edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Simpson Scott; Salesa Jenny; Parker DavidHon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): So I just want to follow up on this question of light because I do think it's quite an interesting one and accept that this is a clause that relates to the coastal marine area. But of course in an electorate like mine the electoral boundaries are about 500 kilometres of coast. So this potential for being able to control the emission of light and mitigating the effect of light from the coastal marine area potentially upon coastal land or an area of coastal land is quite significant and of interest to me and my constituents.Simon Watts: Is that where the sun rises?Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: Simon Watts wants to know if it's where the sun rises. Well—Simon Watts: The beautiful Coromandel.Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: The beautiful Coromandel hasn't seen much sun lately. That's been part of the problem. We haven't seen much sun. But I am interested to just tease that out a bit because the example that the Minister gave about a windmill—is that maybe in relation to an offshore windmill? Would it be for instance there's a lighthouse on Cuvier Island? Some people might decide that the light from the lighthouse is causing some grief.But I'm interested to know because it's been an addition. The original subclause 644(b)(vii) didn't have the and light" in but "light" has been now included. So I'm still keen for the Minister to give us a little more "light" on the situation.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): I call on the Minister the Hon Dr David Parker.Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Again? I'm advised by officials that the power is necessary for both territorial authorities in respect of land—that's covered by clause 30R(b). In respect of the coastal marine area those functions are exercised by the Minister of Conservation. So it's just consistency across both of those domains."
Court Simon; Salesa Jenny; Parker DavidSIMON COURT (ACT): While the Minister is seeking enlightenment I would just like to come back to a previous question which I asked the previous Minister that was in the chair the Hon Rachel Brooking around—Minister while you're looking for that beam of light under what conditions would the Minister for the Environment appoint a substitute for a local authority and how is that different or how does that interact with the conditions under which a Minister of Local Government would say appoint a commissioner?CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): I call on the Minister the Hon Dr David—David Parker. I promoted him to doctor!Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): I'm a mere bachelor! Clause 30P(b)(vii) the emission of noise and light and their effects—that's actually in relation to the coastal marine area in conjunction with the Minister of Conservation. So I think that's limited to the coastal marine area rather than land more generally. Officials are nodding that—I've that wrong? It's all land OK.Well it's an example of it. I can tell you an example of a recent letter than I've had from a member of the public concerned about flicker from the effect of windmills causing light to flicker like a strobe effect. But beyond that I'll take advice from officials and get back to the member. In respect of the question that the member Simon Court has repeated I repeat the answer of the Hon Rachel Brooking that the Local Government Act sets out the conditions upon which a person can be put into a sister council or to replace them and under the Resource Management Act that function sits with the Minister for the Environment under the Resource Management Act or in this case under its replacement Act the Natural and Built Environment Act. Those are separate functions and separate decision-making criteria.
Simpson Scott; Parker DavidHon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you Madam Chair. We're making good progress. Well I'm going to be at about page 94 of the 971 pages; so we're about 10 percent into it. So we're making good progress.I want to ask the Minister about clause 30P—matters for which regional councils have responsibility. There's a pretty good and I think reasonably self-explanatory list relating to the use of land coastal marine areas and so forth. But I am particularly interested in 30P(b)(vii) where there has been the inclusion there of responsibility for the emission of noise and mitigating their effects to include the emission of noise and light and mitigating their effect. I'm interested to know from the Minister what the rationale was for including light. Was does light mean? Who measures that? Who decides?I come from an area of the country where a portion of my electorate around the Kūaotunu peninsular wants to institute a dark-sky reserve. I'm wondering whether this provision is one that means the Waikato Regional Council will be able to assist in using this clause to help facilitate a dark-sky reserve at the Kūaotunu peninsular. But in more general terms if the Minister could cast some light on the reason for the inclusion of light please.Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Could the member assist me by just referring again to the clause number?Hon Scott Simpson: It's page 94 clause 30P(b)(vii).
