edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
SpeechSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Thank you Madam Chair. The first question—I'll only hit four very quickly—is that I'd love to have the Minister repeat what I think is the speech of the day—what is it a kookaburra's something or rather? If she could repeat that it would be amazing!Secondly the Minister needs to clarify her understanding of the comity between the Parliament and the courts. She's given an array of views which are ultimately confusing. Parliament is sovereign. It gives instruction to the courts. Now she's telling us because of the courts in academics' view that things are disproportionate that Parliament therefore has to make changes. Now of course we can listen Minister but does she affirm parliamentary sovereignty? I think she does because in Part 1 she's now talking about minimum sentencing just as ipso facto the three-strikes legislation was imposing maximums—in other words: we are still imposing things. The Minister is still directing the courts despite dancing on the head of a pin I would argue and trying to suggest that they are somewhat independent. So we need absolute clarity number two on her understanding of parliamentary sovereignty and comity.The third is that she's touched on in her contributions the money-saving benefits. I think to many at home it sounds like if we don't imprison people longer if we don't exact proper consequences on criminals we'll save money. That's the argument I heard. As the corrections spokesperson I hear it from her colleague as well around prisons—basically let the prisoners out; it's going to save money. I'd like her to disabuse me of that argument when she did earlier talk about saving money.The last point—the last point—is I've just picked up what she's tabled in a tabled amendment in the committee in I think response to Nicole McKee. It's a change to the Part 4 which relates of course to clause 10 of Part 1—just for the Labour side before they get too worried! She's changing clauses to do with the commencement. Now that makes sense but the question Minister is: you're already making mistakes with this legislation you are now racing proposed amendments on to the Table; what confidence can this committee have that you've got the rest of this bill accurate and correct?
McKee NicoleNICOLE McKEE (ACT): Thank you Madam Chair. I am looking at Part 1 where we are looking at the imposition of minimum periods of imprisonment a presumption in favour of life imprisonment for murder the minimum period of imprisonment—what a kookaburra's codswallop this all is. Now one of the things that I think is really important is that we do address the victims in this bill in Part 1 because we're looking at the minimum period of imprisonment that will be placed upon a criminal and here's just an example of a person. It may not have been a third strike. It won't matter now because they won't be able to be eligible for it but here's what we have in sentencing. A man named Shannon Joseph Henry shot a police officer in Hamilton in July last year. He was jailed for just seven years and eight months and he only needs to serve 3½ years as a minimum non-parole period and this was after a starting point of 13 years in prison. So that's the result of sentencing for a person who actually took a shot at one of our front-liners—another one of our police officers—and we are effectively saying that we don't want the victim to have to go through a prolonged court case. Well I disagree. The ACT Party believes that we have victims out there that actually want full justice served upon those criminals who affect their lives and cause them ongoing pain and suffering. That for quite a number of victims means that they end up having to go through a process and repealing the three-strikes law is no guarantee that we're going to have a whole stack of criminals all of a sudden pleading guilty; in fact I would suggest it's quite the opposite. When we're looking at a Minister who has taken a victim-centric approach to legislation the reason why you have the ACT Party and the National Party constantly coming back at you about victims is because once you start changing the effect of imprisonment or the number of years in which a person may have non-parole or may be serving under Her Majesty's regime you have to take into account the role of the victims here and I was extremely disappointed to see that even the Human Rights Commission could not do a submission looking at the role of the victims in this as well. So it's really important that somebody take on the banner of the victims and it's really great to see that both National and ACT put them at the heart of this legislation because effectively that's who it was that we were protecting: the victims. We in the ACT Party believe that they've been severely missed out in consultation—in real consultation—over this bill. So Minister when we're looking at a starting point of 13 years in prison for shooting at one of our front-liners a police officer but the actual impediment is only 3½ years of minimum non-parole then we have to ask who are we looking after—the criminals?—because we're certainly not looking after the victims. Thank you.
SpeechDAN ROSEWARNE (Labour): I move That the question be now put.
