edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Kuriger BarbaraBARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki-King Country): Thank you Mr Speaker. Well this bill is a result of an announcement that the Government made back on 16 May this year to control a problem that actually has literally run away on the Government and that is around fleeing drivers and introducing some new powers for police when it comes to those fleeing drivers. So police will now be able to seize and impound vehicles for up to six months if it's failed to stop. It will also apply if the registered owner of the vehicle fails to provide information of the fleeing driver and impounding is deemed necessary for public safety. Vehicles may also be forfeited upon conviction for a failing-to-stop offence.The background to the reasoning for this—and National is supporting it but we feel like it's come at a very late stage when something could have been done a lot earlier because data released last year showed that the number of fleeing drivers between December 2020 and December 2021 was 4846; the same number showed the number of fleeing drivers between November 2021 and November 2022 was 9499. So it practically doubled. It just goes to show that if there's inaction with law and order problems can really start to accelerate—and that's not meant to be a pun but it certainly has been an accelerating problem. In the same time the number of unidentified fleeing drivers increased from 2419 to 6412; while the number of police proceedings jumped from 3374 to 3484—so a very very small number of police proceedings in relation to what was happening out there on our road and putting the number of people out there in danger. So for six years now all offenders needed to do was put their foot down and nobody would chase. The results have been predictable: an increase of 96 percent more fleeing drivers from that December 2020 period that I quoted before.So Labour's lack of action on crime combined with this bill that won't have a massive overall effect on the wider crime picture shows that the Government is waving the white flag and giving up on law and order. The Government is now belatedly waking up to the fact that authorities need stronger powers and that offenders should face some real consequences. This bill will help but the real challenge is to change the culture of excuses. The only target that this Government has focused on in the justice sector until now is a 30 percent reduction in prison numbers. So this is far too little far too late. Many people have lost their lives in the interim. National is supporting this bill today. We just would again reiterate the fact that it's been a very long time—far too long—finding its way into the House to give the police some powers to act on at least one crime that is desperately out of control. Thank you Mr Speaker.
Utikere TangiTANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Kia orana Mr Speaker. It's a pleasure to take a brief call in support of the Land Transport (Road Safety) Amendment Bill. In doing so I want to acknowledge the work of the Justice Committee. Mr Penk acknowledged that it's a hard-working committee under the chair Vanushi Walters and what they have done is they've worked through this after listening to submissions and have come back with some rather sensible and practical solutions to make the bill more workable. One is really around the practical aspect of what defines a registered person—making sure that there's a broader scope around that—and also allowing the electronic means to be incorporated in terms of not just filing of information which seems to be fairly common these days but also in terms of following through on the service of notices when it comes to particular breaches or infringements that might follow.The interesting thing I note also is that it lengthens the period from 28 days which seems to be the common theme in a number of calendar events when it comes to criminal proceedings to that of six months as a period by which the enforcement officer may take action to impound a motor vehicle. That gives the enforcement agency—more likely than not to be the New Zealand Police of course—more time to work through processes to establish identity and to take appropriate action. The limitation of the 28 days as a time frame is just an indication where it has proved a little bit difficult. So I again congratulate and acknowledge the work of the Justice Committee. I thank the Minister for bringing this to the House and commend this bill to the House.
SpeechANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Thank you Mr Speaker. It's a surprise but also a pleasure to be standing and speaking on this bill the Land Transport (Road Safety) Amendment Bill. I have not sat on the Justice Committee. Nevertheless I understand as the member Chris Penk who has just resumed his seat has said that the Justice Committee have taken through this House the most bills in this term. So I want to acknowledge Vanushi Walters the chair and a very apt and able chair she is too; also the former chair Ginny Andersen for her work. I think it also has to be said absolutely because it's not just the chairs or the select committee but the officials that have worked and I imagine they have worked tirelessly on this work.This bill is at the second reading. I understand there were 33 interested groups or individuals and eight oral submitters that came before the select committee and the bill simply seeks to reduce unsafe behaviour on New Zealand roads by increasing the speed and severity of enforcement.Two matters that I think are particularly useful were discussed. One is vehicle impoundment for failing to provide information. One of the things that hasn't been said is some of the grounds that don't necessarily mean that the impoundment sticks or stays and that is there are some compassionate grounds that mean that the vehicle can be returned. Creditors can also ask to have the car or vehicle released and the police have a discretion to use that. Also in terms of vehicle forfeiture there is a really clear process as well for ensuring that the financial sale of the property is also now going to be kept by the Crown. I think that that is a very severe message that we send to people who are committing this crime. Thank you Mr Speaker.