Smith StuartSTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Oh thank you Mr Chair. I want to turn to clause 30I Delegation of functions by Ministers" and it says (1) "A Minister of the Crown may generally or particularly delegate to the chief executive of that Minister's department any of the Minister's powers functions or duties under this Act." and (2) "A delegation made under this section must comply with clause 5 of Schedule 6 of the Public Service Act 2020." Then it goes to (3) "However the following functions or duties must not be delegated"—and I won't go through those. Then (4) says that the "chief executive may in accordance with clauses 2 and 3 of Schedule 6 of the Public Service Act 2020 subdelegate any function power or duty delegated to them by a Minister under clause 5 of that schedule." So my question is: why is that power there? If it is thought or deemed appropriate for the chief executive to carry those powers why isn't that expressly put in the legislation in the first place and why then when the chief executive has got that do they have the power to then subdelegate that further down? Because you could in theory have the lowest ranking person in that Government department be the person with the responsibility. And I don't know that this House—Hon Scott Simpson: Effectively Ministerial responsibilities.STUART SMITH: Well yes you know it doesn't seem to be that responsible quite frankly. And there may be a very good reason and I'm dying to hear it—and I just see the Minister for the Environment's storing up his energy ready to spring to his feet the moment I start to even slowly move to take my seat again. But I'm looking forward to the answer thank you."
Kuriger Barbara; Parker DavidBARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki-King Country): So to carry on that conversation from a different perspective if we look at clause 30Q(3) on page 95 In preparing [the] statement of community outcomes the territorial authority is subject to the general obligations on decision making" but over the page it said it "need not ensure that the statement complies with the national planning framework or any regulation other than planning document under this Act or the Spatial Planning Act 2022."So my question really is kind of on the same topic because I think I mentioned in the second reading that there were a lot of issues around local voice and how they got transferred on the way up. So I am just a bit concerned about this clause in that the community might actually organise something that doesn't fit with other parts of this piece of legislation and it creates some tension between everybody.Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Thank you to Barbara Kuriger for that question—very good question. The Environment Committee has altered the legislation to make it clearer that statements of community outcome can come up; it can well up from councils who tell the regional planning committee what they think the plan should provide for in terms of the outcomes that they want.It's not intended that there is an obligation on the district council for example putting forward their statement of community expectations that they have to go through it in absolutely fine detail and effectively write the plan for the regional planning committee. That would be a duplication of effort.Accordingly we're not going to impose upon them the duty to dot every "i" and cross every "t" when it comes to the national planning framework. We're going to say what they want and the level of detail that they want to come out of the plan to meet the expectations of their community as expressed by the elected councillors in that district. So if we were to go—and it's a fair question to ask: why don't they have to meet the details of the national planning framework? But that's the answer. It's not expected to necessarily be that detailed."
Simpson ScottHon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you Mr Chair. I want to move on a bit further into the nitty-gritty of Part 2 and in particular reference to Part 2A and specifically clauses 30A 30B 30C 30D 30E 30F and—CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Just reminding the member though that there is actually a separate debate on Part 2A.Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: On Part 2A? Ah OK. Well in that case I wasn't aware that the—I thought that Part 2 was going to be completely—CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Well a pleasant surprise for the member.Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: Thank you very much.
Brooking RachelHon RACHEL BROOKING (Associate Minister for the Environment): Thank you. So—jumping around a wee bit here—Simon Court was asking about clause 13 and why it's not enforceable. The point of this clause is to give an overarching responsibility and then it's supported by the more specific obligations that are elsewhere in the bill. In terms of that last question around offsetting I mean I'll say briefly that of course there is a schedule around offsetting—that is not in this part of the bill. Going to Stuart Smith's question about beer in the river in clause 21 at clause 6A in Part 1 of course there is a principle of proportionality so I think he need not worry about his beer. Then Barbara Kuriger was asking about existing uses. The current Resource Management Act has existing-use provisions as well and these are similar but they do enable some changes to those rights in a narrow set of circumstances which are set out in that clause.
Court SimonSIMON COURT (ACT): I'll just give that Minister a moment; she's getting advice. I want to ask the Minister a question about clause 14 the Duty to avoid minimise remedy offset or compensate for adverse effects". In fact one remarkable thing about this bill Minister is that despite all of the concerns that were raised by various environmental groups during the hearings on this bill which I remember you attended for some time in your capacity as a member before you became a Minister many many environmental groups interested in protection of the environment above all else were very concerned about the concept of offsetting or compensation for adverse effects. So it's actually heartening to see that there are some good concepts that have flowed through into the bill that would allow the likes of infrastructure developers for example or housing developers to carry out some work on some land where there might be some natural value of some kind. I mean it could be a wetland in terms of the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management which I understand defines a permanently damp part of a paddock whether that's three bulrushes in a 10-square-metre part of the paddock or whatever that is—if that's to be cleared through earthworks or disturbed then there's an opportunity for offsetting.So would the Minister please describe for the committee and for the record as well as hopefully responding to my question about clause 13 on environmental responsibility how does the Minister see offsetting? Would the Minister be able to give an example about where say disturbance or removal of a wetland or some other kind of natural feature in order to build infrastructure could potentially be offset by building another somewhere else maybe a better one which of course is quite common. I mean when I worked in the waste industry building landfills we used to build fantastic engineered stormwater ponds incorporating all types of species of sedge and rushes creating serpentine water-flow systems so the water slowed down dropped its sediment and provided a habitat for all kinds of native fish species: the banded kōkopu the giant kōkopu shags—I'm afraid I don't know the te reo Māori name for that bird—and eel of course or tuna. So Minister does this clause 14 allow for wetlands to be removed so infrastructure could be built and a new wetland built somewhere else to offset? And what does compensation mean? And Minister if you could just respond to my question about environmental responsibility and what's the purpose of that clause."
