edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
4. Question No. 4—FinanceHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of FinanceQuestion No. 4—Finance4. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of Finance: What advice has he received if any on the number of jobs that could be lost over the next three months or 12 months if New Zealand fails to create the world's most intelligent border" that he spoke about on 4 June? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): The member is referring to a hypothetical scenario that includes a number of assumptions that could lead to a range of outcomes. The advice I have received through the main forecast in Budget 2020 assumes border restrictions are not fully lifted until April 2021. Of course the Government is continuing to work to be able to safely and progressively lift border restrictions as and when it is safe to do so. In terms of the impact on the number of jobs as I said yesterday advice on job losses and creation is continuing to evolve. The advice I have received in Treasury's main Budget forecast is for the number of people in employment to in fact rise by 14000 over the next three months—that being between the second and third quarters of 2020. Hon Paul Goldsmith: Has Treasury advised him that failing to test people before being released from quarantine does not in any way shape or form represent the world's most intelligent border? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: In terms of specific advice no. Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he accept that opening up our borders safely to get Kiwis trading again and to import skilled migrants tourists and international students is critical to saving jobs? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I believe that ensuring that our border works well and that our border restrictions are put in place are incredibly important and I invite the member to remind his leader of that as he makes promises to various sectors to open the border up. Hon Paul Goldsmith: So how will Kiwis working in the tourism hospitality and international education sector keep their jobs if their fellow Kiwis aren't confident that this Government can be trusted to open the border safely? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I believe that actually the New Zealand public have a lot of confidence in the way this Government has managed and handled COVID-19 and I remind the member that on this side of the House we've taken these decisions seriously and carefully. We haven't undertaken knee-jerk reactions and we haven't done things that would have seen us in a situation that we see across the Tasman where we see infections rising again and actual community transmission—not the imagination of the Leader of the Opposition. Hon Paul Goldsmith: Has anyone advised him that while his Government's ambition is for the world's most intelligent border the reality sadly resembles much more KiwiBuild and the light rail down Dominion Road? Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No. The advice that I continue to receive is that New Zealand compared to most countries in the world finds itself in an incredibly privileged position where our economy is largely back operating where we're able to move freely around and where we do not have community transmission—those are the actual facts of the situation."
SpeechDr JIAN YANG (National): Part 2: this is the Part where we made some recommendations or amendments. I think these amendments are well considered—for example this clarification of the area covered by the bill. We had a submission basically suggesting that the geographical area that the extended land powers were applied to—by now referring to the bill itself. In the beginning the bill identified the geographical area the extended land powers were applied to by referencing the specific purpose—that is the Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor. So it's a specific purpose zone described in Appendix 1 of the Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor Regeneration Plan. But then it was noted by a submitter that this could be a concern because the definition was not particularly clear. Also it lacked certainty and that it was undesirable to attach a definition in an Act through a reference to a plan. So then officials of course considered the submission—the committee considered the submission—and therefore made some changes. I will say this is a very good change or amendment because we clearly defined the area with a very specific map so there would be no confusion. For that particular reason I will say that this amendment is very very useful.Then of course the committee then added transitional provisions for section 71—powers and plan processes. There are some specific amendments of course here—particularly on page 7 of this particular bill—basically saying that because of the changes to the bill itself we need some other change to make sure that some powers will continue even after the disestablishment of Regenerate Christchurch. For example if the city council received an amendment or suggestion for amendment to a Resource Management Act document and could not finish before deadline the city council could continue their work as if that section were still in force—so similar cases not only to the city council but also to the Ministers. This would really improve the bill and I believe these major amendments—some would say they were minor amendments but I would say these are quite major amendments—would improve the bill. Thanks.Part 2 agreed to.Schedule 1 agreed to.Schedule 1A agreed to.Schedule 2 agreed to.Clauses 1 to 3Clause 1 agreed to.Clause 2 agreed to.Clause 3 agreed to.House resumed.The Chairperson reported the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Amendment Bill without amendment.Report adopted.
Greater Christchurch Regeneration Amendment Bill — In Committee—Part 2
Williams PotoPart 2 Limited extension of powers for dealing with landCHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): That brings us to Part 2 which is debate on clauses 19 to 30 and Schedules 1 to 2 which is the limited extension of powers for dealing with land.Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Associate Minister for Greater Christchurch Regeneration): Thank you. If I could make just a couple of comments this is really around the ability to reconfigure to assist Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) really in the reconfiguration of the title—some 5500 land titles for that particular precinct—and allow for the extension of time should that be required in order to do that. I think the date is extended out to 2023—yes here we go—just to allow for that work to be conducted by LINZ for the successful transfer of land. As I indicated in an earlier contribution the Governance and Administration Committee were very useful in identifying that the reconfiguration required some wider definition to include some of the council land that bordered the area and they were very helpful in providing a map for that particular function.