SpeechSORAYA PEKE-MASON (Labour): Tēnā koe e te Mana Whakawā. I'm pleased to take a call on the third reading of the Legal Services Amendment Bill. I'm so grateful for this amendment having myself supported whānau to navigate the justice system and seeing the despair on their faces and not knowing what to do and wanting to know how to access legal representation. The justice system is a stressful place to be in if you've never been there before; absolutely the experience is much more overwhelming than it already is. I recall turning up to court and it's a sterile cold place. You've got to stand there and look for the name of what courtroom you're in and so on and so forth. That is bad enough.The bill does speak to two significant things such as the removal of the $50 user charge. It might be a pittance to some but as I've said before in this House it is gold to others. Secondly it gets rid of that 5 percent interest charged on unpaid legal debt. I'm delighted the user charge and interest payments will already be in effect—in place—before this bill passes by changing the regulations and removing reference to the charges and the interest payments. Legal aid is central to ensuring equity in New Zealand's justice system. By doing this the legal aid scheme can keep doing what it was designed to do in the first place. This means that more people can of course access legal advice ensuring the ongoing viability of the legal aid system. And I just want to note that the bill responds to the Ministry of Justice findings in the 2018 review of legal aid. The changes are part of our Budget the 2022 package of $149.7 million to strengthen the legal aid system. I welcome this and I commend this bill to the House.
Mooney JosephJOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you Mr Speaker. I rise to make a small contribution on the Legal Services Amendment Bill one that the National Party is opposing.We do agree that New Zealanders struggle to access justice—something that has become certainly harder and longer in the last five years. Our view is that the Government would be best focused on improving New Zealand's access to justice by speeding up what is a very slow court process. It's something I have certainly seen in my previous career—even before the delays of the last few years when it could take someone two to three years to progress their way through the court system. This bill does remove some costs. But I mean ultimately people can still access the legal aid system; they can still get help.We think it's important that legal aid is accessible for all. But this bill simply takes away the $50 contribution that people have to make and takes away the interest that they'll have to pay on any outstanding money. Of course anything that someone has to pay less of is helpful—particularly those who are in a difficult position. But frankly this country is in a difficult position. Core Crown debt has doubled since 2019 we have the biggest gross national debt we've ever had—just over $800 billion—and our balance of trade deficit is the biggest in the OECD meaning that we are spending significantly more than we're earning as a nation. So we don't have a whole lot of money to spend on a whole lot of things.I think it would actually be a lot more valuable to people who are trying to access justice to get faster progress through the court system which fundamentally actually will cost them less in legal fees and therefore there will be less interest they'll need to pay on any debt that incurs if we're able to speed up the court process. So we think the money is better spent on getting a more efficient faster court process.I think a $50 contribution would actually be a significant—I think many people would be very happy to pay that to have a much faster court process which actually gives them certainty as to the outcome of that court process whatever it may be. Because uncertainty is actually a huge cost to people emotionally physically and financially. A $50 contribution to the cost of the court and some interest being paid—so actually if we can put that towards speeding up the court system that would add the most value to people's lives.There's an old saying that Justice delayed is justice denied." That's certainly a real truism. Fundamentally that money we think would be best spent towards actually making sure justice is not delayed more than it needs to be and assisting with that. So with that I will conclude my contribution."
Sosene Lemauga LydiaLEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour): Thank you Mr Speaker. I'm really pleased to be able to speak on this bill the Legal Services Amendment Bill and to take a call. I want to thank the Justice Committee members and also the officials who prepared the briefings and specifically the submitters who were able to put forward their contribution.This is a good bill for those who cannot access the legal services or access justice in terms of equality and equity. The bill refers to two minor technical amendments that will help those thousands of households on low incomes to access justice.In my local community we have the Māngere Community Law Centre. I want to acknowledge the team who work really hard because they deal with very diverse community members who would not necessarily put themselves forward to access the legal services that are required to understand—because many of the people in the South Auckland community or the local communities come from different diverse backgrounds. When they have problem because they don't necessarily understand the complexities of law in English terms it is very helpful for them to access justice and access the community law centre.The bill is helpful. It is very helpful because for those households—thousands of households—across the motu who cannot afford the fee it is helpful to repeal those sections and interests. Although it seems like quite a small amount it will be very helpful for those particular households.It is important to be educated on the laws of the land to understand your rights as a person in the community and that whatever has happened when you require legal help there are the services out there in the community that will be able to assist you because they have the knowledge the expertise and the legal backgrounds. I do want to thank those who prepared this bill—and I would commend it to the House.