Smith StuartSTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you Madam Chair. I'd like to talk about clause 21 Restrictions relating to water". This is very concerning actually. Clause 21(1): "A person must not carry out the following activities in relation to water in a manner that contravenes a framework rule or a plan rule administered by a regional council". So: taking using damming or diverting any open coastal water. And in (b): taking or using any heat or energy from any open coastal water. Does that include putting beer in the water to cool it down? Because that's taking energy out of the water and so it's a serious question: is that actually the case? Because people can use heat-exchanging devices in the water. So it says "heat"; does that mean it could cool the water but not heat it? Or is it taking heat out of the water and not cooling it? So I'll leave that with the Minister."
Kuriger BarbaraBARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki-King Country): Thank you Mr Chair. I've just got a question for the Minister around Subpart 3 clause 26 on page 79 that talks about Certain existing uses in relation to land may continue" and really wanted to clarify for those people who are watching this tonight. It basically says "A person may use land in a way that contravenes a plan rule administered by a territorial authority if (a) the use was lawfully established (i) before the rule became operative; or (ii) before the proposed plan was notified; or (iii) by way of a designation;" and that the adverse effects are actually the same or similar in character as to before. So I really just wanted to get some surety and some clarification for people that currently their private property right use is protected under this new piece of legislation given that nothing changes in the way that they're operating it."
Court SimonSIMON COURT (ACT): Minister I just want to draw your attention to clause 13—Part 2—Environmental responsibility". It's got very laudable aspirational content in clause 13(1): "Consistently with the ethic of stewardship every person has a responsibility to protect and sustain the health and well-being of the natural environment for the benefit of all [both] present and future [generations] including as required by section 14"—duty to avoid remedy mitigate offset and so on. And that responsibility referred to in subsection (1) is not of itself enforceable against any person and no person is liable to another person for a breach of that responsibility to protect and sustain the health and wellbeing of the natural environment. Minister could you please explain for the committee for people listening for the record for Hansard for an enduring description of what is the purpose of 13(1) and 13(2) why is this in the bill if it creates a "nice-to-have"—a vibe—but is not enforceable against any person for a breach of any responsibility to sustain and protect the health and wellbeing of the natural environment? Minister why is it in the bill?"
Sage Eugenie; Brooking RachelHon EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Thank you Mr Chair and can I congratulate the Minister in the chair. It is great to have the expertise of the Hon Rachel Brooking in the House during the committee stages.A question on clause 15 also Duty to avoid unreasonable noise". The Minister will be very aware from her other portfolios in terms of the importance of the Hauraki Gulf and a recent study by the Hauraki Gulf Forum by the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research which highlighted the value of the gulf is between $40 billion to $100 billion and that we do not invest adequately in protecting it. The forum also released a study last year about the impacts of underwater noise on marine species and the racket created by boats particularly in areas around Kawau Island but also around the Goat Island Marine Reserve at night which suggests there were potentially illegal activities that may have been happening there. But the noise of boats was enough to drown out sound that marine species needed to communicate with each other—particular fish for example.So does the Minister contemplate that the national planning framework might provide some guidance in areas like the Hauraki Gulf to ensure that our marine life are not exposed to levels of unreasonable noise which can disrupt their behaviour and reduce their ability to communicate and reduce healthy functioning under the water? We may not be aware of that noise—jet skis certainly—but is that potentially a matter which this clause 15 could be used for?Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Associate Minister for the Environment): I'm advised that that is a potential and acknowledge that the member is concerned about the Hauraki Gulf which is of course so important to the whole of Aotearoa but it wouldn't be in the first national planning framework so it would have to be more work into that fair matter."
