policy responses to the review are extremely valuable.Rino Tirikatene: What are the main concerns with New Zealand's current emergency management system?Hon KRIS FAAFOI: The current system has stood and continues to stand up well and is fundamentally sound but there have been pressures and challenges in recent years. Like the previous Government who called the review we also realise that we have a responsibility to learn from events to make our system better and to create a fit for purpose civil defence system. Improvements are needed to modernise professionalise and standardise the system and to ensure that when an event happens civil defence groups around the country are best prepared to help both Kiwis and visitors. This includes a more professional emergency response workforce robust national leadership a fit for purpose national crisis management facility with modern information technology and better local regional and national collaboration.Rino Tirikatene: What work is currently under way following the release of the technical advisory group's report?Hon KRIS FAAFOI: The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet has established a team to advise me on the recommendations to the TAG report and we've been consulting widely with stakeholders to develop options to address them. The review recommended some things that the Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management (MCDEM) has already addressed. For instance MCDEM has improved its training for mayors so they know when and how to declare a state of local emergency. MCDEM is also establishing the ability to activate an alternative national crisis management centre in Auckland if needed. Over 400 staff from other Government agencies in Auckland have been trained to provide support if such a response was necessary.SPEAKER: Right second time: that concludes oral questions.
10. Health Services—Waikato District Health Board Ombler Report FindingsJAMIE STRANGE (Labour) to the Minister of HealthHealth Services—Waikato District Health Board Ombler Report Findings10. JAMIE STRANGE (Labour) to the Minister of Health: Does he have confidence in the governance of the Waikato DHB given the findings of the Ombler Report?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): Last week the State Services Commissioner released the Ombler report into allegations of the inappropriate use of public funds by the former Waikato District Health Board Chief Executive Dr Nigel Murray. It found that more than half of his claims for travel and accommodation were unjustified and his conduct fell short of what is required of a State sector leader. This report fully justified my decision to accept the resignation of the former chair of the district health board (DHB) Bob Simcock. I have no doubt the acting chair Sally Webb has the DHB focused on its real job delivering quality healthcare. The answer to your question is yes.Jamie Strange: What lessons were there for DHBs out of the Ombler report?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The public expect DHB leaders to be careful stewards of health funding as do I. There needs to be clear justification for spending on travel and accommodation. As Minister I will hold DHB chairs accountable for the spending on their watch. There needs to be transparency around expenses including written authorisation for significant travel costs and robust processes for managers' expenses.
9. Health Minister—Involvement in District Health Board Pay NegotiationsHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) to the Minister of HealthHealth Minister—Involvement in District Health Board Pay Negotiations9. Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by all his statements and actions?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): Yes in the context in which they were given and undertaken.Hon Michael Woodhouse: Does he stand by his repeated statements of perceived underfunding in the health sector of between $1.7 billion and $2 billion per annum and his commitment to remedy that underfunding?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I stand by my statement that an independent review was conducted when Labour was in Opposition that indicated $2.4 billion worth of underfunding and that that has led to a neglect in the system in terms of the ability for people to access the care they need and also in terms of capital projects that have been neglected under the previous Government's watch.Hon Michael Woodhouse: Did he intervene in the district health board (DHB) negotiations with the New Zealand Nurses Organisation as reported by Nursing Review on 15 November 2017 which revealed that a new deal was offered by the DHBs on 8 November after successfully seeking sign-off from new Health Minister David Clark for additional funding"?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: That's not my—no.Hon Michael Woodhouse: Is the Minister denying that he had conversations with the DHBs that resulted in a larger fiscal envelope being available to the DHBs for those negotiations?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I have conversations with DHBs all the time. That's a different question.Hon Michael Woodhouse: Did the offer by the DHBs increase after meetings held up to and including 8 November 2017?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I think if you look at history the record will say yes.Hon Michael Woodhouse: Finally—well having unsuccessfully intervened to settle the nurses' pay round is it not incumbent on him to further involve himself to settle the dispute using some of the $8 billion he claims the health sector is underfunded by?Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: In answer to the first part of the question I didn't."
