edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That debate on this question now close.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 55New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6; Tana.Motion agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan's tabled amendment to clause 1 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 55New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6; Tana.Noes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Amendment not agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 1 be agreed to.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 55New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6; Tana.Clause 1 agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 2 be agreed to.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 55New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6; Tana.Clause 2 agreed to.
Watts SimonHon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Climate Change): I move Amendment Paper 50 dividing the bill.
Costley TimTIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki): I move That debate on this question now close.
Weenink Vanessa; O'Connor GregDr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula): I move That debate on this question now close.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): I'll go to the Hon Willie Jackson with the expectation that you will not drift very far if at all from the title and commencement.
McLellan TraceyDr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour): Thank you Mr Chair. And I wanted to specifically also focus on the commencement date because as we've heard the commencement date of 21 November is the commencement date. And I think that my colleague from the Green Party makes a really really valid point particularly in relation to prisons. We know for instance that sure there is some extra capacity coming on board. That won't be viable until at least third quarter probably next year. And we've heard from the Hon Ginny Andersen about the shortage of police.But it was interesting I know that the Minister was briefed earlier this year about what is the impact that the Government's policies might have on the prison population certainly in the short term. And whilst it's just modelling and it's a bit of a guesstimate it is in fact what we base that on. I notice that there was four particular lines in the table that were provided. The first one was section 27 reports and that was assumed would increase the prison population by about 380 prisoners and the second one was adding 300 police which I note wasn't 500 it was 300. I'm not sure whether that indicates for instance the Government's lack of confidence that they'll get to the 500 target but nevertheless the estimate was that that would increase the prison population by 100. So we're already up to 400 of the increased capacity of the 500 beds that are coming on at Waikeria in the middle of next year.And then there was two lines that were redacted and I'm wondering whether the Minister obviously probably will have some further information about what those two entries were in because we can't see (a) what they were. We can surmise that one of them may have been this gangs legislation—that would make sense in so far as it being the next cab off the rank. But what we can tell is the total and the total was 800. So we know there's an expectation of about 320 increased prisoners because of these two redacted pieces of policy that we're due to endure.So when I think about 21 November as the commencement date it really does create—as has been said—quite an impetus for some urgency. We know that prisons are bursting at the seams. We know that there are some infrastructure challenges in so far rebuilds and people being moved all over the show to accommodate that and the huge cost that that incurs. So I would be interested (a) in the Minister expressing a little bit more confidence in the commencement date on 21 November with some specifics about how that will be handled when we know full well that it will require that capacity and acknowledgment of such. So any information will be much appropriated but particularly if he could comment on those two pieces of information that we're unable to get our hands on because they're redacted but almost certainly are related to this bill.
Watts Simon; O'Connor GregHon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Climate Change): Well thank you for the member for that question. I would refer the member to clause 2 of the bill which states that the commencement of this bill is from 21 November 2024. If the member wants to be reminded about the select committee process—which to the other member's question involved a full process in terms of feedback from all related members—those questions were covered in detail and the date is based on feedback and the date requested by the New Zealand Police that aligns with their operational requirements. On that basis that is the date that has been selected. So everything that has been commented on is lovely but it doesn't correspond to the reality of what the decision is based upon.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Members we've had some quite good contextual speeches. Right now title and commencement will be the subject of any talk. The Hon Tracey McLellan. Sorry Tracey McLellan—too early.
Rutherford Tom; O'Connor GregTOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): I move That debate on this question now close.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): I call the Hon Willie Jackson—on the title and commencement.