SpeechDAN ROSEWARNE (Labour): It's my pleasure to rise in this House and take a quick call on the Legal Services Amendment Bill. This bill it's all about access to justice and my learned colleague Helen White painted the picture relatively well I thought. People don't access justice when things are going well; they usually access justice when there are a lot of other challenges going on in their lives. So it's important to recognise that and make sure that the system recognises that—that when people are in vulnerable positions that $50 fee can act as a huge barrier to getting that justice.And then also in the House we've talked about the 5 percent interest that accrues on that fee as well and then when that's lined up with other outstanding fees that the individual may owe to other Government departments that can quickly become quite overwhelming. So this is a really good bill and these proposed changes will mean that thousands of people who would otherwise not be able to afford a lawyer will be able to have proper legal representation. Looking through the commentary on the bill we had 10 submitters. Four were from individuals and six were from organisations and all 10 of those submitters supported the bill and didn't recommend any amendments.So just in closing another point to note is that you know investment in Budget 2022 actually—it's helped around 93000 people be eligible for legal aid since January 2023. So we're fulfilling our election promise to make improvements to our court system so that everybody has appropriate access to justice so that we can improve equitable outcomes for all. Thank you.
Kuriger BarbaraBARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki-King Country): Thank you Mr Speaker. National is opposing this bill. We agree that New Zealanders struggle to access justice especially under the current Government. The best thing that this Government or our new Government could do to improve New Zealanders' access to justice would be to speed up the very slow court processes so that those involved in proceedings don't have their lives kept on hold for years and years.Rather than reducing the incentive for those with debts to repay by removing interest we believe any additional spending in the system would be best speeding up the process of justice firstly and secondly to improve legal aid available to make it more attractive for lawyers. Currently legislation allows for applications pertaining to the exemption of legal aid debt under the grounds of financial hardship or any other reason that the applicant believes should be considered. These are labelled as just and equitable reasons.So in my very short speech today I just wanted to reiterate that there are much better ways of giving access to justice and tidying up the legal system and to reiterate that National will be opposing this bill. Thank you.
Williams Arena; O'Connor GregARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe Mr Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the Legal Services Amendment Bill. This is a good bill and it was a pleasure to sit with the Justice Committee in consideration of it and to consider the detail about how this will improve access to justice. Access to justice is something that everyone in this House should support and this bill clearly does that. This bill does two simple things and I thank the ACT member who spoke about the removal of user charges being a good thing. It's a real no-brainer; $50 is the difference between somebody being able to access the services of a legal aid lawyer or to make choices about say school camp coming up or groceries on the table. To remove that fee makes a real difference in the lives of exactly the kind of people who need legal aid.The second thing it does is it removes interest and that means that the bills of people who access legal aid services don't continuously go up as they are trying to pay them off. It can be incredibly demoralising for people especially those people who have outstanding debt to other Government departments. So it really makes sense to do this.Any party who is opposing access to justice in this way has got the wrong idea. Fees and barriers to accessing legal services and the knowledge to navigate the legal system create the kind of inequality which is inexcusable in New Zealand society. It's a trap of poverty that this bill does something to prise the jaws open from.Those kind of barriers generate arbitrary and unsustainable inequalities that radically undermine the meritocratic values this this democracy was founded on. It keeps people at the bottom at the bottom while the continuous accumulation of capital lets people at the top keep going up and up. The existential growth of inequality in our society is something we should all push against.The thing which brings us closer together whether it's in wealth or in our standing in our communities is the diffusion of that knowledge. It's the fact that you can go into a courtroom and have somebody who knows what's going on explaining it to you. It's those policies like education that transform people's lives and this is one of those. I'm proud to stand up for this bill and I'm proud to stand with a Government that's advancing it.DEPUTY SPEAKER: A five-minute split call—Barbara Kuriger.