Greater Christchurch Regeneration Amendment Bill — In Committee—Part 1
Williams PotoHon POTO WILLIAMS (Associate Minister for Greater Christchurch Regeneration): It may be out of order but I think the member will know that the Crusaders will be victorious on the day.Thank you. I just want to reply to Dr Jian Yang that this is within the—and this also will speak to the question that the member has just posed—part of the council's 30-year plan. We have confidence that the council now has got the plans in place to take this forward. We all know that from the discussions that we've had over quite a few months now the council's view of this is that the Avon Ōtākaro—I always get it round the round the wrong way—the Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor is a huge opportunity for us in Christchurch in terms of the significant work that it will do not just regenerating the red zone area itself or what we have formerly known as the residential red zone but the opportunity to really activate those suburbs that sit alongside the corridor and also a particular favourite of mine actually drawing people through right out to New Brighton.The establishment of the advisory groups to look at transitional land uses for example has already sparked quite a bit of interest and people are keen to submit ideas to that particular group about what may happen. But we already know that part of the corridor will be used for potential mitigation of sea level rise and climate change effects. There are some opportunities in terms of flood mitigation and the like but the overriding opportunity for us in that area is to create great recreational space opportunities for activity and opportunities to really link up the city and the eastern suburbs of Christchurch.Just in terms of the other question the cathedral really doesn't come within this piece of legislation; there is another piece of legislation that was shepherded through by the Hon Nicky Wagner that really takes care of that piece of work. But I do thank the member for raising that as a concern going forward.Part 1 agreed to.
SpeechDr JIAN YANG (National): Now Part 1 of the bill the Governance and Administration Committee actually basically agreed to all the clauses. The key amendment in this part is the amendment to clause 10. Clause 10 amends section 121. Section 121 established Regenerate Christchurch and provides that it continues until it is disestablished on the close of 30 June 2021; the amendment changes that date to 30 June 2020—that's one year ahead.So other changes are largely inconsequential amendments. In terms of Part 1 we think that it is basically there. This particular bill itself of course made changes to the principal Act—that's the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Act. The Act itself made some achievements. Now there is a list here according to officials and that is that under this Greater Christchurch Regeneration Act Regenerate Christchurch has developed the Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor Regeneration Plan and that I think is the key achievement. There are some other minor achievements but overall it appeared that the Act itself did not really achieve a lot. In 2017 there was a review and the review found that the Act was in effect for a purpose but then later on it became clear that the Act started to become redundant. For that reason particularly in the 2019 review it was noticed that it was necessary to repeal the Act and move some clauses ahead and that is why there is this particular bill. While we agree that it is necessary to move ahead we still have some concerns regarding some implementation—for example because this Act itself still involves a large sum of taxpayers' money we would still like to know some details such as whether regeneration will take place in a timely fashion and when we will see the detail of what is going to occur within our own Ōtākaro River Corridor. These specific questions we still need to really consider while we agree in principle that Part 1 of the bill is largely fine. Thanks.Matt Doocey: Madam Chair?CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I call—Matt Doocey.
Williams PotoHon POTO WILLIAMS (Associate Minister for Greater Christchurch Regeneration): Thank you—I thank the member for that. I just want to quote something that I think the Hon Gerry Brownlee said at the first reading of this that the opportunity to use the legislation for regeneration plans perhaps wasn't used as it was envisaged when the legislation was written. However that is the decision for proponents of regeneration and now I think it's absolutely the time for any of those decisions to actually be returned to local councils. But as I say it's easy to look back in hindsight and say perhaps we could've used the legislation—a bespoke piece of legislation for Christchurch—in a particular way but it would've required people to propose plans. That didn't happen; it's no longer really a requirement. Those decisions are now able to be sheeted back to local leadership and I think that's entirely appropriate.