Tuesday 6 August 2024 - Volume 777
Gangs Legislation Amendment Bill — In Committee—Part 2
Gangs Legislation Amendment Bill — In Committee—Part 5
Gangs Legislation Amendment Bill — In Committee—Part 4
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That debate on this question now close.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 55New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6; Tana.Motion agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Minister's amendments to Part 4 set out on Amendment Papers 64 and 51 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 55New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6; Tana.Amendments agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Hon Dr Duncan Webb's tabled amendment to clause 27 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 55New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6; Tana.Noes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Amendment not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Hon Dr Duncan Webb's tabled amendment to insert clause 30(3)(c) be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 55New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6; Tana.Noes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Amendment not agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That Part 4 as amended be agreed to.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 55New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6; Tana.Part 4 as amended agreed to.
Kuriger Barbara; Pugh MaureenHouse resumed.REPORT OF COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE HOUSECHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Madam Speaker the committee has considered the Gangs Legislation Amendment Bill and reports progress. The committee has also considered the Resource Management (Extended Duration of Coastal Permits for Marine Farms) Amendment Bill and reports no progress. I move That the report be adopted.Motion agreed to.Report adopted.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Those bills are set down for further consideration in committee next sitting day. Members the House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow.The House adjourned at 9.59 p.m.
Xu-Nan LawrenceDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you Madam Chair. I want to pick up the fact—so first of all going off what the Hon Dr Duncan Webb mentioned before I think this is particularly highlighted in the Pora case at the turn of the millennia. In this case I want to talk about the fact that Part 5 probably is one of the most significant parts because of the potential ripple effect it can have in terms of our sentencing system. Now the Sentencing Act works hand in hand with the Crimes Act and when we're looking at aggravating factors within the Sentencing Act and the fact that the original terms of imprisonment for example come from the Crimes Act I want to get some clarification from the Minister or the officials on two particular section that I think have a certain impact under this particular clause and on whether the Minister or official has considered them.The first one is section 66 of the Crimes Act that talks about party liability. Now in this case when it comes to party liability—and we're looking particularly at section 66(1)(d) which talks about incites counsels or procures any person to commit the offence." If we are adding gang insignia or gang membership as an aggravating factor that potentially applies to a lot of circumstances and a person could be considered to get a higher sentence because of that. And party liability in this case would be treated very carefully and it should be treated very carefully.The second part is section 220 around theft in a special relationship. Now understandably when we're looking at theft in a special relationship most of the time it results in a fine but sentencing has occurred. So when you're looking at theft in a special relationship it comes back to the fact that that particular circumstance and situation may very well have nothing to do with the person being a gang member but by association the sentencing must consider that as an aggravating factor. Once again it doesn't need to be tied in together. It actually creates a lot of concerns.And the final clarification I want to check from the Minister is how this then works with the three strikes legislation. Now previously we heard from the Minister that the limit is 24 months in terms of sentencing. But in this particular case if it's an aggravating factor which increases the number of sentencing which then also increases the number of people who are gang members who will meet that 24 month threshold we're also further compounding the offence that they will create and further make it easier for gang members to trigger that three strike legislation. And I want to check with the Minister whether that has been considered as well.So has the Minister considered the way the Sentencing Act and aggregating factors will work with section 66 of the Crimes Act section 220 of the Crimes Act and whether this is going to create a higher probability of those people triggering the three-strikes legislation? Thank you."
Webb DuncanHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you Madam Chair. I do have another point and it's actually quite important. It's tucked away in Schedule 4 section 17 in new Part 5 inserted in Schedule 1AA of the Sentencing Act 2002. It's interesting because it's there in the depths of the last dying words of this piece of legislation and it's actually about when the sentencing rules apply from. And we know there's a pretty fundamental principle that it is in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and I can't give you the clause that you are entitled to the sentence—to the benefit at the time of your offending. So if the sentence goes up after you've offended you're entitled to the benefit of the sentence at the time you committed the offending.Then clause 17 says this: To avoid doubt section 9(1)(hb) of this Act"—the one we've just been talking about—"(as replaced by the Amendment Act) applies only to proceedings commenced on or after the commencement date." Now that's not right because it should say "offences committed" not "proceedings commenced" because an offence could be committed a year ago under the old regime. So this is deeply retrospective because the offender will now be sentenced under a sentencing regime that was not in place at the time they committed the offence.Now that is dealt with by my Amendment Paper marked "p" which suggests we delete the words "proceedings commenced" and replace those words with "offences committed". Now that is actually a deeply problematic and retrospective penal provision. If we've got an offender a serious offence and the judge is like "I've got to impose an aggravating factor" and they've got a very clear mandate or a very clear direction here that it's at the time the proceedings were commenced rather than the offence was committed—that's problematic. And I can see that there's a bit of busyness over in the corner of officials there so I hope I'm going to get an answer. And I'm imagining the answer's going to be "Well spotted. Thanks for that. We'll be voting for that.""