Genter Julie AnneHon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green): Tēnā koe Mr Speaker. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. The Green Party supports this bill. They are good changes that are cleanly aligned with Green policies and statements. We would go further with much more substantive changes to the framework for legal aid. While these are small the changes are clearly positive steps. The Green Party opposed National's legal aid changes in 2011. We lobbied against further changes in 2012. Green MPs called for an inquiry into the equality of access to justice in 2015. There should be no financial barriers to accessing justice and representation in the court and the provisions around interest on unpaid legal aid debt as well as the upfront fee are a barrier to access for justice. And it's just a very clear case of an ideological approach of user pays" that doesn't recognise that all people are entitled as members of our society to have access to justice. We're all better off if we make that as easy and accessible as possible. So we congratulate the Labour Government for getting this to this point even if it isn't as far as the Green Party would like to go."
SpeechCHRIS BAILLIE (ACT): Thank you Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT to take a short call on the Legal Services Amendment Bill before us here under urgency. It seems like an uncomplicated bill. We've got two parts to it: a $50 user charge which has been identified as a barrier to accessing justice for those people on low incomes and it really doesn't seem to serve much of a purpose. The other part is removing the 5 percent interest on legal aid after six months. ACT says if the $50 charge is a deterrent for people struggling let's remove it and remove that excuse. We already have an issue with people paying fines and it's good to at least go into the court process with a clean slate. Unlike most of Labour's policies this bill actually targets the right people. With the GST on fruit and veggies the winter energy payment prescription charges—all policies that help the rich people or the evil millionaires more than they do the poor people. So it's good to see a focus. This will actually help those people who are struggling in the world today which is often the world which has been created again by this Government and it may reduce the stress in their lives.The policeman in me thinks that it would be better if the person wasn't in court at all and didn't require any legal services. Again an ACT-influenced Government will help them on this path so there is hope. The bill will hopefully make it easier to access democracy—and that's a word that we're fast losing the meaning of in New Zealand. And because of this ACT supports the bill.
White HelenHELEN WHITE (Labour): A lot of years ago I started in a firm called Ellis Gould. It was a high-priced firm and it had a beautiful view from my office of the city. I gave up that job to go to something which was the Union Law Centre in Ōtāhuhu.When I got there I was working out of the tea room. My first client came in and she had what was called at the time a non-molestation order that she needed—it's now called a domestic violence order. I listened to her and I understood that she didn't have the money to pay for the order and I was concerned about that. I remember my boss saying Don't worry about it we just do those ones." That's what lots of the legal community do. Now that woman had had a machete held over her head by her partner. She had four children and it was a pretty serious situation.That's the situation I'd like to contrast with some of the statements that have been made on the other side about how people have to have a bit of skin in the game if they are to deal with situations of their own making. That was a situation where we needed to be kind. We needed to understand what $50 is. We needed to understand what we needed to do in the circumstances. Our family lawyers and our employment lawyers know that and they do it.This law is going to help people. It isn't a little law; it's a really important law. I'll never forget that story. It haunted me through my entire practice and it kept me honest. Thank you I commend this bill to the House."
SpeechVANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour): Thank you Mr Speaker. I was listening intently during the committee of the whole House stage of this bill and I will say this: it was the best of times listening to the Minister; it was the worst of times listening to the Opposition. I have to throw my Dickens in there given the theme of the day. But Mr Goldsmith is correct that it was a really collegial select committee that we had when we considered this bill. We received excellent advice and actually had a very thorough robust conversation. So I must admit I was surprised by the Opposition's position on this bill as the only party who are opposing this bill. I'm surprised and perplexed for a number of reasons.So we were told on the one hand that this is a bill that's about tinkering and then on the other hand we were told that actually removing the interest payments on legal aid loans was a very very big thing—a very big scary thing—that shouldn't be done. So the question is which is it—is it tinkering or is it a big thing?Now I'll tell you I worked at YouthLaw Aotearoa for nearly a decade and there's something about watching the point of decision—after you've advised someone about the strength of their legal case and that they can access a legal-aid loan—watching their face as they go through that decisionmaking process and seeing the people who are low income and who have very sound legal cases who look at me and say that they aren't going to access legal aid because they simply cannot perceive taking on that loan. Unless you've been in that position or advised someone who is you do not know the scale of the people who are not accessing justice.Now Mr Goldsmith has repeatedly made the argument that if there's no interest people will not pay the loan back. But the advice we received was that the Legal Services Commissioner has the power to issue deduction notices directly to employers or to bank accounts. So that option is there; it was given to us in advice.The Opposition have argued Well why aren't you doing other things like improving the court processes?" We are. Mr Goldsmith knows that. He was in the room this morning as we discussed Te Au Reka with the Ministry of Justice  which is their digital case management system. He's been there as we've made changes to the coronial system. He's been there as we've made changes to the Family Court.Mr Simon O'Connor in the second reading argued that we should be putting our justice money in other pockets. He's been there in the room as we talked about the circuit-breaker programme. He's been there in this House as we've talked about expanding that programme; putting 1800 police on the ground. We're about saying yes to all means of access to justice and saying yes to all ways of addressing community safety in our community. I commend this bill to the House."