Simpson ScottHon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you very much Mr Chair. I want to turn now to another significant clause in Part 1 which relates to clause 5 System outcomes". It's in this clause where the whole hierarchy of outcomes is defined.Now at the Environment Committee we heard again a lot of submissions on the prioritisation of outcomes whether there should be a hierarchy of outcomes and if so what should be the determining factors as to that hierarchy and which of those outcomes should have precedence over another where there was conflict.So my questions to the Minister in the chair relate to all of clause 5. It's quite extensive in its provision. It runs quite clearly through a range of issues that are to be considered in terms of system outcomes. But what we still don't have is the kind of clarity I think that people will be looking for in terms of what the issues that are going to be given higher degree of precedence when making decisions as opposed to those that won't be.So Minister if you could enlighten the committee of the whole House as to the Government's thinking on clause 5 why clause 5 has been adopted in the manner that it has and why the hierarchy of system outcomes as set out in clause 5 has been established and what the principle and rationale behind that is or was please."
Simpson ScottHon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): This clause 4 is one of the very pivotal clauses in this massive statute and it's the reason that on this side of the House we want to give it the attention that I think it deserves because this is a very significant change in policy direction from the existing legislative environment. The term must give effect to" is a very significant change from the existing Resource Management Act which says "take account of". Now in the King Salmon case the court decided that—and I quote—"In the view of the Courts and the Waitangi Tribunal the Treaty principles are not set" but in the King Salmon case the court actually said that "'give effect to' simply means 'implement'". Now if that is the decision of the court in King Salmon the question I have for the Minister is why wouldn't that term "implement" be used—the Act must implement the principles of the Treaty? Why was that word not used rather than the words "give effect to"? Then further it's been the decision of the Waitangi Tribunal but when considering issues relating to the principles of the Treaty they've said that "In the view of the Courts and the Waitangi Tribunal Treaty principles are not set in stone. They are constantly evolving as the Treaty is applied to particular issues and new situations." Then we were advised in the select committee by officials that there are usually multiple ways of applying a principle and that different contexts will require different approaches. So it's that uncertainty that is at the crux of our concern about this particular clause and the provision in it. What I think New Zealanders want is a degree of certainty about the legislative environment they want to know what the words mean and they want to understand what the impacts of those words will be on their development on their business on their neighbourhood on their home—all those sorts of things. So a couple of questions to the Minister: why not use the word "implement" in clause 4 instead of "give effect to" as has been defined in King Salmon and then how can certainty be given when the principles we are told both by the Waitangi Tribunal and courts and by our advisers on the committee are evolving and will apply differently in different circumstances?"
Court SimonSIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you Mr Chair and welcome Associate Minister for the Environment Minister Rachel Brooking who is in fact one of the architects of this bill from her previous life on the Randerson panel as a resource management law expert. So we couldn't ask for a more competent and experienced Minister in the chair tonight than the Hon Rachel Brooking which actually creates a bit of a dilemma for me because as I've mentioned to the Minister before when I was a civil engineer trying to get consents for projects so we could deliver bridges and roads and build landfills the Minister may well have been one of those resource management lawyers that I would have asked for advice from and in fact have asked to help get a resource consent under the Resource Management Act. So I'm interested in the Minister's interpretation about clause 4 Tiriti o Waitangi" and the difference between the Resource Management Act's "have regard to" the Treaty and the Natural and Built Environment Bill's "give effect to" the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. So that's any decision maker—"All persons exercising powers and performing functions and duties". So Minister could you please explain for the committee and for the people at home—relying on your previous experience and your familiarity with the Randerson report and the legislation that's come out of it—what is the practical difference between "having regard to" as a decision maker or when exercising powers and performing functions and duties and "giving effect to" Te Tiriti and particularly with respect to an answer that Minister Parker provided before where he referred to which is in terms of the Conservation Act the following principles of the Treaty of Waitangi as expressed by the courts and the Waitangi Tribunal: the principle of partnership the principle of mutual benefit and the principle of active protection? If the Minister could explain how those principles apply in giving effect to the Treaty under this legislation as opposed to having regard to the Treaty under the Resource Management Act—thank you Minister."