Upston LouiseHon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Thank you Madam Chair. This part is very short and it relates to the Sentencing Act. So just in terms of Dr Webb's proposed amendment it doesn't align with the purpose of the Sentencing Act amendment which is of course to give greater weight to gang membership at sentencing.
Lyndon HūhanaHŪHANA LYNDON (Green): Kia ora Madam Chair. Following on once again from my colleague in Labour who's talking about the things that I want to share as well. It is true that if being a member of a gang is an aggregating factor when you get a parking ticket well that's going to be an issue for many of our people because ultimately don't we have the right to freedom of association? Don't we have a right to mix and mingle with our whānau according to our own tikanga? Freedom of expression as well and it might be in wearing a gang logo or insignia.But what I do want to ask the Minister is: in terms of the judiciary there's already existing legislation in relation to aggregating factors to do with gang members so why is the Government overriding the judiciary in this case? So that's one question.But I'm also wondering: is there any evidence base to what we're doing this legislation itself and that by making gang membership an aggregating factor in sentencing will this actually help our people to exit gangs? Is this something that correlates to helping gang members out of the gang system?Further I'm really keen to understand what the Minister may have researched or thought about a cost-benefit analysis in terms of maybe the increase of imprisonments and how much this is going to cost the New Zealand taxpayer? As a result of this bill we could see quite a few more Māori in prison—fill up that mega-prison at Waikeria.So those are some key questions around imprisonment; cost-benefit analysis—how much is this going to cost the taxpayer? Also in terms of existing legislation on aggravating factors and why we are adding this provision within this legislation when it already exists. But also is this pathway—and what are we doing? Is this actually a part of the Government's plan to help our people out of gangs?But I want to also think about the cycle of criminalisation of our people and going back again because we do have to keep returning to the release of the royal commission of inquiry into State care and abuse a couple of weeks ago.CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The member makes good points but not so relevant to this clause. I've heard a couple of times about aggravating" and "mitigating" factors. Could we keep to the point of the clause instead of a broader debate. Thank you.HŪHANA LYNDON: What I'm wanting to ask the Minister in thinking about that factor that influences gang membership is: why are looking to incarcerate these communities who have a right to freedom of expression and right to freedom of assembly when they're just gathering in a public place?Further are there any new ideas to reducing harm in our communities that don't involve locking up Māori? Kia ora."
White HelenHELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): So my question relates to clause 30 and it's a question that's quite substantive. If the Minister looks at subclause (2)(c) we've got a clause there that says that people in trouble if members of the association have been involved in offences even individually. And I wanted the Minister to tell me if an organisation's innocuous but members within it have acted and have been criminally culpable individually because they haven't acted as a collective—it's not the gang it's not the association with a gang that has created those offences. So I can actually think of examples where that would be quite often the case—people who would join a church they might be rehabilitating so they would be in an organisation with symbols etc. but their behaviour would not necessarily be linked. In fact their rehabilitation might be linked to the organisation that they're part of. I wanted to know what would happen in that situation if the individuals have actually been involved in criminal acts of this kind but not as a collective is that the intention of the bill that it would catch people in that situation and that the organisations they were involved with could actually be considered gangs?