Salesa Jenny; O'Connor GregCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Mr Speaker the committee has considered the Legal Services Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment. I move That the report be adopted.Motion agreed to.Report adopted. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The bill is set down for third reading immediately.
Penk Chris; Brooking RachelCHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Madam Chair thank you for the opportunity and I look forward to engaging with the Minister in the chair Rachel Brooking on this subject as well as other members of the committee as we consider this important area of legal services. And I should start by saying that our reservations about the legislation remain from previous stages of the debate and also the select committee stage and also the overall context of our justice system and more particularly the dysfunction of our courts which is quite simply that they are in disarray. The backlogs are unforgivably large; far too little of substance has taken place to reduce these and if any doubt existed in that matter the results and the implications for Kiwis' lives struggling to access justice should leave no watcher or listener of the debate in any doubt of that.So while we would acknowledge that legal services through the legal aid regime are important and that's naturally a system that needs protection so far as it goes the elephant in the room is not being addressed and we are far too far along the road of fundamental issues in our court system not being addressed to be content merely with such tinkering as this. In particular I'd like to ask the Minister to address the subject of whether this measure will do anything to improve access to justice when it comes to timeliness of justice and the expense involved in taking matters to court as opposed to merely kicking cans down the road whereby we have for example the waiving of interest on debt which in itself we think will have an unintended consequence of making people less likely to be prepared to pay and the moral hazard that's associated with that of some choosing to pay as is required and others not doing so and facing no sanction or more to the point no incentive for not acting in that way. So those are some initial points. Some have been framed as questions; however it's a statement of position and I'd welcome the Minister's response on any or all of those and I look forward to the discussion that no doubt will continue at that point.Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries): Thank you Madam Chair. As the member Chris Penk has just noted this bill does have a very narrow scope and it is just about repealing that user charge and also getting rid of interest on unpaid legal debt. Going to his point about access to justice this bill is all about access to justice and it definitely is related to the expense incurred by people who are going to struggle to pay legal fees in the civil jurisdiction and need legal aid. So it will help with the expense issue. The bill is not about timeliness and that's out of scope.
Salesa JennyLEGAL SERVICES AMENDMENT BILLIn CommitteeParts 1 and 2 the Schedule and clauses 1 to 3CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members we are in committee on the Legal Services Amendment Bill. We come first to Part 1.Camilla Belich: Point of order. I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one question.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Leave is sought for that purpose. Are there any objections? There are none. The question is that Parts 1 and 2 the Schedule and clauses 1 to 3 stand part.
SpeechANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Thank you Mr Speaker. It's a real pleasure to stand and speak on this bill. It'll be a quick speech. I'm delighted to support this bill. Having worked in the family violence and sexual violence elimination space for many years we know what alcohol harm contributes to that space. And also having worked in the environmental space we know that our communities of poverty our communities that have the least resources have the most alcohol outlets and they also have the least ability to stand up to the large organisations out there who are pushing back.We are getting rid of the adversarial nature of people having their say in community. We're all community members. We all get to have a say. It isn't about us having a drink or going down to the pub and having things closed down. We all agree that there should be the opportunity to do these things but this bill is about the whole of the community having a say and I commend it to the House.
SpeechHon MICHAEL WOOD (Labour—Mt Roskill): The Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act was passed in 2012 and local authorities such as Auckland Council developed their provisional local alcohol plans in 2015—and I'm well aware of that because I was an elected member of that council as that process was being worked through. Local alcohol plans which are a good part of that legislation passed by the previous National Government were a mechanism whereby local communities—with wide-ranging input from communities residents businesses and experts—were able to develop an evidence-led policy to manage and minimise alcohol harm within communities. We are standing here eight years after those plans were developed by communities without them having been implemented because of large players—not mom and pop operations let's be real. The major supermarket chains and the major liquor chains have abused their ability through the courts to delay and obfuscate the implementation of these plans against the wishes of communities. There is much in this bill that is to be commended but for the particular fact that it will enable local alcohol plans to be implemented that will help to minimise harm; that represent the interest of communities and will stop the big players from blocking those I heartily commend this bill to the House.