Dean JacquiHon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): Thank you Madam Chair. Yes National does support this Greater Christchurch Regeneration Amendment Bill but I do have a question for the Minister if I may. It just seems that the local authority or authorities involved or captured in this bill don't seem to have taken up the opportunity that was presented to them when this bill was enacted back in I think 2016 from memory. I might have that slightly wrong but I think it was about 2016 2017. While there was a great deal of cooperation across the House and a number of agencies in the development of this bill the opportunities don't seem to have been utilised. I understand there are a couple of plans regeneration plans. But for a piece of legislation which tackles such a huge issue I wonder if it has been underutilised. I am interested in the opinion of the Minister in charge Hon Dr Megan Woods about whether Christchurch City Council for example could have taken a more proactive approach to utilising the mechanisms in this bill for the good of Christchurch.
Williams PotoHon POTO WILLIAMS (Associate Minister for Greater Christchurch Regeneration): If I could just respond to that—thank you for that question—I think one of the overriding ambitions for Christchurch has been the restoration of local leadership and this is what this bill provides: the ability for local leaders to make decisions that affect Christchurch. We've heard for a significant period of time from Christchurch leaders particularly from Christchurch City Council that they wanted the ability to make decisions that affected Christchurch going forward and I think that Christchurch is ready for that.I am mindful though that this does disestablish Regenerate Christchurch and it does mean that people who have worked in this space and done a great job really in identifying regeneration plans and the opportunities—particularly in the Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor—will be losing their jobs. I do want to send my really grateful thanks to them for the work that they do but also acknowledge the fact that the work that they have completed in Christchurch and in Canterbury is forever within the DNA of that space. But the overriding concern really is that Christchurch now is able to conduct its own affairs and make its own decisions.
SpeechHon NICKY WAGNER (National): Thank you very much Madam Chair. National supports this bill of course but we do question the urgency of passing these amendments when there was a sunset clause in the original Act. The Greater Christchurch Regeneration Act expires in June 2021 and this bill just speeds the process up. Part 1 of this bill is about disestablishing Regenerate Christchurch. Now Regenerate Christchurch was the agency that was created to manage regeneration plans in the city and for the past four years Regenerate Christchurch has developed those plans working with the other stakeholders for various parts of the city. But the majority of their work has been done in the redevelopment of the Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor. This space will eventually become a fabulous people-friendly community space and I believe it will be a real asset for our city because it goes right from the centre of the city right down to the shore. So you'll be able to bike walk and travel all the way from our city to our beaches. We're all keenly awaiting the opening up of this area and we're just hopeful that with the disestablishment of Regenerate Christchurch the progress in this area doesn't slow down. So for Part 1 we support Part 1. We support the disestablishment but we are concerned that the work that they have been doing should not slow down. We need it completed as quickly as possible. Thank you Madam Chair.
Williams PotoPart 1 Early disestablishment of Regenerate Christchurch and termination of powersHon POTO WILLIAMS (Associate Minister for Greater Christchurch Regeneration): Thank you Madam Chair. If I could start with some opening remarks and then enjoying this new committee process I welcome taking questions from the floor. This is a bill that seeks to amend the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Act. There are three main parts to it—the first to revoke the powers given by section 71. Section 71 is a special part of the legislation which allows for amendments to be made to planning rules which provide for streamlining or fast-tracking of particular processes. The second main amendment would be to disestablish Regenerate Christchurch from 30 June 2020. This is a year earlier than was originally anticipated and I'm mindful of the fact that we are talking about a group of people for whom they've had the regeneration of our city at the heart of the work that they have been doing. So I do want to pay particular acknowledgment to them at this time. The third proposed amendment is to extend the powers for the reconfiguration of the land contained within the Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor. That will allow Land Information New Zealand to continue the work in terms of the reconfiguration and the transfer of titles. And one other piece: it repeals the requirement to make annual reports with regards to the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Act. I want to thank the select committee ably chaired by Dr Jian Yang who brought the piece of work quite expeditiously back to the House. They did make a couple of amendments to the bill as it was introduced. The first really is with regard to the powers under section 71. Because of the shortening of the actual piece of legislation the powers under section 71 were required to have a transitional provision within it in case a proposal was made under this particular section before the end of the bill on 30 June. The second was with regard to the description of the Ōtākaro Avon River Corridor just to allow for appropriate reconfiguration to occur and the inclusion of a map within the bill. Just with those points I do want to thank officials and the Parliamentary Counsel Office and again the select committee—the Governance and Administration Committee—for bringing this back to the House in a timely way and I'm happy to take questions.