6. Housing Supply—Mandatory WarrantiesHon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura) to the Minister of Housing and Urban DevelopmentHousing Supply—Mandatory Warranties6. Hon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura) to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: Does he stand by all his answers to Oral Question No. 10 in the House yesterday?Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Housing and Urban Development): Yes in the context in which they were given.Hon Judith Collins: When he said that there is currently no requirement for mandatory home warranties for new residential construction" was he aware that section 362I of the Building Act 2004 provides a 10-year warranty for new homes?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Yes because that's an implied warranty not a mandatory home warranty.Hon Judith Collins: If the implied warranty is part of the Building Act 2004—in other words the legislation—how is that not a mandatory implied warranty?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I stand by my answer to the previous question.SPEAKER: No I think it was a different question and I'll ask the Hon Judith Collins to repeat it.Hon Judith Collins: Well I'll do my best Mr Speaker. If there is an implied warranty of 10 years in the Building Act which is the law how is that not a mandatory implied warranty that has the full strength of the law?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: The former is an implied warranty under the Building Act. What I was talking about were insurance-backed mandatory warranties as are provided by the likes of Master Builders and Certified Builders.Hon Judith Collins: If he thought it was an insurance-backed warranty then why didn't he say it?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I thought it was self-explanatory.Hon Judith Collins: Is it his intention that the New Zealand Government will have no responsibilities under sections 90B and 90C of the Building Act 2004 for any new home warranties?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: The member was asking me about the development that we'd announced at Unitec. My expectation is that the Unitec development is likely to be developed with the benefit of an urban development agency coordinating and master-planning the project just as HLC has done at Hobsonville Point. Under that model private sector developers will take on super lots or aspects of development projects and under that approach the Government through KiwiBuild will not be getting in the way of the contractual relationship between the developer the builder and the home buyer.Hon Judith Collins: If he's now telling us that he plans no Government guarantee for the mandatory implied warranties for 10 years for new homes under KiwiBuild is he saying that New Zealand buyers of KiwiBuild homes—first-home buyers—are on their own if the developer or the builder fails in the first 10 years?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I'm not saying that. But what I have said—and the way that we intend to develop the Unitec project—is that the Government through KiwiBuild will not be getting in the way of the existing contractual relationship between the developer the builder and the home buyer."
4. Education—Extension of Teacher Education Refresh ProgrammeJAN TINETTI (Labour) to the Minister of EducationEducation—Extension of Teacher Education Refresh Programme4. JAN TINETTI (Labour) to the Minister of Education: What recent moves has the Government made to help more teachers into classrooms?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Last week the Acting Minister of Education announced an additional $700000 to help more teachers into classrooms with the extension of the Teacher Education Refresh (TER) programme. Around 280 additional teachers will now have access to fully subsidised refresher courses which I announced as part of a $9.5 million teacher supply package before Christmas. Jan Tinetti: How does the Teacher Education Refresh programme work?Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The Teacher Education Refresh programme is designed to retain experienced teachers whose practising certificates are about to expire and attract teachers back into the profession who haven't taught for a while. We've made subsidies available to remove the cost barrier associated with undertaking the TER course which could be up to $4000 per person and acted as a detriment to those who are passionate about teaching returning to the workforce.
1. Housing Rental—Government PrioritiesPAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai) to the Minister of Housing and Urban DevelopmentORAL QUESTIONSQUESTIONS TO MINISTERSHousing Rental—Government Priorities1. PAUL EAGLE (Labour—Rongotai) to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: What steps is the Government taking to make renting more affordable for Kiwi families?Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Housing and Urban Development): On Thursday the Government introduced a bill to ban letting fees. Banning letting fees will save families up to $47 million per year. Letting fees are unfair and have no economic rationale. It's a large cost on families that comes at the worst possible time when they have to find as much as four weeks' bond two weeks' rent in advance and often the costs of moving. That is an immense burden on families. The amount charged also bears very little resemblance to the actual costs incurred in the process of letting the property. This change will make a big difference in the lives of Kiwis and will ensure that the costs of letting a property fall with those able to control those costs.Paul Eagle: What responses has he seen on letting fees?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: The response to the proposed ban on letting fees has been overwhelmingly positive. For example Dr Lucy Telfar-Barnard has said Banning letting fees is a simple legislative fix to improve efficiency and competition in property management services and to reduce the cost burden of moving house borne unequally by our most vulnerable." Most sensible commentators accept that the costs of a contract should lie with the parties to that contract and accept that letting fees are unfair and bad economic policy.Paul Eagle: What else is the Government doing to make renting more affordable and secure for families?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: I have committed to a review of the Residential Tenancies Act which will get under way this year. The review will advance a range of changes to make life better for renters and will include consideration of limiting rent increases to once per year and initiatives to improve security of tenure and better allow tenants to make their house a home. The review is expected to result in legislation being introduced to Parliament by the end of the year.David Seymour: How does the Government propose to ensure that the costs which currently underlie letting fees are not passed on to tenants in other ways such as higher rents?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well we don't expect that banning letting fees will lead to an increase in rent. When Scotland banned letting fees there was no evidence in Scotland that it led to an increase in rents. The UK housing advocacy group Shelter found that only 2 percent of landlords in Scotland increased their rents after letting fees were banned there while in this country the Reserve Bank notes that rents are driven primarily by supply and demand not landlord costs. Treasury also concluded that and I quote "Experience in other countries shows no clear evidence that banning letting fees will lead to increased rents.""