Simpson Scott; Salesa JennyHon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you Madam Chair. I want to come back to the Treaty clause clause 4. The Minister has made reference on several occasions to the wording which is one of the most significant changes to the existing legislative framework versus this new methodology.So under the existing Resource Management Act the Treaty clause there says—I don't have the exact wording in front of me but essentially—that people exercising powers and performing functions under that piece of legislation must have regard to the Treaty. The new clause 4 says that All persons exercising powers and performing functions and duties under this Act must give effect to the principles of te Tiriti". So that is a very significant difference.Now the Minister has alluded to the fact that there is similar wording in the Conservation Act but the primary difference between the Conservation Act and of course this piece of legislation is that the Conservation Act refers to and is essentially responsible for the conservation estate rather than this piece of legislation which gives much broader powers and purview to private property to developments of any sort and indeed to the entire footprint of the nation.So notwithstanding the matters that the Minister has already raised I'm interested to know potentially after the dinner break maybe when he comes back into the chair if he could give us some insight as to why this is such a significant change. It was made for—I would assume what he thinks is—good reason good effect. But it was the subject of a lot of discussion at select committee an enormous amount of submitters' time and energy and again it goes to creating what is effectively further legal uncertainty in this area.So I'm keen to know from the Minister: what was the rationale—and it may be simply that "Oh well it was part of the Randerson report." Well we've heard that on several occasions in the debate this afternoon in the committee of the whole House that "it was just Randerson." I'm not sure that just because it was in the Randerson report that is nearly sufficient enough. Randerson and his committee are not Moses and carving tablets and bringing them down from upon high but that seems to be the way that much of it has been interpreted—Simon Court: Sacrilege!Hon SCOTT SIMPSON: I think Mr Court might agree with me on that. But it's an area where there is a lot of public concern; a lot of submitters made reference to this particular clause. The impact and potential for significant change is enormous and then when we asked officials to define the principles we were told by officials that actually there is no formal definition of the principles; that they are merely evolving—evolving. "The principles of the Treaty are evolving." That provides very little confidence or certainty to anybody wishing to rely on this piece of legislation. Thank you Madam Chair.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members the time has come for me to leave the chair. I will resume the chair at 7.30 p.m. after the dinner break. Ka kite anō. Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m."
Dean JacquiHOUSE IN COMMITTEECHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members the House is in committee on the Natural and Built Environment Bill the Spatial Planning Bill and the Local Government Electoral Legislation Bill.
Tinetti Jan; Penk ChrisLOCAL GOVERNMENT ELECTORAL LEGISLATION BILLInstruction to CommitteeHon JAN TINETTI (Minister of Education) on behalf of the Minister of Local Government: Point of order. I move That the committee be instructed to consider and if it thinks fit adopt the amendments to the Local Government Electoral Legislation Bill set out on Supplementary Order Paper 367 in the name of the Hon Kieran McAnulty. This Supplementary Order paper will permanently enable local councils to have remote participants in their meetings to count towards their required quorum. This arrangement is already in place. [Bell rung]ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Oh sorry. No I meant—Hon JAN TINETTI: All good. Firstly this was through the COVID-19 pandemic and now through the severe weather events. The temporary settings will expire and this change will support the continuation of local authority business. It is supported throughout the sector.The change will make it easier for councils to conduct business and keep the choice about whether to enable remote participation in their hands. It is up to councils whether and how they will make use of this ability through their own locally determined standing orders. But for councils that cover sparse populations and large geographic areas making these changes permanent will support those councillors representing remote communities to participate in local democracy. This proposal will place no additional cost pressures on local authorities who are already operating under this system.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the motion be agreed to.CHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Madam Speaker thank you. We've heard from the Minister an explanation of why in her view the amendment—the Supplementary Order Paper—is a good idea. And I don't say that it's not; on this side of the House we would need to consider the substance of that and no doubt it would be in the context of those changes that are contemplated via a piece of legislation that's currently before the House.But what I don't understand—and which the Minister did not touch upon; not that I heard anyway—was why this process is being followed. Why is it that this idea that is seemingly so worthy has not been included in legislation before within scope that could have been set out of course by the Government itself?So I don't intend to take much of the House's time to effectively pose that question. If the Minister is able to respond and explain how and why it is that we are being asked to agree to this change in process—notwithstanding the merits or otherwise of the proposal itself—then that would be helpful I think for the House to be able to form a conclusion as to whether we should allow the scope of that bill already in front of us to be expanded in that way.