White HelenHELEN WHITE (Labour): I just want to take a short call and I want to focus on a colleague of mine Lydia Lemauga Sosene because she was a person that brought this to my attention in particular. She is a person who has spent a lot of time in South Auckland on a local board and this is an area which mattered to her because she saw the impact on one of our poorest communities. It has a devastating impact. This is work that she's had in progress for a long time. She has coupled it with things like looking at the needs to improve housing and make sure we have the minimum wage. This is Labour values; this is about local communities being able to deal with things—and it's a recognition of power imbalance. I commend this bill to the House.
Grigg NicolaNICOLA GRIGG (National—Selwyn): Thank you Madam Speaker. Just a brief call from me just to outline further our opposition to the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Community Participation) Amendment Bill.I think the aim of this bill is worthy; we would all acknowledge that alcohol does cause harm to some people and communities in our society. But the fact that this bill is removing the safeguards that are currently in place for some parties and/or organisations and/or agencies to overturn community decisions at times when necessary—we think that that's where the bill has unfortunately fallen short.As I just said we do acknowledge that alcohol misuse does cause serious harm in our communities and that alcohol abuse is a very complex situation that needs a multi-pronged attack to solve it. We do support harm reduction initiatives that do work alongside community institutions. But as I said we do disagree with removing the appeals process for local alcohol policies. We would rather see the process improved than eliminated or banned all together.We do think that the current system particularly with respect to the speed is not fit for purpose. But as I say we would rather see it improved that abandoned altogether because it does make the assumptions that local authorities will always get it right. We'd like to think they all do but we're all human; people do make mistakes at times.We do want to ensure that an appeals process remains in place because we do think that it does bring an additional safeguard and yes we do acknowledge that businesses will struggle and to the member from the Greens who thinks that that's a dreadful position for us to take we actually do come down on the side of business. We've got to think of everybody who's being impacted by this.So as I said we'd rather see solutions to where the problems are than an outright ban. We think that the current system is flawed and can be improved but we don't think that this bill is the vehicle by which to do that. So with that we continue our opposition to this bill.
Salesa JennyANNA LORCK (Labour—Tukituki): It is with great pride that I can acknowledge Henare O'Keefe from Flaxmere District Council and also Des Ratima who was the mayor of Whakatū—two men who worked tirelessly in Flaxmere to try and prevent an alcohol liquor licence being repeated in Flaxmere in a store. They fought tooth and nail but they didn't have the tools through a local plan to be able to fight this. They know and I know Des would be so so thrilled that this bill is going through today that finally puts those decisions in the hands of locals. Thank you Madam Speaker.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The next call is a split call. I call on Nicola Grigg for five minutes.
Sosene Lemauga LydiaLEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour): It's a pleasure for me to speak on this bill the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Community Participation) Amendment Bill. This is a very serious issue for communities of South Auckland and it is a pleasure for me to stand up and make a short call. This bill is long overdue. In a former role that I had I was part of a community local board. We've waited for 10 years and still Auckland Council does not have an approved local alcohol policy.This bill is legislation that is needed by our local communities and if I could just quickly reflect in South Auckland there are far too many off-licence alcohol shops in a very narrow proximity. I want to reflect on my local community: there are eight local licences in a 1 kilometre radius; four off-licences which is where we have the problem. The community leaders have had a number of calls to the local board who are the governors of our local area.When this bill is passed it does give the power back to our local communities to have a say. They go through some very stringent tests. What is important is the mana of our local communities that our communities our leaders would have their say in local alcohol policy. In terms of objections just to very quickly highlight: not all communities have this problem but there are certain communities that do have this problem so this bill will help those local communities who have to face alcohol harm. I commend this bill to the House.