Crimes Amendment Bill — First Reading
Falloon AndrewANDREW FALLOON (National—Rangitata): Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker for the opportunity to take a very brief call on the first reading of the Crimes Amendment Bill tonight. As has been outlined by previous speakers National does support the bill and I particularly want to echo Mr Bishop's comments that it is a very positive move in terms of our legislation. I want to acknowledge Andrew Little for bringing it to the House building on the good work of the previous justice Minister Amy Adams.The offence of blasphemous libel has existed in New Zealand for far too long more recently as part of the Crimes Act 1961 but going back much further as part of English common law. Many jurisdictions around the world with legal systems based on common law have removed blasphemous libel as an offence; indeed the UK did so in 2008. It's well past time for us to do the same and I look forward to this bill passing into law.Before I finish I do just want to note the proposed amendment by my colleague Kanwaljit Bakshi. Mr Bakshi will table a Supplementary Order Paper to amend the bill to allow Bhakti Sikh to carry kirpan in public places. People of the Sikh faith have been in New Zealand for more than a hundred years. Carrying the kirpan is very important for them for religious purposes. It is a very non-controversial amendment and I hope that governing parties do consider it genuinely.I'm not going to take any more time on this bill. It is a good proposal and I commend it to the House.
King MattMATT KING (National—Northland): It's a pleasure to take a short call on this Crimes Amendment Bill. There are three parts to it—three small parts. We had a much wider-ranging review of the Crimes Act in our last term and I see that they have picked out three small parts of it and they're running with that. I'd like to acknowledge the former Minister of Justice Amy Adams for the work she's undertaken in this area.Hon Andrew Little: She hasn't brought it to the House. She hasn't done it.MATT KING: The fact of the matter is—let me speak—this coalition Government could've included it in last year's Statutes Amendment Bill if it had been that urgent and I'm not belittling it because it is important. But if they had taken it last year when we were—several of those amendments then we could have got it done then. But anyway we support it going to the select committee. We support the input from the public and we hope during the select committee stage there'll be a wider range of amendments included into it.Now let's talk about blasphemous libel. It's last century's legislation. It's outdated and it's archaic. I'm glad to hear there hasn't been a prosecution since 1922. I've never arrested anyone for it in the time that I was in the police. I understand that it conflicts with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act as well. In fact I didn't even know that it was in the law—ha! And so I'm glad—well I knew it had been in the law but I thought it had been repealed years ago. So I'm glad that it's being repealed now and I see that the churches do support it.Now what's more important is the year and a day rule. Now that doesn't stack up for a number of reasons.Kieran McAnulty: Three minutes—that's all.MATT KING: Most other countries have repealed it—let me finish. The idea that an offender can't be held criminally liable for the death of someone if they live beyond a year and a day is crazy to me. It's just not right. The CTV Building is case in point.In terms of the law around the protection of spouses and civil union partners in the terms of accessory after the fact—again it's yesterday's legislation and needs to be updated. It defies logic why it was ever the law.But in reality these are classic examples of Government fili-bills"—filibustering legislation. It is a small bill of four pages nine clauses and two schedules. Like I said we could have had it done last year in last year's bill that we debated. They have even taken the members' bills and put them in the Government Order Paper but that's par for the course for this coalition Government. This demonstrates that this Government is disorganised and is searching for relevance. It proves they are out of ideas. Yesterday during the Auckland fuel tax debate they said we had no plan and that we lacked ideas. Their answer was another tax. If that's the Government's plan to solve everything no thank you. I commend this bill to the House."