Robertson GrantSITTINGS OF THE HOUSEHon GRANT ROBERTSON (Leader of the House): I move That the sitting of the House today be extended into tomorrow morning for the consideration in committee of the Natural and Built Environment Bill the Spatial Planning Bill and the Local Government Electoral Legislation Bill; the interrupted debate on the second reading of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Community Participation) Amendment Bill; and the first reading and referral to select committees of the Regulatory Systems (Primary Industries) Amendment Bill and the Regulatory Systems (Climate Change Response) Amendment Bill.
Walters VanushiVANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour): Thank you Madam Speaker. Like many of my other colleagues today I rise with a heavy heart as well and join them in sending aroha to Kiritapu and to her whānau.It's really difficult to see someone who has such a heart for improving our justice system to have to step back in this way. I met Kiritapu many years ago when we were both working at YouthLaw Aotearoa and we connected really in terms of her passion for young people. That's something that has followed her through her role as Minister of Justice. Kiritapu was always someone who I think while she had the ball really was running and that of course is very difficult to do when you're going through your own personal circumstances as well. It is undeniable that her actions on Sunday night are unacceptable but I think what that shows us is that mental health issues don't discriminate and they don't always present in the most obvious of ways. Sometimes they do sit under the surface and often the scale of those issues sits under the surface as well.I want to acknowledge that there has been a reallocation of the portfolios as a result of her resignation. I just want to acknowledge Minister Andersen as someone I know to be focused on responding to community concerns and very connected to justice issues across the portfolio. I would say to all those who are experiencing mental health issues that your present circumstances don't determine where you go; they merely determine where you start. I believe it's time now for us to give Kiritapu and her whānau some peace to talk with themselves and some privacy. Kia ora.The debate having concluded the motion lapsed.
Urgent Debates — Ministerial Resignation—Hon Kiritapu Allan
Woods MeganHon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): I too would like to begin my short contribution by acknowledging Kiritapu Allan and sending our love from her Labour whānau to her. I'd also like to acknowledge that the events of the last 36 hours once again highlight that this is a workplace like no other. I can't imagine a workplace anywhere else in the country where someone clearly makes a mistake they acknowledge their mental health challenges and then there is a discussion and a debate that is televised on TV for the whole country to see. I think it highlights something that I've always been struck by in my time in this House which is that when we see an MP stumble or when we see an MP—from whatever side of the House—clearly see their careers sometimes disintegrate within a matter of hours before our eyes it is nothing that any of us find comfortable and it is not something to celebrate. It highlights what a different and difficult workplace this place can be. I would like to acknowledge also the members of our caucus. Events like this have a ripple effect and it's never about one person. We become pretty close in these jobs as a caucus and as colleagues and when one member falls that does have a ripple effect throughout the team. So I would like to acknowledge the very many members of our caucus who have wrapped their arms around Kiri in the last days and months to support her at what clearly was a trying time. Kiri has been brave in acknowledging that she was struggling with mental health issues. Last week she came back to work and the consensus was she was on top of her game. It was Kiritapu at her very best: articulating policy in her clear ability to communicate and to talk to New Zealanders in a way they understood was on show. But what we saw and what we can't ignore is that yesterday morning we saw a Minister who had to have a conversation with the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister did advise that he did not believe that it was tenable for her to continue to hold her ministerial warrants for very real reasons. I think it has been clearly documented what has happened from there but I think the best thing now is that Kiri takes the time to heal that she spends time with her whānau and with her friends and that she does spend that time healing. I think that for the rest of us it is time to reflect on the fact that there are no quick fixes when it comes to mental health. It is something that we have to make sure that we understand that things can change quickly and without warning and it is something we have to think about in terms of our workplace here in Parliament. But we also as a Labour caucus need to continue to focus on all of those New Zealanders who are doing it tough at the moment all of those members in our communities who are looking to their Government for hope and for support to address the cost of living to tackle things like crime and to make sure we have a health system that is serving New Zealanders and an education system that is fit for purpose and that is exactly what Labour will be doing.