Williams PotoGREATER CHRISTCHURCH REGENERATION AMENDMENT BILLIn CommitteeHon POTO WILLIAMS (Associate Minister for Greater Christchurch Regeneration): Firstly I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one debate.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Robertson GrantHon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Thank you very much Madam Speaker. I was in this House when the bill that was passed that is now—the effect of which—being overturned by this legislation was put up by Paul Quinn as a member's bill. It was a mean petty and glib piece of legislation that was passed by a member who is best forgotten from this House and supported by a party whose politicking on issues of electoral law is well known. I have only two things to say in my contribution. The first of those is that other than the Ministers of Corrections I would venture to suggest that I've probably spent more time visiting prisons than any other member of this House; because as is on the public record my father spent time in prison. And one thing I can tell you—and Greg O'Connor mentioned this briefly in his contribution—we send people to prison in New Zealand as a punishment not for punishment. When they're in prison what we attempt to do is support their rehabilitation back into our society. One element albeit a small element of that is for prisoners—in this case for the proposed bill—who are serving a term of three years or less to be allowed to vote.There has been a consensus on that across political parties over decades until Mr Quinn's glib petty mean piece of legislation was passed in this House. Those members opposite who think that maybe tonight they've had some great little politicking victory I say this to them and especially to Dr Smith: the greatest commitment you can show to democracy is when you uphold the rights of people that you despise or people that you don't like or people who have done things that you don't agree with. That's when you show your commitment to democracy Dr Smith not some little political trick not some glib bill but when you uphold the rights of those who you may not agree with that is a commitment to democracy and that is what this bill does.
O'Connor GregGREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): For anyone watching this that thinks that somehow this is about crime and soft on crime as is being espoused by Nick Smith and his high-pitched little clone Simeon Brown it is not. What this is is simply about entrenching some legislation. Actually funnily enough nobody on the other side has mentioned one of their finest members the Hon Chris Finlayson who was opposed to the legislation when it went through in 2010 and remains opposed to it. What this is about—in fact as touched on by the previous speaker David Seymour—is victims of crime. It's about future victims of crime. As someone who as an undercover police officer lived among criminals the one thing I'll say is the common denominator among criminals is complete alienation from mainstream society. Voting is not going to be a panacea. It's not a cure all. But as the previous speaker said it is going to be a stepping stone into becoming part of mainstream society.Just before I finish there's a huge irony tonight that that party opposite who opposed this legislation all the way through tonight voted for an amendment that the public should know results in all prisoners now having the right to vote. Thank you National Party for all prisoners now having the right to vote. I commend this bill. [Interruption]DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order! Goodness me.
Luxton JoJO LUXTON (Labour): Thank you Madam Speaker. If it was up to the members opposite we would see every single criminal thrown into jail—throw the key away never to see the light of day again. Unfortunately for them on this side of the House we think that everybody deserves a second chance. If we want people to integrate back into society we do need to give them some rights. One of those rights is the right to vote. But what we've seen from the National Party this evening has become symbolic of what we see from them all the time: flip-flop can't make their minds up playing politics playing games and political point-scoring. We're here as politicians to make sensible legislation and what do we see? The Hon Nick Smith running around laughing playing games making fun of the fact that they're supposedly the party for victims and all they've done is play games with the victims here tonight. So it's very disappointing—somewhat disgusting—to see them behave in that way. I commend this bill to the House.
Smith NickHon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I seek leave of the House under Standing Order 74 for a motion to discharge the bill and for it to be referred back to the select committee. It is openly acknowledged now that this bill has an internal contradiction. It is unworkable law. It would require our prison officers to act illegally. The correct way for the House to ensure that we're not passing law that puts our prison officers in that impossible position would be for us to discharge the bill and refer it back to the Justice Committee. The Standing Order would normally require for that motion to be moved earlier in the legislative process but I am seeking leave of the House to be able to put that resolution because the bill as it stands is now unworkable law.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): So I'm not trying to trick you on words; I'm just getting it clear: you're seeking leave which in effect is to leave aside the Standing Order which deals with proper process.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Correct. The Standing Orders provide a process by which a motion can be put to the House. It's a non-debatable motion. It requires the bill be discharged from the House and referred back to the Justice Committee and that is the motion I am seeking leave to put to the House given the pretty extraordinary situation we're—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is. The following call is a split call—Jo Luxton.