Upston Louise; Kuriger BarbaraHon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): This was considered but actually decided it wasn't necessary. The police will undertake a practice that they will go about the criteria listed in the bill. So it's not necessary for the process that you are speaking about to be included in the legislation.Helen White: Madam Chair.CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Helen White. I'll take a call but I'm looking for very new information. I think we've exhausted the list of questions now. So if we could relate to other clauses it would be very helpful. Thank you.
Webb DuncanHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you Madam Chair. Perhaps I was not sufficiently articulate before because I asked what I thought was quite an important question and the Minister simply has not responded to it and that is about the classification of gangs. Clause 30 sets out the power and the Governor-General makes an Order in Council on the recommendation of the Minister of Police. Now once you're categorised as a gang significant constraints on your freedoms exist and significant powers are given to the police in respect of you and indeed under the Sentencing Act which we'll get to. Now my question was: is the Minister obliged to make a recommendation to take off someone from the gang list when they do not meet the grounds set out in subclause (2)? Let's face it. These gangs are not going to go to the Minister of Police and say Excuse me would you mind taking us off the gangs list? We're no longer a criminal organisation." They might have been organised crime but they're not organised in many other respects. It's actually really important because if the Minister runs the ruler as he or she must every five years and says "These organisations or these groupings either no longer exist or no longer meet the criteria." then it's really important that they're taken off this list. So my question's really simple: if the Minister of Police finds that an organisation on the list no longer satisfies the criteria will this legislation require the Minister of Police to make a recommendation that they get taken off to the Governor-General which will trigger the appropriate Order in Council?"
Utikere TangiTANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Kia orana. Meitaki mata Madam Chair. Thank you. It's a pleasure to take what is my first call on this bill the Gangs Legislation Amendment Bill. I would like to ask the Minister a question that relates to clause 28. It's a very discrete clause. I don't think it has perhaps been touched on yet so I'll make sure that I do that. It relates to the filing of a charging document for an offence. This is the situation where there is an alleged offence against this Act and there needs to be a mechanism by which this kickstarts a charge by way of the charging document.The clause itself indicates that only a constable may file a charging document. The interesting situation there is that the constable is defined in the legislation. One has to turn to the Policing Act and it basically indicates that a constable is a Police employee who—(a) holds the office of constable (whether appointed as a constable under the Police Act 1958 or this Act) and; (b) includes a constable who holds any level of position within the New Zealand Police". There are situations where there are individuals who are authorised to undertake constabulary duties but they do not fall within the definition contained in the Policing Act. A good example might be someone like an authorised officer. Often you see these in cellblocks and police stations. They may be in a position where they may actually be able to perhaps file a charging document.So my question is whether that is consistent with other pieces of legislation be it a strict definition of a constable or whether there are other pieces of legislation where the responsibility for filing a charging document which is an absolute necessity in terms of triggering what will come under this Act does actually sit with other individuals who might be Police employees. If we're thinking about potential circumstances where some situations or contexts may actually be appropriate for someone who is a Police employee—and the definitions that are contained in the Policing Act are also quite clear and specific in that space. So my question is whether there are other pieces of legislation that this aligns with to incorporate other individuals or whether the Minister believes that actually only a constable would be an apt definition for the purposes of effectively filing the charging document."