Personal Explanations — Tim van de Molen—Privileges Committee Report
van de Molen Tim; Rurawhe AdrianPERSONAL EXPLANATIONSTim van de Molen—Privileges Committee ReportTIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Point of order Mr Speaker. I seek leave to make a personal statement. SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.TIM VAN DE MOLEN: Thank you Mr Speaker. Today the Privileges Committee has presented its report into the question of privilege concerning my conduct towards the chairperson of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee. The Privileges Committee has found my actions to be a contempt of Parliament and when Parliament sits next week I will be censured.Members of Parliament and parliamentary staff should be able to carry out their duties in a stable environment. The report from the Privileges Committee makes it clear that my conduct after the select committee on 29 June had an impact on others that I had not appreciated. Although I have a different recollection of some aspects of the incident I completely accept the findings of the committee. I apologise to all those who were in the room but specifically to Mr Halbert who was most impacted by my conduct. I am horrified at the thought of my conduct having been perceived as threatening. This is not at all in my nature and I've enjoyed working constructively with MPs from across the House. Obviously in this instance I have fallen short of my own expectations and the expectations of the House. No one should feel threatened in their workplace and it was certainly not my intent to threaten Mr Halbert. Regardless my conduct was not appropriate and it should not have happened. I would also like to apologise specifically to the select committee staff who do a wonderful job for us all. I'd like to thank the many MPs that have offered their support through this process. And finally I would also like to extend an apology to all members of this House for the impact my actions may have on the perception of parliamentarians and of this House.
Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Community Participation) Amendment Bill — Third Reading
O'Connor GregCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Mr Speaker the committee has considered the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Community Participation) Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment. I move That the report be adopted.Motion agreed to.Report adopted.DEPUTY SPEAKER: The bill is set down for third reading immediately.
Halbert ShananSHANAN HALBERT (Junior Whip—Labour): I move That the question be now put.Motion agreed to.
Goldsmith Paul; Robertson GrantHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Just in terms of the appropriate procedures in proposed new section 203A—allow for tikanga Māori to be incorporated into the proceedings"—I don't see "tikanga Māori" defined anywhere. So I'd just like to have a clear definition from him as to what that means thank you. Well the tikanga from Ngati Porou might well be very different to somewhere else. So I just want to know what we're talking about here. That would be helpful—that would be helpful. Now the other thing is—and maybe I'm misinterpreting this; it's possible who knows?—clause 15A strikes out a whole bunch of things in terms of directions of hearings and it strikes out clause 205C giving the power of a licensing committee to decline—may direct that the evidence or the brief be struck out of it is frivolous and vexatious. That's been struck out and I just want clarification. Does that mean that they no longer can do that or is it being referred to somewhere else in the legislation?Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Just briefly on the last point I'll check but I'm sure it is because they do continue to have the right to strike out vexatious submission or to consider a person who makes a submission to be vexatious. So that will already be dealt with elsewhere in the Act.In terms of the only other new points that the member has raised around tikanga he actually answered his own question in his statement which is that a definition of it in the Act would not be reflective of the different tikanga in different parts of the country. It relates to Mr Brownlee's points which is that there is still a role here for local government and the entities and committees that get created at a local level. There will be a variety of people with a variety of views on those committees as there will be a variety of tikanga in different parts of the country. Local authorities and local committees such as this already know how to run themselves. And normally it is the Opposition telling us that we should not be telling local government how to do their job and this bill holds the principle that local government will be able to—Hon Gerry Brownlee: That's the job they shouldn't have.Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Well that may well be the case Mr Brownlee but that's not what this bill is about."
Robertson GrantHon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Oom-fa!" CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): No "Whoom-fa!"Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Oh "Whoom-fa!" It's important to have that distinction isn't it?Just to pop back to Mr Goldsmith's previous comment I'm advised that there has been consultation with local government around the management for objection and concerns about whether or not there'd be a great increase in volume and they have the tools to manage that volume and they are comfortable with it.On the member's two points both of them were raised by Simon O'Connor so I am now repeating my answers that I gave to Mr O'Connor. But Mr Goldsmith had one new point and that was his question around trade competitors. It's just really important to note that I find it somewhat ironic that the member has managed to flip in two contributions to two 180-degree opposite positions which is suddenly he doesn't want people to be able to be involved at all.What we have at the moment is a situation where trade competitors have lodged objections that have unnecessarily and unfortunately limited the ability for local alcohol plans to be created. We are making changes that limit the extent that they can object by taking away the ability for that objection to be about trade competition matters. But the idea that they as residents potentially in a community would be entirely wiped out from being able to have a view I would have thought that the member wouldn't haven't wanted. He would have wanted local community members to be involved. So there is now a limitation on trade competitors and that I believe is appropriate given the problems we've had. But that's balanced against them still having some rights to actually be able to have a view.Then on the question of renewals I did answer this for Mr O'Connor earlier. The change here is a discretionary change. It allows a district licensing committee to be able to consider those issues around a local alcohol policy (LAP) around location and density but not around other matters like trading hours and as I said to Mr O'Connor earlier I'm sure the member is aware that people regularly have to update their licence. Someone who has been in business for 50 years would have had a regular process of having to update their licence so this is now allowing in that renewal process for the LAP that will have been created to now be taken into account and thereby a new entry to the market and an existing person will now be treated the same. I actually think that the member if he stopped and thought about that for a minute would realise that that was actually a fair process."