Huo RaymondRAYMOND HUO (Labour): Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. I rise to take a call to support the Crimes Amendment Bill. This is a largely technically driven but very important bill which touches upon three important issues. The first is spousal or civil union partners' immunity the second one is blasphemous libel and the third is the year and a day rule. These are all outdated sections of the Crimes Act and well past their use-by date.With regard to the spousal and civil union immunity it is inconsistent with the way that spouses are generally treated in the law and prevents prosecution in cases where a person has acted in order that their spouse or civil union partner escapes after arrest or avoids arrest or conviction. There is no justification to continue this immunity from prosecution where a person deliberately obstructs justice in modern society. With regard to blasphemous libel as the colleagues that spoke before me have acknowledged it has not been prosecuted in New Zealand since 1922 and raises potential New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 concerns.The third one—the year and a day rule. I listened very carefully to the contributions from colleagues especially from my learned colleague Mr Greg O'Connor a veteran police officer with 40 or so years' experience who was nicknamed Dinosaur" by our National colleagues. In the context of this bill I wonder whether calling him a dinosaur would constitute—Hon Andrew Little: Blasphemous libel.RAYMOND HUO: —blasphemy. Ha ha! That's kind of a blasphemous libel I rather doubt. Back to this particular clause the year and a day rule provides that no one is liable for the killing of another unless the death takes places within a year and a day after the cause of death. Many colleagues used the CTV Building collapse as an example and actually this particular issue has been highlighted in some of the high-profile cases in New Zealand. The Prime Minister the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern made an undertaking to the families of the CTV Building collapse that changes need to be made; this is the Government delivering on its words.There have been calls for the repeal of the year and a day rule in New Zealand for a long time with most like-minded countries such as England Wales Northern Ireland having already repealed relevant sections. They have all abolished that rule as well as Australia Canada and Ireland. In the US it is complicated. In some states the rule was rejected and the Supreme Court of the United States of America has confirmed such a complicated ruling. But in California the year and a day rule has been changed to a three-year and a day rule. There's no limitation period in New Zealand for filing charges for serious offences and this is another reason to show that there's no need for such kind of a clause and as such the original rationale of the rule doesn't stack up any longer."
Barry MaggieHon MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore): Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. I rise to support the Crimes Amendment Bill at its first reading. I'm not quite sure where the arrogant and ill-informed member who just resumed his seat Darroch Ball got his information from but he's clearly unaware that the changes that have been proposed in this are building on the work of the former justice Minister Amy Adams. So the idea that we don't support the bill that we conceived and have led through its many cases and paces seems to have eluded that member. But then many things do so perhaps rather than dwell on that person's inadequacies let's move to the substance of this bill which others have outlined.As we've said many times before we support the three small changes which are a continuation of the work of the previous Minister of Justice Amy Adams—Clayton Mitchell: We just heard from previous speakers that it was useless and a waste of time though.Hon MAGGIE BARRY: —a member of the National Party—New Zealand First over there ill-informed creature that he is. Other members have of course talked about the substance of the bill. There are really the three small changes. Naturally we support them. They are a useful thing.One of the more disappointing aspects of Labour the Greens and I suppose their tag-on New Zealand First Party is that they have not put into this the Kirpan Authorisation Bill. I would say that one of the things that I have noted in my seven years in this place having sat next to Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi who is a Sikh is that it is very important to them to be able to carry their ceremonial knives the kirpan. Every baptised Sikh is allowed to have these and to carry them. Kanwal is a devout Sikh. He is very devout in the sense that he wants not only for his own personal convictions but also for other Sikhs to change the law so that these ceremonial knives are allowed to be worn—not just by anybody; I certainly wouldn't want to see the member who just resumed his seat carrying a 10 centimetre blade even though it should be blunt which that member's intellect clearly is.There are four other articles of faith required to be borne by a baptised Sikh: that is the kesh the uncut long hair tied up in a turban; the kanga which is a small wooden comb; the karha a steel or iron bracelet; and the kachera an undergarment. I am sorry if I mispronounced any of those names. I speak very respectfully because I know from speaking to Kanwal that this was something he felt was very important and it was an integral part of this bill because it's an outdated and anachronistic law and under the Human Rights Act—section 21 of the Act—it is important that those people be free from discrimination on the grounds of their religious beliefs. So having made those points I commend this bill to the House. Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker.