Xu-Nan LawrenceDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Of course. Thank you Madam Chair. My questions of clarification for the Minister is still centred around clause 30. I think by and large we haven't moved on from 30. At least I'm assuming that's one of the reasons why people are waiting for us to move on from that. So in terms of clause 30 I have a couple of questions of clarification. The first one is subclause (1) in terms of the fact it's made on the recommendations of the Minister of Police as opposed to other Ministers. And I'm just curious to know whether the Police in this case are the ones with the most readily available information and evidence that would suggest any sort of new recommendations in the power that is granted in terms of adding or removing any name of an organisation as opposed to let's say—previously in 28—maybe the courts will see a lot of this evidence. So I'm kind of curious to know how information is transferred from one to the other because often Police also don't deal with sentencing. Please correct me if I'm wrong. One of the recommendations is that the Minister of Police may not make a recommendation … unless"—this is subclause (2)(c)—when the "members or associates … individually or collectively … within the last five years engaged in conduct that amounts to—(i) a category 3 offence" etc. So would this be under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Police or of the Minister of Justice? So that will be a good clarification for my first question.The second question which other people have contributed on in terms of the specificity of the list of names under Schedule 2 but I wanted to check whether all of those names that do exist under Schedule 2 have also fulfilled the requirement of subclause (2)(c). If the Minister is able to highlight that because if new names that are added or removed from the list are required to fulfil those requirements from subclause (2)(a) to (c) I'm assuming the current numbers on that list already fulfil those requirements. So that's the second point of clarification from the Minister.The third point of clarification is around subclause (3A) and also (3B). So it says "The Minister of Police must review … (a) before making a recommendation". Now can I get a clarification from the Minister what that means? Is it that before the Minister of Police is able to make a recommendation of adding or removing they need to review every name on that list. And if you're going to be adding or removing names anyway presumably that is a review. So I'm curious to know why (3A) came about. And the last one is around (3A)(b) and (3B) where both of them says that within 5 years must review and also "The Minister … must review the list of identified gangs in Schedule 2 at least once every 5 years". Again we're seeing this duplication that surely subclause (3A)(b) is redundant because it is already implied that something will be reviewed under (3B). So I just want to check why there is a duplication in terms of that particular clause as well. So those are the four points of clarification if the Minister wouldn't mind clarifying. Thank you."
Webb DuncanHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you Madam Chair. I'd like to talk about clause 37. That is the clause that just slips in—actually I won't talk about clause 37 because that's in the wrong part; that's in Part 5 and I will stick to the part.What I do want to talk about is clause 30 and the reviewing of the list—and it's a very narrow point the reviewing of the gang list. What it essentially says in clause 30 is that the Minister of Police can put gangs on or off the list and has the discretion to do so. My argument is this: that if an organisation—and this is a tabled amendment before the committee—doesn't absolutely meet all of the criteria of being a gang then surely the Minister must take the gang off the list. It's not discretionary because again this is a significant incursion. The threshold must be high—again quite arguably should be beyond reasonable doubt that they are in fact a criminal organisation. But at the very least if the Minister is satisfied that the appropriate threshold isn't reached then the Minister must remove the gang name from the gang list. To do otherwise would be to infringe on the rights of a group of people who are not gang members because it is not a gang—the Minister has actually satisfied him or herself that it's not a gang but has just thought you know We won't"—and in fact it's deeply problematic that it's a five-year review and not a continual review.So I'd like the Minister to explain is it the case—I guess there's a public law argument that "may" means "must" in that kind of circumstance. But I would actually like the Minister's assurance that if the Minister of Police reviews the list receives the evidence is satisfied appropriately that it's no longer a gang—and it happened; we just went through this process in select committee—that the Minister is obliged to and will remove that gang from the gang list."
Building (Earthquake-prone Building Deadlines and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — Instruction to Select Committee
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Building (Earthquake-prone Building Deadlines and Other Matters) Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 31 October 2024 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions) during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House and outside the Wellington area despite Standing Orders 193 195 and 196.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 55New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6; Tana.Motion agreed to.DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just before I call on Government orders of the day Nos 2 and 3 I just wanted to clarify actually that the Minister only has one call in any motion. So the Minister even if he wanted to was unable to take—Hon Dr Duncan Webb: I would have given him leave!DEPUTY SPEAKER: I just wanted to make that—yes I just had that advice and wanted to make it clear so that it's not a problem on future occasions. I declare the House in committee for further consideration of the Gangs Legislation Amendment Bill and the Local Government (Water Services Preliminary Arrangements) Bill.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Building (Earthquake-prone Building Deadlines and Other Matters) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 89New Zealand National 49; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8; Te Pāti Māori 6; Tana.Noes 34New Zealand Labour 34.Motion agreed to.Bill read a first time.