SpeechHon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Justice): Mr Chair thank you. Just in response to some of those comments made by my friend Mr Goldsmith with respect to manifestly unjust sentences our side of the House did consider whether or not the broader sentencing regime that has been accepted by Governments and Parliaments over many years was satisfactory. In alignment with constitutional law experts criminal law experts and of course all of the relevant bar associations—we aligned with their view that the sentencing regime was appropriate. We aligned with their view that this indeed was bad law.There was a range of comments made by my friend Mr O'Connor relating to evidence. I think in my opening remarks this morning I set out four reasons related to deterrence cost procedural implications and then victims. With respect to his comments on Māori and Pacific Islanders I wasn't quite sure what the question was there so I'll just note that I've heard his remark and if there's something I missed I'm not quite sure what I was intended to respond to. He also made some inference that whether or not—something about consequences and races and sentencing. Again I didn't understand the question. I particularly didn't understand it in the context of Part 1.But what I will say as my broader response to that question and query is that again we fall back to the Sentencing Act and the primary principles prior to the three strikes law being incorporated. We think that there is a very sound Sentencing Act and sentencing regime in New Zealand. We think that there is a very sound distinction between the executive and the judiciary for them to exercise their discretion.I think those are the main points that I've picked up over the last two contributions.
McKee NicoleNICOLE McKEE (ACT): Point of order Mr Chair. Sorry Mr Chair. I did check with the Clerk earlier who suggested that because it was an amendment to Schedule 1AA it falls within Part 1.CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): Thank you for the ruling Nicole. I won't take any more debate on whether it's relevant or not. I think if the issue has been raised and the Minister wishes to answer it she should. If she doesn't wish to answer it then that's fine.Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Justice): Just responding to the point of order though I do want to make the case this is outside of Part 1 but I will respond to it in due course.
McKee NicoleNICOLE McKEE (ACT): Thank you Mr Chair. Minister I really want to make a whole lot of comments on victims and maybe we could carry on that conversation a little—and get to a question for Part 1 Mr Chair—especially when the Minister had just made the statement that the legislation doesn't assist victims. I wonder whether or not the Minister is able to quantify that with any data because there was certainly none produced to the Justice Committee that had anything at all to do with victims.But I will say in answer to something else that the Minister said earlier—that there has been no deterrent—that in actual fact in the Ministry of Justice's letter to the select committee dated 15 March 2022 they refer at paragraph four to a 2018 analysis [which] concluded that there had been a drop in second strike offending since the three strikes law suggesting that it may have had a deterrent effect." It further goes on under paragraph five bullet point two: "there has been a reduction (1.4 percentage points) in the rate at which offenders progress from a first to a second strike further suggesting that the three strikes law may have a small deterrent effect."Of course one of the needs of three-strikes law is to be in place for a time so that a person may serve their first sentence their second full sentence before being convicted again for their third full sentence. Therefore time really is of the essence.But Minister getting back to Part 1. A question that I have actually relates to your Supplementary Order Paper 187 where you are looking to tidy up the commencement date from 1 July to the day after the Royal assent. It also appears to simplify the way that people are convicted and sentenced before this repeal. So Minister can you please explain why and advise whether the change of commencement date also requires a change of date for Part 4 sections 13 and 14 where 1 July 2022 is stated as a "on or after date" rather than "after Royal assent" and whether the Minister is prepared to tidy that up. I invite her to be consistent with those dates. Victims out there the ones that you want to be centric with and the ones that we are thinking about will otherwise see that criminals will be treated less harshly from a date at least one month before the bill is actually passed into law. So we would like to see a victim-centric approach at least in the way that the dates have been administered. Thank you.Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Justice): Mr Chair thank you. Just in direct response just to the Supplementary Order Paper that the member is referencing I note that this is talking to an amendment to clause 2 which is in the insularly provision. So right now the debate is really focused on Part 1 but I'll be happy to address that when we get to those provisions."
SpeechHon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Justice): Mr Chair thank you. I just do want to quickly respond to my colleague the Hon Mark Mitchell and respond to his contributions. But particularly I do want to just make sure that we are really debating what's in Part 1 because it's very limited to its provisions.Simon O'Connor: Now she's nervous.Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: Oh no I'm quite enjoying the discussion this morning and happy to go lengthy. But I do think that the time of this House is precious and therefore we must use it and acknowledge what this place is for: it's to debate Part 1 which is a pretty limited part.I will briefly respond to the comments since they've now come through from three of the speakers from the National Opposition. First to the comment that victims do not care about whether or not a criminal or a person pleads guilty or not guilty during procedural issues. I would love to know where the speaker got those ideas from. A victim who has to go through a lengthy court process may be re-traumatised and there was substantive evidence that was provided to the select committee on this point. This increases the exposure that victims have to go through in that process and I just reject the proposition that Mr Mitchell is putting forward that this will somehow increase it.Secondly just to the misinformation for those listeners that may be tuning in of the proposition that was just made in this House that we are repealing the three-strikes law to solve violent crime—that was essentially the proposition I got. Now we're repealing the three-strikes law because it's bad law. We're repealing the three-strikes law because it doesn't assist victims. Mr Mitchell is asking why although I just gave four very detailed reasons as to why the law doesn't work but this isn't a debate on whether or not the principal agreements or disagreements between this side of the House and the other—whether we agree or not. This is a very limited debate on Part 1 and the amendments to the Sentencing Act 2002 and I encourage my colleagues to debate those clauses.CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): Just before I take the next call: members on the issue of victims whilst I think it's appropriate to deal with victims in a passing manner in the debate on Part 1 it would be more appropriate to apply your thought to that in Part 2.