Land Transport Management (Regional Fuel Tax) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Select Committee
Allan KiritapuKIRITAPU ALLAN (Assistant Whip—Labour): I move That the question be now put.Motion agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the Land Transport Management (Regional Fuel Tax) Amendment Bill be reported to the House by Monday 21 May 2018 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions) during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House and outside the Wellington area despite Standing Orders 191 193 and 194(1)(b) and (c).Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 56; ACT New Zealand 1.Motion agreed to.
Lee DeniseDENISE LEE (National—Maungakiekie): Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. I think we should all be disappointed here tonight. This is the icing on the cake of what has been a very flawed process from the start. The reasons that we've heard from Minister Twyford tonight is that this should be in place by the new accounting year and at the expiration of the interim transport levy in Auckland Council. Well those who know about the interim transport levy as I do will know that that didn't go through a public submission process at all and now it appears that there's a similar theme here tonight and it's the same theme that's attempting to be undertaken here with the regional fuel tax.Council consultation on this tax has been a sham and now the Government is doubling down on that. They're bending over backwards to give the council what they want at the sacrifice of Parliament's scrutiny—and public scrutiny for that matter. We owe it to Aucklanders to give them a full and proper parliamentary process so why the rush here tonight? The mayor himself says in his mayoral proposal for their budget that he might not get the regional fuel tax by the end of this year. So you've got the mayor recognising that there are alternative options and that the time frames for this tax need not be fixed by 1 July this year. He left the door open for there to be the fuel tax by the end of this year; the mid-year time frame is self-imposed by the Government—a very interesting point.So council's consulting on a 10-year plan: 10 years of budgets. Why do we have here what appears to be only an eight-day—eight-working-day—process for the public? Explain that to me—a massive programme of tax and spend and we've only got eight days for the public to scrutinise it. Is that enough for those outside Auckland to scrutinise the effects for them down the line? Do they know and understand this isn't just a rush job for Auckland; it will and could and it very may well affect all of New Zealand. The effort that's been put into rushing this bill and this tax means that no one really knows the full impact or the cost-benefit analysis. The bill says that the Ministry of Transport doesn't know it says that the council doesn't know and if we go back to the mayor's own proposal he's saying that the regional fuel tax is not the only option. So how do we know with this rushed process that the interim transport levy should be replaced by the regional fuel tax? Will we have enough time to scrutinise whether one is better than the other when we don't even know in the bill's wording itself what the impact and the full impact will be. If you remove a full select committee process you are gagging the public's ability—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! DENISE LEE: Sorry Madam Assistant Speaker. The Government is gagging the public's full ability to understand and know the impact that they face as individuals. This is real impact on people and their livelihoods—their ability to get to work; their employers—the effect on their employers; and their daily lives. A rushed process is not a good process.
Twyford PhilHon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Transport): I move That the question be now put.
Twyford PhilHon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Transport): I move That the Land Transport Management (Regional Fuel Tax) Amendment Bill 2018 be reported to the House by Monday 21 May 2018 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House and outside the Wellington area despite Standing Orders 191 193 and 194(1)(b) and (c). I want to explain to the House why I'm seeking this earlier report back and in doing so I want to acknowledge that the principles of this Parliament normally require a period of six weeks for public notification before submissions close and then a period of time for the select committee to hear submissions to receive departmental advice to deliberate and eventually to report back to this House. There are exceptions to the regular process. The most shortened of those is where the House takes urgency with no select committee process and there are occasions when that is necessary. I do not consider it's necessary in this instance and I think it right that both those who will be affected by the regional fuel tax and the members on the other side of the House have the opportunity to provide input into this bill. However in this instance a shortened period at select committee is necessary. It's necessary in order to enable the regional fuel tax to be implemented in Auckland at the start of the new accounting financial year and by the time of expiry of Auckland Council's targeted rate known as the interim transport levy on 30 June 2018. Secondly there is a critical and urgent need for transport infrastructure in Auckland. A shortened report-back time will enable projects to get under way as soon as possible and it will allow Auckland Council and the Government together to enter into contracts and finally to get cracking on fixing Auckland's transport system.