Building (Earthquake-prone Building Deadlines and Other Matters) Amendment Bill — First Reading
Rutherford TomTOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): I rise today to speak in support of the Building (Earthquake-prone Building Deadlines and Other Matters) Amendment Bill.This bill addresses critical issues regarding the safety and economic viability of our buildings in the face of seismic risks. It aims to provide clarity and breathing space for building owners and territorial authorities as we work towards a more effective system for managing earthquake-prone buildings.The current system implemented in 2017 aimed to reduce the risk to life by requiring the remediation of our most vulnerable buildings. However it has become clear that this system is not working as effectively as intended. Around 150 buildings have already failed to meet their remediation deadlines and many more are unlikely to be remediated due to high costs and other barriers. With nearly 500 deadlines set to expire over the next four years we are facing a potential crisis that could have devastating impacts on our economy.The key purpose of this bill is to extend the remediation time frames for earthquake-prone buildings by four years with a limited power to extend deadlines by an extra two years. This extension provides clarity for building owners and territorial authorities prevents clusters of expiring deadlines and offers relief from enforcement challenges.Alongside this extension our Government is initiating a comprehensive review of the earthquake-prone building system to be completed in the first half of 2025. This review will focus on costs risk-management proposals compliance barriers and alignment with broader Government objectives.The bill also clarifies responsibilities in the building warrant of fitness scheme improves the building levy collection system and addresses inconsistencies in dam safety penalties and obligations.We are striking a critical balance between public safety and economic consequences. The devastation of the Christchurch earthquakes is still fresh in our national memory. We must do all we can to prevent such tragedy in the future. We must also face the very real economic consequences of overly burdensome regulations. Empty buildings in our city centres and towns don't just represent lost revenue; they represent lost jobs lost community spaces and lost vitality in our urban areas.In conclusion this bill represents a balanced approach to a complex problem. It provides necessary relief and time for building owners and local authorities while work is done towards a more effective and sustainable system for managing earthquake-prone buildings. It's about finding the right balance between safety and economic sustainability. I urge all members to support this bill and I encourage them to engage constructively in the select committee process. The safety and prosperity of our communities depends on getting this right.
Maipi-Clarke Hana-RawhitiHANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE (Te Pāti Māori —Hauraki-Waikato): [Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.][Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]I rise to take a short call on behalf of Te Pāti Māori in support of this bill to see it go through to the select committee process and stages. Some of our key focuses and interests in awaiting to hear public consultation is from a number of marae as marae may be forced to be demolished if they fail to meet these deadlines. Extending time frames may save some marae from demolition but it will not address the core issue as other members have said across both sides that many hapū cannot afford to strengthen their marae. The Government should fully fund strengthening for marae.Another issue I would like to raise is the bigger issue of all of this for us—as a person who lives near their papa kāinga and marae—is the future safety plans in place for houses and particularly for marae in a course of natural disasters. We've seen many marae for the past couple of years now getting hammered by natural disasters yet they are the first place of response and locations during a natural disaster—whether you are non-Māori or Māori. And knowing that marae are not just walls and windows but they are our museums also making sure that there are right protections in place taonga tuku iho like carvings tuktuku poupou and tūpuna artifacts that we would like to have consultation process on and how the process will look like moving forward.So we would like to have those conversations no matter the political party as the safety of our people are paramount. So in short we support this bill to the select committee stage and we await to hear submissions from the select committee. Tēnā rā tatou.