Halbert ShananIn CommitteeParts 1 and 2 the Schedule and clauses 1 to 3CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members the House is in committee for the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Community Participation) Amendment Bill.SHANAN HALBERT (Junior Whip—Labour): Point of order Madam Chair. I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one question.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is none. The question is that Parts 1 and 2 the Schedule and clauses 1 to 3 stand part.
SpeechSALE AND SUPPLY OF ALCOHOL (COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION) AMENDMENT BILLSecond ReadingDebate resumed from 15 August.DAN ROSEWARNE (Labour): Kia ora Mr Speaker. It's my pleasure to take a call on the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Community Participation) Amendment Bill. As the last speaker I think it's important to finish the second reading by saying that this bill responds to persistent issues with alcohol licensing processes in the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012. When the Act was introduced over a decade ago it was meant to give communities a say in the way that alcohol licensing decisions were made in their areas. However communities themselves have told us that the Act is not working in the way that was intended.This bill responds to those concerns by making changes to the licensing processes. I particularly like the changes relating to local alcohol policies (LAPs) as it will be easier for councils to adopt an LAP if they wish and ensures that they are more effective once they are in place. For too long territorial authorities have worked with their communities to develop policies only to be held up in the appeals process. This has cost ratepayers millions of dollars while delaying and sometimes preventing councils from adopting LAPs at all. LAPs have a role in reducing harm and they are an important way for communities to influence the alcohol licensing decisions in their area. This bill will remove the costs and delays associated with appeals and will ensure that community voices are carried through to licensing decisions.The Justice Committee agreed by majority with the change allowing anyone to object to an application for an alcohol licence with a discreet exemption for trade competitors. The recommendation to apply this change regardless of the type of licensing application be it for a new licence renewal special licence or an application to vary a licence—those conditions come in good time. So it's for that reason that I commend the bill to the House.
Voting — Correction—Fuel Industry (Improving Fuel Resilience) Amendment Bill
O'Connor GregVOTINGCorrection—Fuel Industry (Improving Fuel Resilience) Amendment BillDEPUTY SPEAKER: Just before we go into the next bill members when the House was in committee on the Fuel Industry (Improving Fuel Resilience) Amendment Bill the result of the vote on the question that the question be now put was incorrectly recorded as Ayes 71 Noes 44. The correct result is Ayes 72 Noes 44. The record will be corrected accordingly.
SpeechSORAYA PEKE-MASON (Labour): I'm pleased to take a short call on the third reading of the Resale Right for Visual Artists Bill. I mentioned earlier on an example of an artist seeking action for their imagery which is covered by other legislation—that is the copyright and intellectual property. We did hear earlier on mentioned by my colleague Tāmati Coffey a perfect example of actually how this works and can work for our artists. Nevertheless I am delighted that our creative artists and communities have another tool or a lever in which they can stand on. This is significant in terms of sustainable career opportunities for them. It's significant in terms of the future of our artistic communities and their families and their long-term future.I want to emphasise the words of the Minister the Hon Carmel Sepuloni and that was her statement which I think is very important that it's not just for the trade agreement that we do this; it is what we want to do. It is the right thing to do for our artists for our people for Aotearoa. A tremendous amount of work has gone into this bill. I want to thank all those involved—in particular those artistic communities across the motu that have worked with the Social Services and Community Committee that have worked with the staff to get us to where we are today. I want to also acknowledge Judith Tizard who was earlier mentioned who had introduced a similar bill in the past which sadly got voted out. I also want to acknowledge the artists in Whanganui where I come from and across Te Tai Hauāuru. I know and have seen some of the struggles that they experience trying to sustain a career and be creative at the same time. I think that this is an absolutely fantastic piece of legislation. I commend this to the House. Kia ora.Motion agreed to.Bill read a third time.
Resale Right for Visual Artists Bill — Third Reading