Walker HamishHAMISH WALKER (National—Clutha-Southland): I move That the question be now put.Motion agreed to.Parts 1 and 2 schedules 1 and 2 and clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.House resumed.Bill reported without amendment.Report adopted.
Criminal Records (Expungement of Convictions for Historical Homosexual Offences) Bill — In Committee
Ngaro AlfredHon ALFRED NGARO (National): I move That the question be now put.
Faafoi KrisHon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Civil Defence): Similar to my colleague Duncan Webb there's just one issue that I wanted to raise with the Minister. I know that interpretations aren't always the most exciting part of a bill but I do want to focus in on the interpretation of representative" which is in clause 4 and which sets out that if someone is deceased and on their behalf someone wants to get a conviction expunged it sets out within the bill exactly who is able to do that as a representative.It goes through the list of "the executor administrator or trustee … acting on behalf … a spouse civil union partner or de facto partner of the convicted person:" and the issue that I have or the question that I'd like to ask is around paragraph (c) and that is the definition in terms of a family because it is very prescriptive to "a parent sibling or child of the convicted person:" who can act as a representative.Just looking forward to clause 5 and the timings around when these convictions may have happened beginning in August 1908 and ending in August 1986 is quite a long time frame so there could be a situation where it's not a parent sibling or child of a convicted person but it may be a grandchild or great-grandchild of a person that has been convicted under these previous laws who may want to see the conviction expunged. I guess the question I would like to ask is whether there is any scope to broaden paragraph (c) out—and we're talking about family who can be a representative of the convicted person who is now deceased—either to be less prescriptive or to include grandchildren and great-grandchildren because I think we may get into a situation where there's two tests for direct descendants of people who have been convicted of first one proving their worthiness as a representative—and if it were a direct descendant of mine I'd find that possibly a little bit offensive—and two convincing the system that their conviction should or could be expunged.So I guess the very simple question is can we look at that? I know that paragraph (d) allows the Secretary for Justice to deem somebody else who may be an appropriate person to act on behalf of the deceased convicted person but with a topic so sensitive it would be felt quite acutely by grandchildren or great-grandchildren of people who were convicted and I think we should seriously think about broadening out the definition of a "representative" in terms of family members so that we don't have a two-step test for them."
Webb DuncanDr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you Madam Chair. It's really just a short point that I'd like to put to the Minister. It's around clause 5 of the bill which defines historical homosexual offences". My concern is that there are a number of offences which may have led to a conviction but which don't fall within those—in particular offences which the prosecutor chose to prosecute under some Act which didn't have necessarily a homosexual element to it. Examples might be a loitering offence or an indecent exposure offence which nevertheless were triggered by behaviour which in fact came to the attention of the authorities or the police because it had this homosexual element which now would not even raise an eyebrow. As I read the bill a person who has been convicted of an offence which the prosecutor might in fact have prosecuted because it seemed the less invidious offence to prosecute will nevertheless now be tarred with that offence and can't come forward and say "This is in fact and in substance a historical homosexual offence and because of what appeared to be almost an act of mercy of the prosecutor I can't now have that offence expunged." But nevertheless it still carries with it all of the difficulties of an offence that would have to be disclosed if requested and that does seem to me to be something of a mismatch. Now I accept that the difficulties of proof around that may be difficult particularly with the effluxion of time but it does seem to me—particularly for people who are alive and whose prospects and reputations are affected by this—that it would be appropriate for them to be able to come forward and say "This is a real matter of concern to me. This is in fact an offence I should never have been convicted of because it's only attracted attention because of my homosexual conduct." So Minister I won't take any more time—it's just a short point—but I would like to see your response to that."