SpeechJENNY MARCROFT (NZ First): Thank you Madam Speaker. It's always a pleasure to stand and take a call on behalf of New Zealand First and on this particular bill the Electoral (Registration of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill. And it is indeed a pleasure to take this bill seriously as we are doing on this side of the House because that is our job. That is what we are in this House for is to take care of legislation in a proper manner—not playing games silly games like the other side of the House is doing this evening with this particular piece of legislation. The mucking around that we are seeing from the other side of the House is unacceptable. We are parliamentarians and it is our job to do what is right and proper.This bill will overturn a silly rule pre-2010 that the National Party bill removed the voting rights of all sentenced prisoners. So this bill will restore some dignity it will restore some humanity and it will uphold the ability for reintegration to society engagement back into society for those who are in prison with less than three years. I am proud to speak to this bill because the Supreme Court takes this seriously the Waitangi Tribunal takes this seriously and the Government on this side of the House takes this seriously. Rehabilitation is at the very heart of this bill; so I'm very proud to stand and say New Zealand First supports this bill and I commend it to the House.
Little AndrewHon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): I know the member who just resumed his seat Chris Penk said he didn't have a question but I do have a response and that is a couple of things. He draws a distinction between remand and sentenced prisoners but he should be reminded of course that remand prisoners have been assessed as being a risk to the community. So in that respect they don't share a lot of difference in characteristic to sentenced prisoners.In the end this bill is about voting and it doesn't actually matter whether you are a remand prisoner or a sentenced prisoner sentenced to less than three years when it comes to voting. Remand prisoners have a right to vote right now and there are processes set up to enable that right to be facilitated. This bill will extend the right or restore the right to those sentenced to less than three years.The issue about standing as candidates in election: if the members can produce to me evidence of the last time either a remand prisoner or a sentenced prisoner was nominated to be a candidate in an election let's hear the evidence. But otherwise let's not make up fantasies as somehow being a compelling argument about the bill before the House. The rest of us live in the real world. The rest of us live in the practical world—the world that everybody else lives in and makes their judgments by. The reality is there are not many prisoners sitting there thinking Right how am I going to increase my voters in the next election? I'll talk to members of the Labour Party because they're so good at it."—which is why we're in the situation that we're in at the moment. They're not doing that. Most of them as we know are probably National Party voters because we know they're self-interested greedy and they do all those sorts of things. They're probably going to look to the National Party for advice. But the reality is they are not lining up to be candidates in elections. This is about the right to vote—restoring the right to vote to a bunch of people who had it unceremoniously taken off them by the National Party in 2010. This is the right thing to do."
Little Andrew; Rurawhe AdrianHon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): I'll try and make it as clear as I possibly can for the benefit of Mr Falloon. The obligation is on the prison manager to advise an eligible prisoner so a prisoner who's 18 years or older or will achieve the age of 18 in the foreseeable period of their right to enrol—their obligation to enrol in fact—and where agreeable to take information or assist in filling out a form. The bill gives the power of the Department of Corrections to collect that information and pass it on to the Electoral Commission because if the Department of Corrections does not have the statutory power to do so they cannot do so. But using the Department of Corrections and its channels and its people is not the only way that somebody in prison on a sentence of less than three years can convey information to the Electoral Commission. They might hand it to a family member on a visit or to a friend on a visit to convey that information to the Electoral Commission. So this is permissive for the Department of Corrections and their managers and their personnel but it is not exclusive to the Department of Corrections to assist a prisoner in enrolling to vote.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Chris Penk—Chris Penk.
SpeechANDREW FALLOON (National—Rangitata): Thank you Mr Chair. I wasn't planning on taking a call but I just wanted to follow up on a question that my colleague Brett Hudson asked earlier which I don't think the Minister of Justice perhaps quite understood or at least if he did then his answer created more questions for me than it did answers. It comes back to Part 2 clause 7 new section 86A in relation to the requirement of a prison manager to inform the Electoral Commission of a prisoner's intention to enrol to vote. My concern I suppose comes to the Electoral Act 1993 off the top of my head which has in there fines or punishments for people who choose not to enrol because of course we do have compulsory enrolment in New Zealand. My recollection is that the fine is $100 in the first instance and then $200 for subsequent offences. My question to the Minister is: if a prisoner does not give that instruction to their prison manager what other feasible way does a prisoner have to enrol; and if they don't give that instruction would that be sufficient for them to be fined under the Electoral Act if they are subsequently not enrolled and given a fine of $100 or as I've said a fine of $200 for a subsequent offence? I don't intend to take any more of the committee's time. I just want an answer from the Minister on that.