Rurawhe AdrianPETITIONS PAPERS SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLSSPEAKER: Petitions have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation.CLERK: Petition of Louise Duffy requesting that the House implement a national register for standardised medical advance directives and mandate that those directives are followedpetition of Ranjith De Silva requesting that the House urge the Government to encourage the Sri Lankan Government to hold the Local Government election without further postponement and to stop violent attacks on peaceful protesters.SPEAKER: Those petitions are referred to the Petitions Committee. Ministers have delivered papers.CLERK: Government response to the report of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee on the International Treaty Examination on the Framework Agreement on the establishment of the International Solar AllianceGovernment response to the Privacy Commissioner's report on the Identity Verification Service information matching enabling provisionprotocol to the accession of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership together with the national interest analysisstatements of intent 2023-27:Criminal Cases Review CommissionEducation New Zealand andthe Privacy Commissionerstatements of performance expectations 2023-24:Criminal Cases Review CommissionEducation New ZealandEnvironmental Protection AuthorityPrivacy Commissioner andTourism New Zealand.SPEAKER: I present the Register of Pecuniary and Other Specified Interests of Members of Parliament summary of amendments to annual returns July 2023. Those papers are published under the authority of the House. Select committee reports have been delivered for presentation.CLERK: Report of the Education and Workforce Committee on the Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 3)reports of the Environment Committee on the 2023 Estimates for Vote Conservation and the 2023-24 Estimates for Vote Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environmentreport of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee on the 2023-24 Estimates for Vote Defence and Vote Defence Forcereports of the Justice Committee on the 2023-24 Estimates for Vote Attorney-General and Vote Parliamentary Counsel for Vote Corrections for Vote Courts for Vote Justice and for Vote Police Vote Serious Fraud and appropriations within Vote Business Science and Innovation Retail Crime Subsidy Schemereports of the Petitions Committee on the petition of Barry Ramsay and the petition of Fiona Greenreports of the Primary Production Committee on the 2023-24 Estimates for Vote Forestry andreport of the Social Services and Community Committee on the 2023-24 Estimates for Vote Women.SPEAKER: The bill is set down for second reading. No bills have been introduced.
Visitors — Philippines—Senate
Rurawhe AdrianVISITORSPhilippines—SenateSPEAKER: I'm sure that members would wish to welcome Senator Pia Cayetano from the Senate of the Philippines and her accompanying delegation who are present in the gallery.
Dean JacquiTUESDAY 25 JULY 2023The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.KARAKIA/PRAYERSHon JACQUI DEAN (Assistant Speaker—National): Almighty God we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed on us. Laying aside all personal interests we acknowledge the King and pray for guidance in our deliberations that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom justice mercy and humility for the welfare and peace of New Zealand. Amen.
Muller ToddTODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you Mr Speaker. I'll just take a quick short call to conclude the National Party's contribution. As you've heard this afternoon we have consistently opposed the Legal Services Amendment Bill. There were elements of it that were worth consideration but typically for this Government the harder job of actually reframing and investing in our judicial system in a way to speed up court procedures and to enable justice to be served—which is the harder job—has been kicked to the side and a very sort of forensic focus on the issues around cost and debt. There are already exemptions for legal aid in the original legislation. There's a cost to this and from our perspective we see there's a huge amount of House time and select committee process for very marginal benefit.There would have been an opportunity—which we had called for and would have supported—for a more substantive approach from this Government assessing where the bottlenecks are in our judicial system where the opportunities and investments could go to actually speed up that court process so people can actually have justice served in this country. But instead as I said the Government chose to prioritise a different area. So we have made our point; I think it has been very clear—good contributions from Paul Goldsmith and more recently Tama Potaka—around our point of distinction. We will continue to oppose this this afternoon.
Rosewarne DanDAN ROSEWARNE (Labour): It's my pleasure to be taking a short call on the Legal Services Amendment Bill. But before I begin I would like to acknowledge the victims of the shooting up in Auckland. While the cordons may lift over time the pain that the families will have to endure will go on and they will need a lot of support for the community.I'd like to also just touch on the comments from my colleague Vanushi Walters who was at the coalface of Community Law and she took use through a lot of the challenges that she faced when she was working in that space. It's a shame to say that some of those challenges are echoed in the Waimakariri electorate where I live in. There's some harrowing stories in Kaiapoi—Kaiapoi Community Law—and when you when you sit down with them and have a chat to the challenges that some of the people that access their services face there is definitely a need for this bill.It's also echoed out in Rangiora with the budgeting services out there. The one challenge that they always face is around the cost of justice and how it impacts the ability for a lot of their clients to get on to their feet. So this is an important bill.It repeals sections from the Legal Services Act 2011 that require a payment for a user charge and interest on unpaid legal debt. These proposed changes will mean that thousands of people who could otherwise not afford a lawyer will be able to have proper legal representation and that's hugely important. The justice system can be a stressful place for people who are not familiar with it and financial barriers and stresses that come with that can make the experience much more overwhelming not only for the individual but also these families that are trying to shepherd them through the process.This bill responds to the Ministry of Justice's findings in a 2018 review of legal aid and these changes are part of the Budget 2022 package of $148.7 million to strengthen the legal aid system. So this is much needed and I commend the bill to the House.