Tuesday 27 February 2024 (continued on Wednesday 28 February 2024) - Volume 773
Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Amendment Bill — Third Reading (continued)
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Amendment Bill be now read a third time.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 54New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.Motion agreed to.Bill read a third time.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That debate on this question now close.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 54New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.Motion agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The tabled amendments to clause 1 in the names of the Hon Grant Robertson and Rachel Boyack are out of order as not an objective description of the bill.The question is that—[Interruption] Votes are heard in silence. The question is that the Hon Kieran McAnulty's tabled amendment to clause 1 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 54New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.Noes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Amendment not agreed to.Hon Kieran McAnulty: Personal vote.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that—if that was a serious call for a personal vote the member is well aware that the only time that there is any doubt about the vote that that will be called. I am in no doubt about the vote.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 1 be agreed to.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 54New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.Clause 1 agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Camilla Belich's tabled amendment to clause 2 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 54New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.Noes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Amendment not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Rachel Boyack's tabled amendment to clause 2 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 54New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.Noes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Amendment not agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 2 be agreed to.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 54New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.Clause 2 agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 3 be agreed to.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 54New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.Clause 3 agreed to.Bill to be reported without amendment.House resumed.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Madam Speaker the committee has considered the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment. I move That the report be adopted.Motion agreed to.Report adopted.DEPUTY SPEAKER: This bill is set down for third reading immediately.
Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Amendment Bill — In Committee—Clauses 1 to 3
Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Amendment Bill — In Committee—Part 2
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That debate on this question now close.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 54New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.Motion agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Hūhana Lyndon's tabled amendment to delete clause 29 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 54New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.Noes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Amendment not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Part 2 stand part.A party vote was called for on the question That Part 2 be agreed to.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 54New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.Part 2 agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Now members we have to take a vote on Schedule 1 where there's no debate. The question is Schedule 1 stand part.A party vote was called for on the question That Schedule 1 be agreed to.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 54New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.Motion agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Now we are up to Schedule 2 no debate. The question is Schedule 2 stand part.A party vote was called for on the question That Schedule 2 be agreed to.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 54New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.Motion agreed to.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That debate on this question now close.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 54New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.Motion agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that the Hon Damien O'Connor's tabled amendments to Part 1 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 54New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.Noes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Amendments not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Shanan Halbert's tabled amendment to insert new clause 8A be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 54New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.Noes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Amendment not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Helen White's tabled amendment to delete clause 9 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 54New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.Noes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Amendment not agreed to.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): The tabled amendments to Part 1 from the Hon Rachel Brooking Tangi Utikere Cushla Tangaere-Manuel the Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall and the Hon Dr Duncan Webb are out of order as inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee. Ingrid Leary's tabled amendment to Part 1 is out of order as outside the scope of the bill.A party vote was called for on the question That Part 1 be agreed to.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 54New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.Part 1 agreed to.
Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Amendment Bill — In Committee—Part 1
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Amendment Bill be now read a second time.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 54New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.Motion agreed to.Bill read a second time.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): This bill is set down for committee stage immediately.
Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Amendment Bill — Second Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Amendment Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 54New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6.Motion agreed to.Bill read a first time.
Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products Amendment Bill — First Reading (continued)
10. Question No. 10—HealthDr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National—Ilam) to the Minister of HealthQuestion No. 10—Health10. Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National—Ilam) to the Minister of Health: What steps has he taken to improve the health outcomes for all New Zealanders including Māori?Hon Dr SHANE RETI (Minister of Health): This afternoon the Government passed the Pae Ora (Disestablishment of Māori Health Authority) Amendment Bill. This transfers Māori Health Authority staff and functions to Health New Zealand and the Ministry of Health. This transfer will retain the expertise needed to drive better health outcomes for Māori and all New Zealanders and will be done with respect for fellow health professionals. I look forward to identifying other priorities for the health system.Dr Hamish Campbell: Why did the Government move to disestablish the Māori Health—[Interruption]SPEAKER: Sorry—hang on a minute. Ask it again.Dr Hamish Campbell: Why did the Government move to disestablish the Māori Health Authority?Hon Dr SHANE RETI: Disestablishment was agreed to by all three governing parties in their coalition agreements and mandated by the results of the 2023 general election where it was canvassed at length. The disestablishment is a reflection of an approach that struggled to put health needs for all at its forefront and an implementation plan that faced significant challenges from the beginning. This Government remains committed to improving Māori health outcomes.Dr Hamish Campbell: What challenges have arisen from the health reforms which the Māori Health Authority was part of?Hon Dr SHANE RETI: It is not clear to me that the Māori Health Authority was well supported by the previous Government who in my view were distracted by wider structural reforms to other parts of the health system. This distraction is evident from the report today by the independent ministerial advisory committee which uncovered a significant number of problems which can be associated with a lack of ministerial oversight and political failure. Health reforms should not have been undertaken in the middle of a pandemic.Hon Peeni Henare: Do the steps taken by the Minister to improve health outcomes include opting out of the international health regulation amendment days after taking office repealing world-leading smoke-free legislation and repealing the Māori Health Authority?Hon Dr SHANE RETI: The steps towards better health outcomes include some of the outcomes that are present in Pae Tū some of the outcomes that are present in Whakamaua and some of the health outcomes that we'll identify in our Government policy statement.Dr Hamish Campbell: What is the Government's vision for Māori health?Hon Dr SHANE RETI: This Government is ambitious for the future of Māori health and this bill signalled the beginning of a different journey—a journey in which we strive to achieve better health outcomes for all New Zealanders including Māori. This Government will ensure the health system is performing after six long years of deteriorating health metrics.
6. Question No. 6—HousingMILES ANDERSON (National—Waitaki) to the Minister of HousingQuestion No. 6—HousingSPEAKER: The Hon—sorry Miles Anderson.6. MILES ANDERSON (National—Waitaki) to the Minister of Housing: Thank you Mr Speaker for the elevation in position. What announcements has he made about the Government's work programme in housing?Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister of Housing): Yesterday I laid out the Government's work programme to fix New Zealand's housing crisis. Five interlocking actions: firstly going for housing growth to smash urban limits holding our cities back fix infrastructure funding and financing and introduce incentives to encourage cities and regions to go for growth; secondly improvements to the rental market to make it easier to be a landlord and easier to be a tenant; thirdly building and construction changes to improve competition lower building costs; better social housing to look after those who most need support; and fifthly reform of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA).Miles Anderson: How will this agenda to fix the housing crisis improve the lives of New Zealanders?Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well the housing crisis that New Zealand has inherited from the last Government affects almost every aspect of New Zealand society. Young people don't have the opportunities to own their own homes in the way that generations before them have had and of course the housing market consigns thousands of our fellow New Zealanders to live in motels for months at a time. Our agenda charts a realistic and achievable path out of this mess and tackling our housing crisis once and for all.Miles Anderson: How will this agenda to fix the housing crisis improve the New Zealand economy?Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well one of the best things we can do to improve the New Zealand economy is to fix our housing crisis. For years New Zealand has suffered from a productivity disease. In the 1950s our GDP per capita was 125 percent of the OECD average and it is now below the OECD average. Fixing this can be done through effective and efficient urban development because cities are engines of productivity and when we stop people building houses we lock people out of cities and that makes us all poorer. So we are going to allow our cities to grow up and out and we're going to let people build more houses.Miles Anderson: What do his announcements yesterday mean for the local councils and the medium-density residential standards (MDRS)?Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The first element of our package will require councils to zone enough land for 30 years of housing growth. We also heard the message from many New Zealanders and many communities that the MDRS standards were too blunt and one-size-fits-all so as part of that we are going to give communities and councils flexibility to opt out of the MDRS striking the right balance between zoning for growth and the flexibility to decide where that growth happens. I also announced yesterday that in my role as Minister responsible for RMA Reform I will be the decision maker on relevant district plan changes relating to housing where the councils and the independent hearing panels do not agree for example in Wellington.