Logie JanJAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you Mr Chair. I'll take a very brief call on this and speak to the Green Party's support for this legislation. I do in the context of that need to respond—this is around enrolment to vote—to the comments that were made by a previous member bringing in a case where I was asked to stand and speak in response to the experience of rape victims. I am just noting that I've had a message from Louise Nicholas herself who's been watching this debate and is absolutely appalled at that member's contribution and the misrepresentation of a situation of a rape case. There are sentencing guidelines in four bands and the minimum for rape is six to eight years and goes up to 20. That was a mischaracterisation for political purposes. That is exactly what we do not need when it comes to sexual violence in this country.This is also one of the reasons that the Greens support this piece of legislation. We are continually hearing from survivors that what they want is for people to be held to account. They want people to be supported to change. Often in the majority of cases these are people that are close to them. It does not serve them to vilify rapists as monsters out there who deserve the absolute worst. We have to restore their connections to our society to help them rehabilitate. Hold them to account keep victims safe make sure victims are heard but provide a pathway to rehabilitation. This piece of legislation is actually—surprisingly for some people perhaps—part of doing that.
Little AndrewHon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): On the point about the role of the prison manager to assist the prisoner bearing in mind that for some prisoners or I might say for many prisoners they are illiterate—at least they're not functionally literate—they struggle with filling out forms. So assistance will be expected to be provided for that. There may be some assistance in reading the requirements that a prisoner has to meet in order to get on the unpublished roll. What a prisoner has to do to acquire support and information will be up to the prisoner. But obviously you'd expect a prison manager or their delegates to ensure that letters requesting information are facilitated in and out of the prison. I would ask the member and members opposite to bear in mind this. There are some prisoners who are in prison who notwithstanding their offending do provide assistance to the authorities to the police to Corrections and put themselves at risk in doing so. One of the reasons to get on the unpublished roll is because your safety is at risk and you don't want to prevent them from making that application when actually some whose safety is at risk do so in order to assist the authorities. So there is that.In terms of the member's second point which I didn't note down—he's going to quickly shout it out to me.Simeon Brown: It's in regards to the victims of crime.Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The victims of crime. So the victims are given assistance and certainly victims of serious crime whose safety is at risk. They meet on the face of it the criteria to go on the unpublished roll. Victim Support sometimes victims' court advisers and that network of advisers support victims to make those applications and I've met people who have been assisted to do so. There are people who live in fear of their lives and they need to be given assistance and Victim Support services does that.
Little AndrewHon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): Just turning to the first bit I know the member Brett Hudson and his colleagues are desperate to create a picture of something that doesn't exist. So the bill when it came to the House had a provision that on the face of it allowed prisoners to elect whether or not to go on to the unpublished roll without meeting the same tests and standards that every other citizen has done. That was wrong it shouldn't have happened submitters made that point and it has been changed by me—the Minister. So I know it's good sport for the member to dredge that up because they've lost that argument and they want to beat the Government over the head with that big sort of stick but it just doesn't exist—the thing doesn't exist. It is what they call a straw person".I know it makes the member feel good because he hasn't got much else to feel good about but actually the law's very clear now in the Supplementary Order Paper: if a prisoner wants to apply to go on the unpublished roll the Department of Corrections can assist them to make the application but they stand alongside any other citizen making the same application with the same standards and tests that must apply.In relation to the obligation to enrol the member has to read that in context. So if he has a look at clause 7 new section 86A(1)(b) having under paragraph (a) advised the prison they're entitled to enrol and all the rest of it then they ask the prisoner whether they want their enrolment details sent to the Electoral Commission to facilitate their registration and then under subsection (2) if the prisoner wants their enrolment details sent to the Electoral Commission to facilitate their registration as an elector then a subsequent section applies. It may well be that the prisoner does not want the Department of Corrections officer to do that. A prisoner might want a family member to do that. A prisoner might want somebody else to take over that role of doing that. Just because the Department of Corrections has a duty to inform prisoners if they can be on the roll to assist in facilitating that doesn't mean to say that it is the Department of Corrections that has to physically provide the information to the Electoral Commission.The bill gives the power for the Department of Corrections to do that and for the Electoral Commission to receive that information from the Department of Corrections because if it wasn't in the bill the Electoral Commission could not receive that information from the Department of Corrections. But the prisoner has another option. They can ask a family member or a friend to convey an enrolment form to the Electoral Commission on their behalf."