Tuesday 2 August 2022 - Volume 761
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Local Government Electoral Legislation Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 77New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Motion agreed to.Bill read a first time.DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is That the Local Government Electoral Legislation Bill be considered by the Governance and Administration Committee.Motion agreed to.Bill referred to the Governance and Administration Committee.
Local Government Electoral Legislation Bill — First Reading
Data and Statistics Bill — Third Reading (continued)
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Data and Statistics Bill be now read a third time.Ayes 108New Zealand Labour 65; New Zealand National 33; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10. Noes 12ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Motion agreed to.Bill read a third time.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Electoral Amendment Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 77New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10. Motion agreed to.Bill read a first time. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is That the Electoral Amendment Bill be considered by the Justice Committee.Motion agreed to.Bill referred to the Justice Committee.Instruction to Justice CommitteeHon MEKA WHAITIRI (Minister of Customs) on behalf of the Minister of Justice: I move That the Electoral Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 5 December 2022.A party vote was called for on the question That the motion be agreed to.Ayes 75New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Noes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10. Motion agreed to.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Accessibility for New Zealanders Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 108New Zealand Labour 65; New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Noes 12Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Motion agreed to.Bill read a first time.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ian McKelvie): The question is That the Accessibility for New Zealanders Bill be considered by the Social Services and Community Committee.Motion agreed to.Bill referred to the Social Services and Community Committee.
Accessibility for New Zealanders Bill — First Reading
12. Question No. 12—ImmigrationARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) to the Minister of ImmigrationQuestion No. 12—Immigration12. ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) to the Minister of Immigration: What recent announcements has he made about opening New Zealand up to the world?Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Immigration): This Sunday New Zealand marked the final step in our reconnecting plan with visitors from non - visa waiver countries and international students now eligible to apply for a visa to enter New Zealand. We also opened the maritime border to cruise ships specialist vessels and recreational vessels. This follows the opening up of the Accredited Employer Work Visa earlier in July which has received healthy interest from employers with 23000 job-check applications received and 7100 approved. As a country we're looking forward to welcoming everyone from around the world back to our shores which is great news for our tourism industry and our economy and society as we move into the warmer months of the year. Arena Williams: How will the full reopening of our borders benefit our economy?Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Well pre-pandemic visits from cruise ships were worth in excess of $500 million a year of which $356 million was spent onshore providing a valuable economic contribution to our regions. The opening of our maritime border in time for the warmer months of October to April will see that spend return to these communities. Prior to the pandemic the international education sector was worth several billion dollars per year to our country. The full resumption of student visa processing is great news for learning establishments who we're working closely with to help recover from the effects of the pandemic. Arena Williams: What reports has he seen about demand for travelling to New Zealand? Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Well we know that globally there is pent-up demand for people to visit New Zealand. In January 58 percent of Australians who would like to visit New Zealand wanted to come within six months of the border opening and the same figure was 77 percent for visitors from the American market and we're seeing very strong results in key winter destinations like Queenstown. These reflect New Zealand's reputation as an attractive destination to visit and I acknowledge the work of my colleague the Hon Stuart Nash in helping to set the tourism industry up for this return of visitors.SPEAKER: That concludes oral questions.