Allan KiritapuParts 1 and 2 schedules 1 and 2 and clauses 1 and 2KIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour): It's an absolute delight to be able to take a call in regard to the Criminal Records (Expungement of Convictions for Historical Homosexual Offences) Bill in particular in the committee of the whole House debate. In having regard to this very significant and important bill I'm proud to see that there is universal and widespread agreement across the House for the ethos that underpins it. It does expunge the convictions of those that were convicted under our previous law for the simple act of being able to love somebody.I just had a couple of questions for Minister Little in regard to some of the finer details of the bill and the general effects of expungement. I wanted to understand whether a conviction expungement under New Zealand law would have a broader purpose—whether people who had been convicted under the previous law would still be required to disclose those former convictions in any overseas jurisdictions and whether that was universal across the board. So I just wanted to understand that if the Minister could step us through that a little bit.On a personal note a couple of weeks ago my uncle Darcy—he was my nana's youngest brother—passed away. He moved from our ūkaipō in Te Puna as a young man—moved up to Auckland to the city of bright lights to live a life that in our small town wasn't viewed with much favour. At his funeral there were a range of people that came and talked about the lifestyle of the queens that lived up in Auckland which my uncle was very heavily involved in in that community and as they gave their stories both inside the marae and outside the marae they spoke of the weight of what it was to be young men as they were some of whom were in constant fear hiding from the law and being disconnected from their families. They spoke about the impacts of being able to travel universally—well actually just to live their life and get decent jobs without having to make disclosures of those criminal offences just because of the fact that they loved somebody of the same sex. That was a topic that was very much a part of discussion at my uncle Darcy's tangi.So the Minister might be so kind as to just give some update for those that might be watching this debate at home and also for myself so we can understand exactly what the nature and extent of expungement of those domestic convictions will mean here for those people living outside the country.
Allan Kiritapu; Williams PotoCRIMINAL RECORDS (EXPUNGEMENT OF CONVICTIONS FOR HISTORICAL HOMOSEXUAL OFFENCES) BILLIn CommitteeKIRITAPU ALLAN (Assistant Whip—Labour): I seek leave for all provisions of the Criminal Records (Expungement of Convictions for Historical Homosexual Offences) Bill to be taken as one debate.CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.
Personal Explanations — Oral Questions—Question No. 7 to Minister
Peters WinstonWEDNESDAY 28 MARCH 2018The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.PERSONAL EXPLANATIONSOral Questions—Question No. 7 to MinisterRt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister): I seek leave to make a personal explanation to correct a statement I made in the House yesterday.SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that process? There appears to be none.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: In question time I stated that on 9 June 2017 Mark Mitchell MP took a flight from Whenuapai Air Base to Papakura Military Camp in an NH90 helicopter. This advice from defence was wrong. They've corrected it. Mr Mitchell flew in an SH-2G(1) Seasprite helicopter. It's worth emphasising that the flight did indeed take place just not in the model of helicopter that the Defence Force incorrectly identified to me yesterday.
Tuesday 27 March 2018 - Volume 728
Taxation (Annual Rates for 2017–18 Employment and Investment Income and Remedial Matters) Bill — Third Reading (continued)
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2017-18 Employment and Investment Income and Remedial Matters) Bill be now read a third time.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 56; ACT New Zealand 1.Bill read a third time.
10. KiwiBuild—Unitec DevelopmentHon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura) to the Minister of Housing and Urban DevelopmentKiwiBuild—Unitec Development10. Hon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura) to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: When he stated yesterday regarding the proposed residential development at Unitec The reason we have government is to take some of the risk to share some of the risk to make it easy for the private sector to come in and develop" what risk was he referring to?Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Housing and Urban Development): Developments of this scale and complexity carry sufficient risk that sometimes the private sector won't take them on or is unable to deliver the outcomes—affordable housing and good urban design for example—that the public should expect. The risks I'm talking about include uncertain access to finance the cost of infrastructure and the need to build affordable housing. In a broken housing market we believe that it's the appropriate role of the Government to de-risk a project like this so that the private sector can come in and do what it does well and that is design and build great places for people to live work and play.Hon Judith Collins: How will the Crown be sharing the risk with private developers for the construction of the proposed residential development at Unitec?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: The primary way that the Crown will share the risk is by undertaking a master planning role that sets the standards the overall concept for the design; ensures the delivery of network and social infrastructure and provides opportunities for private developers to then come in and design and build aspects of the overall development precisely as has been the case at Hobsonville.Hon Judith Collins: Who will be standing behind the warranty for the houses constructed by private developers on the land at Unitec?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well there is currently no requirement for mandatory home warranties for new residential construction although it's not a bad idea.Hon Judith Collins: Will the provision for any ongoing liability arising from the Unitec development under the Building Act come out of the $2 billion KiwiBuild envelope?Hon PHIL TWYFORD: The houses that will be built in the Unitec development will be developed and built and sold by private sector developers exactly as has been the case at Hobsonville."