Little AndrewHon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): I'm happy to answer that question. First of all somebody convicted of rape described in the terms that that member described them does not get 18 months; they get a sentence way longer than three years. So I do not believe the member when he said that. Here's the point: this is about people sentenced to sentences of less than three years. One of the things that judges have to do when they're sentencing an offender is look at levels of culpability. So as we know there can be two people who are convicted of the same crime. Differences in culpability and differences in track record can lead to completely different outcomes. Somebody might not be sentenced to prison at all; somebody might be sentenced to prison; somebody might be sentenced to prison for less than three years; somebody might be sentenced to prison for more than three years—and all will have a different result. It will look quite arbitrary in terms of those kinds of civil rights.But this law is the same law that the National Party supported in 1993. In my view and this Government's view it strikes the right balance between ensuring that those whose offending is at the lower end of the scale—not those who commit rape or cause serious harm because they get much longer sentences than that much longer sentences than that. No one convicted of rape is getting 18 months; it's just totally wrong. This strikes a balance between those whose offending is at the lower end of the scale those whose culpability is at the lower end of the scale but sufficient to justify going to prison but knowing that they will be out in the free world before the next election having the right to have a say on those who're governing the country that they're going to be released into. That's the principle. It is a correct principle; it is not an open slather to any prisoner allowed to vote.There are some prisoners whose conduct is so evil so wrong so egregious that they are sentenced to long periods in prison and I maintain the view that it is an arguable proposition about how much of your rights you lose when you go to prison. But for those who offend most seriously there is a justifiable contention that they lose the right to vote. There are judges who have made determinations to that effect in the last 20 years. That is a live debate but this bill draws the balance I think at the right point.
SpeechHAMISH WALKER (National—Clutha-Southland): Thank you Mr Chair. I just want to make the point from a previous speaker Dr Nick Smith a very hard-working and logical MP from Nelson—who's going to take the seat this year with a record-winning majority—new section 86A. And we heard from the Minister. The Minister said he lives in the real world—You've got to have the door open. You've got to have your mind open." But Minister the real world Kiwis—do you think a Kiwi wants a convicted person a prisoner do you think they want a person that's committed a serious act—take for example the lovely lady I won't mention her name but she came and saw me in my electorate office two weeks ago. She was raped. They found the person that raped her. He was sentenced; 18 months' jail time. But she described to me the horrible horrific act that this person did to her. Minister if we talk about the real world this shows how out of touch this Government is when it's more focused on giving prisoners the right to vote as opposed to the victims.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): So I've given the member 1½ minutes to get to Part 2 and the member really needs to link his comments to what he's saying and be relevant to Part 2 which he has not done yet.HAMISH WALKER: So if we just go to the enrolment process in new section 86A that's around remand prisoners and whether or not they have the right to vote. I was fortunate enough when I was 18 years of age to work two years as a police jailer—a humble temporary constable. In that role you get to know some of the prisoners and talking to them they want consequences for their actions. When we're talking about new section 86A around enrolment what sort of consequence is it if you commit rape and you then get the right to vote? That's not right. And I look at the other side and they're all looking at the ground; they know it's not right. Jan Logie knows it's not right. You've been doing some wonderful work lately Jan Logie. I acknowledge you and I look forward to seeing you taking a call on this. Darroch Ball knows it's not up to play. He hasn't taken a call.If we want to live in the real world why are we giving people like rapists the right to vote? It makes no sense at all. My colleague Simeon Brown in his contribution before around enrolment made a very good point that during lockdown 130 hours of prisoners' probation time was cut off while we were in lockdown. But I'd like the Minister to answer: why should someone who's committed an act like rape have the right to vote?"