10. Question No. 10—EnvironmentINGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri) to the Minister for the EnvironmentQuestion No. 10—Environment10. INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri) to the Minister for the Environment: Kia orana Mr Speaker. What reports has he received on the costs of consenting under the Resource Management Act?Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Thank you Mr Speaker. Late last year I received a report from the Infrastructure Commission on the cost of consenting infrastructure projects in New Zealand. This report found the cost of consents for medium-sized infrastructure projects has increased 150 percent in the last 10 years. Costs are now 250 percent of what they were just a decade ago. The time taken to make decisions on consent applications for infrastructure projects has also increased by as much as 150 percent over the same period. Ingrid Leary: Will the cost of consents for infrastructure be substantially reduced under the Spatial Planning Act (SPA) and the Natural and Built Environments Act (NBA)?Hon DAVID PARKER: The over 100 Resource Management Act (RMA) plans will transition into around 14 NBA plans. Infrastructure projects will flow from spatial plans through to NBA plans with designations in place and then be allowed as permitted activities subject to meeting standards. Millions and millions of dollars of cost and much delay and frustration will be avoided.Ingrid Leary: How will these standards be developed?Hon DAVID PARKER: The National Planning Framework will consolidate existing national direction under the RMA. Importantly a new infrastructure and development chapter for the National Planning Framework is currently being developed. This work is being led by Te Waihanga—the Infrastructure Commission—in cooperation with the Ministry for the Environment and other agencies. It is expected to include standards by reference for things like sediment control. Applicants will be able to propose control standard 1 2 or 3 and the council in its decision will specify which standard is to be applied. Neither the applicant nor the council will have to specify complex bespoke conditions which they currently do at enormous cost and time.Ingrid Leary: How ready will the new system be when it starts compared to the RMA?Hon DAVID PARKER: The SPA and NBA process will be decades ahead. The RMA lacked national direction for decades. No standard plan format was provided and no significant central government help was provided to councils for first-generation RMA plans. Budget 2022 allocated funding for the completion of the National Planning Framework the infrastructure chapter I've referred to and the first model SPA and NBA plans.
8. Question No. 8—HealthDr GAURAV SHARMA (Labour—Hamilton West) to the Minister of HealthQuestion No. 8—Health8. Dr GAURAV SHARMA (Labour—Hamilton West) to the Minister of Health: What recent announcements has he made on the future of the health workforce?Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): Yesterday I announced a package of targeted measures to train more health workers domestically and bring more doctors and nurses into the country to help address immediate workforce pressures. The package to boost the health workforce includes the establishment of a one-stop shop for international recruitment within Te Whatu Ora—Health New Zealand training more GPs and radiology registrars and removing significant cost barriers for professional registration.Dr Gaurav Sharma: How will these measures grow our domestic workforce?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Growing our domestic health workforce is an important step for the long-term change required in New Zealand to ensure everyone can get the best care where and when they need it. Our domestic workforce pipeline will benefit from firstly the expansion of a successful programme that provides $5000 in funding for every non-practising nurse in New Zealand who wants to return to nursing to help get them re-registered; secondly a joint project with the Royal New Zealand College of General Practitioners to increase the number of GPs trained each year to 300 and to get more Māori and Pacific GPs; thirdly doubling the number of nurse practitioners trained each year from 50 to 100; and finally increasing training slots for radiology registrars from 100 a year at the moment to 115 a year from 2024.Dr Gaurav Sharma: What will these new measures mean for internationally qualified health workers wanting to come to New Zealand?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: As a Government we know that we won't meet the demand required for our health workforce through our domestic pipeline alone. Now we've changed immigration rules to make New Zealand one of the easiest places in the world for health workers to come to we've put in a range of measures. Te Whatu Ora—Health New Zealand is an accredited employer so it can facilitate bringing people into the country and the following measures will allow us to ensure the process of moving to Aotearoa New Zealand is as easy and attractive as possible: firstly an international recruitment service is being set up within Te Whatu Ora—Health New Zealand which as I said before will be a one-stop shop for all those people who want to come here; secondly the provision of up to $10000 in financial support for international nurses for New Zealand registration costs; and thirdly covering international doctors' salaries during their six-week clinical induction courses and three-month training internships.