Coffey Tāmati; O'Connor GregTĀMATI COFFEY (Labour): Thank you Mr Speaker. I'm pleased to take a very short call on this one. You've heard from people that have been working at the front line for quite some time about just making sure that we're doing everything that we can to allow our fellow New Zealanders that may be trying to navigate the legal system—as tricky and as complex as it is—to be able to access justice.I mean I'm not a lawyer but I've got to say when I talk to colleagues that are when I talk to people in my community about legal aid especially from the lawyers they kind of reel and then they start telling you what's wrong with the legal aid system. There seems to be a wide acknowledgment in the House today especially from this side of the House that we are definitely making moves to try and improve our legal aid system to make sure that we are not burdening our communities with debt.Debt is heavy. Debt is even heavier if you've got no money to be able to service that debt. For those people that are on the breadline or living in complete poverty actually having debt hanging over them is a very very heavy thing and a heavy burden for them to bear. Knowing that—for applying for legal aid—you've up until this point had the system where you have a debt and then there's this interest that gets accumulated on it as you're trying to navigate the legal system just sounds ludicrous.So you know I think about those people in this time when we're facing a cost of living crisis—increasing prices for everybody but the people that feel it the most are the people that have got nothing in their pockets; there's not enough money coming in and they're having to make ends meet. If they happen to also be navigating the legal system then that kind of stuff can be a big pressure in their lives. So I think about them at times like this.I'm just so unsure about why some members of the House aren't supporting this because it doesn't sound right—it doesn't sound right—that there are members of this House that think that we should continue to charge to put a tax on these people as they're trying to access justice and that they are OK with the fact that any kind of debt then should continue to incur that extra interest charge as well. Some of these people that access this fund they are the most impoverished people in the country and usually you know maybe with a criminal record maybe trying not to get themselves a criminal record as well.Surely—surely—we as a House must come together on this one to support it for our fellow New Zealanders for those people that are doing it tough out there at the moment so that they can actually try and navigate the legal system get the access to justice that we all expect we all want we all demand—if we need it—and to make sure that we we're providing legal aid with no hooks no caveats to people that really need it in this community and this country. For that reason I commend it to the House.DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a split call—five minutes. Tama Potaka.
Baillie ChrisCHRIS BAILLIE (ACT): I would also like to pay my respects and say thank you to the members of the Auckland Police who attended the tragic incident this morning. It makes me proud to be part of the blue whānau.I rise on behalf of ACT to take a short call on the Legal Services Amendment Bill a bill that was pushed through under urgency at the end of last year. With the urgency which was mentioned just before it doesn't seem to have been quite as urgent. But it is a bill that has been supported by ACT. I wasn't on the Justice Committee and the consultation process seems to be all pretty amicable. There were 10 submitters and they all supported the bill with six making additional suggestions about the legal aid system. It seems like some of those suggestions have already been addressed from what I heard before. The $50 user charge which is payable by most applicants for civil or family legal aid has been identified as a barrier to accessing justice especially for those on low incomes. This barrier doesn't seem to serve any purpose. People who receive legal aid are already assessed as to whether they are eligible or not so the $50 charge does seem unreasonable or unnecessary. The amount makes it hardly worthwhile to actually administer. The other part removing the 5 percent interest on the legal aid after six months: many legal aid clients often have debts and interest adds to those debts and just compounds the legal difficulties. Often the spiral will begin from there.ACT were concerned that removing the interest from the legal aid debt would mean that people have no incentive to pay that debt back but we understand that if people refuse to pay the debt the Legal Services Commissioner has the power to issue a notice and deduct it from the person's bank or pay or place a caveat over the property for the repayment of that debt.National opposes the bill because they are wanting a more substantive bill on legal reform and we get that; it's a good objective. They also point out that under Labour the court system has become significantly slower and the average number of days to resolve criminal cases in the District Court has gone from 114 days to 176 days. It's a problem and highlights the need for a new Government that will reform the court system. But that's something we can look at in October.I note that Duncan Webb's first reading contribution was 24 words; half of that was about the Opposition. It really is just tinkering. But anyway we have a bill in front of us. The reality is that a $50 charge is a deterrent for poorer people as is the 5 percent interest. The ACT Party prefers Government that delivers services simply and equitably and the charge and the interest rate just do seem unnecessary. We will support this bill.