Little AndrewHon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): Thank you Mr Chairman. The member who has just resumed his seat Dr Nick Smith has made some interesting points. He did point out that his door was open but of course we all know that it's not just your door that has to be open it's your mind as well and we know that his mind isn't. I acknowledge his criticism of me as someone who made some comments that were personal about others and he's demonstrated how to address the Parliament in a way that doesn't personalise issues. I make this point: I know that member lives in a weird world—in a weird strange world that is divorced from reality. But here's the point: if the member looked at the Electoral Act all of it he would see that the law as it is at the moment as passed and approved by this Parliament under his Government allows remand prisoners to be candidates in the general election. In that nine years they did nothing about it. They passed the law in 2010 allowing remand prisoners to be candidates—did nothing about it. He has no moral stance to take on this.But here's the other point: if somebody under this bill if it is passed nominates to be a candidate there's a few hurdles they have to get through. They've got to get nominations they have to pay a deposit—all difficult when you're behind bars. But here's the other thing: they then in the most unlikely event that that would happen and secondly that they'd get elected have to be able to take up their seat in Parliament and if by a certain time they don't they vacate that seat. Those are the practical implications. Now most of us—possibly all but one of us in this Chamber—live in the real world. We understand how the world works. We take a practical approach to the world. We look at rules; we see how they apply in the real world. Not Dr Nick Smith. He lives in a fantasy world—in a fantasy land—which informs his arguments which makes it entertaining but doesn't help us to understand the law in front of the committee that we're trying to debate at the moment.
Little AndrewPart 2 Amendments relating to registration of sentenced prisoners as electorsHon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): I don't intend to speak for long just to introduce this part of the bill. So this is very much the mechanics of the changes here. It allows the gathering of information by Corrections from prisoners and the conveying of that information to the Electoral Commission.There is one part that has changed compared to the bill that was introduced and went to the Justice Committee and that is in relation to prisoners who are seeking to go on to the unpublished roll. The original draft of the bill suggested or implied or made it pretty clear that that would be an automated process; it was never intended to be. This has changed that so that any prisoner applying to go on to the unpublished roll stands in the same position as any other citizen applying to go on the unpublished roll but the Department of Corrections will have a role in assisting the prisoner to fill out the application. But in the end the decision on whether or not a prisoner goes on to the unpublished roll once they're released is a question entirely for the Electoral Commission applying the test and standards that they apply to any other citizen.
Little AndrewHon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): I'll try and deal with the latter point first. It is correct that in order to be a candidate you have to be enrolled and to meet the citizenship and residency requirements. Whether that means you could be a candidate—if that is the case it is the case now. A remand prisoner—if the law is correct that you are enrolled and you have a right to vote and it is correct that you can also be a candidate remand prisoners can be candidates now. So this wouldn't change that if that is correct.Brett Hudson: They didn't put that on the tin though.Hon ANDREW LITTLE: That's a saving grace for Mr Hudson obviously. He's obviously planning his future that he can do it from prison.On the first question—and I know Mr Penk drew from his experience of Pāremoremo—I'm not sure how many inmates in Pāremoremo have been sentenced to sentences of less than three years. My hunch would be not many because it's a maximum security prison. But in any event the substantial question is: can election material go into the prisons? I guess I would talk to candidates of the last few elections and see what steps they took to get their advertising material into prisons trying to secure the prisoner vote.
Little AndrewHon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): I just thought we were trying to keep this conversation—because I have seen it working quite well even in contentious legislation. So my apologies to my colleague Golriz Ghahraman. To Mr Penk he is right: one of the reasons this bill is here is because there is a slather of judicial findings that the legislation as it is currently is inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. I'd just point out that for someone sentenced to more than three years the bill does still set up a requirement on the Department of Corrections to assist that prisoner at the point of release to enrol if they wish to do so—to proactively provide that assistance. Now the member asked will we be supporting the Supplementary Order Paper in the name of Golriz Ghahraman. No we won't be. We made the decision on the principle I've pointed out but also the fact that the law that had been in place since 1993—and in fact actually it had been in place earlier for a longer period of time—we thought struck the right balance in terms of our electoral law. We know that for those who commit offences and offend against society and social mores to the point where they are incarcerated and lose their freedom of movement and freedom of association and all those sorts of freedoms but where that is a short-term sentence and they're going to be out before the next election they ought to retain the right to vote. We know it is an arguable point—and it is in communities around the world—as to how many citizens' rights and civilian rights or civil rights you take off somebody sentenced to prison. You automatically lose your right to freedom of movement and your right to freedom of association and you have a huge curtailment of the right of freedom of speech. Should you lose other rights as well and look that's a fertile debate. But actually for New Zealand it was reasonably well settled until what I think was a pretty gratuitous political act in 2010. Under a member's bill no less the law changed and this Government does not think that that was a savoury thing to do. We think there is a principle underpinning this. It may well be that in a subsequent hearing the law as changed by this law change may also be found to be inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and I know there were submitters who said that. There is judicial reasoning from previous cases that actually upheld the 1993 law as being consistent with the 1990 New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. So that remains an arguable point. I think the balance is struck well here and it's the right thing to do.