3. Question No. 3—HousingANAHILA KANONGATA'A-SUISUIKI (Labour) to the Minister of HousingQuestion No. 3—Housing3. ANAHILA KANONGATA'A-SUISUIKI (Labour) to the Minister of Housing: Kia orana Vaa Tuatua. What progress has the Government made on the delivery of public housing?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): Kia orana. This morning I announced the Government has added more than 10000 new public homes since 2017—another major milestone in our plan to tackle the national housing crisis. These 10037 new public homes including 8240 new builds are tangible proof of our commitment to rebuilding the public housing stock after years of neglect. We are restoring the housing safety net with the biggest State housing - building programme since the 1970s. While we celebrate more than 10000 new public homes today we know that the job isn't yet done. We will continue our record investment and delivery in public housing as a priority in addition to our wide range of other actions to boost housing supply because we know how crucial adequate housing is for the health security and stability of individuals and whānau.Anahila Kanongata'a-Suisuiki: Which parts of the country have benefited from the Government adding 10000 new public homes?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: We're adding public homes across the country from Northland to Invercargill. We've made significant investment in regional New Zealand as well as Auckland Wellington and Canterbury. For example in the Waikato region we've added 681 more public homes and on the East Coast we've added 331 new homes. Right across the country people will be noticing many new homes going up and they may not even realise that it's public housing under Kāinga Ora. We're adding public homes in places that have long been without them. For example down south we're adding homes in places that have been waiting for new public homes for decades. In Gore we've delivered the first public home since the mid-1980s and we will add another 20 public homes to the current stock of 40 by the end of 2024 to replace homes built mainly in the 1940s.Anahila Kanongata'a-Suisuiki: Why is the Government undertaking the largest State house - building programme since the 1970s?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Because it is so badly needed. Since 2017 we have been rebuilding New Zealand's public housing stock after years of neglect by the previous Government. While we have delivered 10037 new public homes in five years the previous Government's slash-and-burn attitude to public housing resulted in 1500 fewer.SPEAKER: Question No. 5 Ginny Andersen. Ginny Andersen: Thank you Mr Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Police: what—Hon Member: Point of order sir. SPEAKER: Oh I apologise. I'm still counting laps from that points race. Question No. 4 Nicola—no. Question No. 4—yeah—Nicola Willis. Sorry. The fact that the member had two questions—that's what's got to me all right? OK. I just can't count to two today.
SpeechCHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): Members the time has come to leave the Chair. The House is suspended and I will resume the Chair at 9 a.m. tomorrow morning.Sitting suspended from 9.56 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Wednesday)
SpeechHOUSE IN COMMITTEECHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): Members the House is in committee for further consideration of the Three Strikes Legislation Repeal Bill and consideration of the New Zealand Bill of Rights (Declarations of Inconsistency) Amendment Bill and the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill.
Rurawhe AdrianDEPUTY SPEAKER: I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Three Strikes Legislation Repeal Bill the New Zealand Bill of Rights (Declarations of Inconsistency) Amendment Bill and the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill.
Sosene Lemauga LydiaLEMAUGA LYDIA SOSENE (Labour): Mr Speaker thank you for the opportunity and kia orana. I'll take a short call on the bill. I support this bill particularly because it talks about a range of topics and covers representation. In my previous working life I worked over a decade for Auckland Council as an elected member and I know the value of Māori wards and Māori representation that the current legislation does not cover. So on that note I commend this bill to the House.
Utikere TangiTANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Kia orana Mr Speaker. For the last two weeks we had the Local Government New Zealand conference in the mighty city of Palmerston North. It was wonderful to have ministerial colleagues including our local government Ministers McAnulty and Mahuta there on the ground listening to councils in my electorate and the feedback. Now we not only had those two Ministers but I think we've had at least five including the Prime Minister. So on this side of the House we are engaged with local government. The Leader of the Opposition beamed in probably from Te Puke but I do know that this is a particular piece of work that is well-timed and I commend it to the House.
McLellan TraceyDr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour—Banks Peninsula): Kia orana Mr Speaker. How do the changes in this bill make it different from the current requirements? In a nutshell there is just simply not any current requirements for councils to even bother considering Māori wards. All this does is it means that some councils can avoid making a decision at all. So despite the silly vacuous protestations by the Opposition it's a very straightforward bill that makes some local electoral changes. It happens to be well supported by the government sector and on that basis I commend the bill to the House.
Rurawhe AdrianJAMIE STRANGE (Labour—Hamilton East): Kia orana Mr Speaker. I commend this bill to the House.DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a split call—I call Maureen Pugh.
SpeechNAISI CHEN (Labour): Thank you Mr Speaker. I rise proudly in this House to speak on the Local Government Electoral Legislation Bill. My good colleague Rachel Boyack has just canvassed all of the reasons why we give the local councils freedom to choose whether they will establish a Māori ward or not. But I just want to use the remaining part of my contribution to talk about the Auckland aspect of this bill. Auckland is a fast growing city. It currently holds over one-third of our population just over 1.72 million. But also it is projected to grow in the next 10 years to 2033—yeah in the next 11 years. So by 2048 it could make up 37 percent of the population; it's now currently 34 percent. So we know we've got rapid growth of population on the horizon for Auckland City. Therefore we need to give the city its own right through its own process of representation to make sure that they have adequate representation on their council. So I commend this bill to the House.
Rurawhe AdrianGLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth): Kia orana Mr Speaker. This bill is based on the recommendations made in the 2019 report Te Korowai Ture ā-Whānau. Now translated that's very much around forming a korowai around a whānau around protecting around supporting around empowering children their parents and their whānau as they work through parenting and guardianship issues. This piece of legislation goes some way to that and therefore I commend this bill to the House.Motion agreed to.Bill read a first time. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is That the Family Court (Family Court Associates) Legislation Bill be considered by the Justice Committee.Motion agreed to.Bill referred to the Justice Committee.
Family Court (Family Court Associates) Legislation Bill — First Reading
Williams ArenaARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe Mr Speaker. It's a pleasure to make a short contribution to the House. May I start by thanking the Minister Kiri Allan for prioritising this piece of work which will address some particular problems which we're seeing in our Family Court system. We know—and have agreed around this House tonight—that delays in the Family Court are prevalent and that the high workload of judges is contributing to that. It's always good you always hear from me in these opportunities where there is cross-partisan agreement on these issues and they are forward-looking issues; they're about our access to justice and about the way we promote people using our justice system efficiently and getting our value for money out of that. It is an important service that people are able to access something that when they come to the end of the road about what they can agree in their family that they're able to turn somewhere for help. That's why I look forward to canvassing these issues in the select committee. I hope that the court lawyers of the National Party are able to join us. It's always good to hear from some of those members like Joseph Mooney before me and like Chris Penk. I look forward to having these discussions later on.
Webb DuncanDr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Kia orana Mr Speaker. I'm very happy to stand briefly just to commend the bill to the House in light of the fact that the Māori Party don't have anything to say about this bill which comes at a bit of a surprise to me. This is a bill which is simply designed to improve access to justice to speed up resolution of matters in the Family Court and particularly those pertaining to children. An absolutely important bill. Great to see the support around the House. I commend it to the House.
SpeechDr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei): Kia ora Mr Speaker. As a member of the Justice Committee I am delighted to commend this bill which is a further step in our plan to increase access to justice particularly in this sensitive area. The Family Court it is absolutely of no doubt has become a very delayed and difficult jurisdiction and having listened to the Hon Judith Collins earlier I start to understand why. It is clear that she considers that it is some sort of simple jurisdiction in which naughty parents need to be told to sort themselves out.The problem with the Family Court is that by the time you actually get people coming to court they are the ones dealing with the most intractable and difficult problems that we have. We are talking mental illness drug abuse child abuse interpersonal violence—these are not quick issues to deal with; they are issues that require expertise. Unfortunately what the Hon Ms Collins did was to strip out the expert help. She stripped out the counselling; she stripped out the access to Family Court lawyers at those early stages when people most needed it. Now as my colleague Golriz Ghahraman said this was done to save money—what an absolute travesty of justice. Justice delayed is justice denied and nothing is clearer than the Family Court as an example of that.Therefore this is absolutely sensible. It is no band-aid; it is an important step that we not only roll back the ridiculous things that were done to our court but we now bring in this additional expertise with senior Family Court lawyers who will be able to take some of that administrative burden off our hard-working judges. It is a new role but there are highly successful precedents in the High Court associate justice role which is in itself a specialism or even in the recorder role in the UK which is essentially a judicial apprenticeship. Now whether our Family Court Associates become an apprenticeship or a specialism in themselves or perhaps both is yet to be seen. I commend this bill to the House. I look forward to working on it with my colleagues.
SpeechVANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour): Thank you Mr Speaker for the opportunity to take a very brief call in relation to this important bill and it's really positive to hear that the Opposition are supporting this bill.For anyone who's spent a bit of time with children and young people I think what we know is that they feel time differently. So with court proceedings where adults might feel that they're long and they're difficult for children sometimes they're excruciating. What we know is that 16000 children and young people come in front of the family dispute resolution process in a year and research has also shown us that when those proceedings are elongated they're four times as likely to have mental wellbeing issues. So this is a bill that really responds to that. It's a bill as colleagues have spoken to that responds to Te Korowai Ture ā-Whānau. I am a member of the Justice Committee so I do look forward to a robust discussion at that stage and I commend this bill to the House.
SpeechHon MEKA WHAITIRI (Associate Minister of Statistics): I'm pleased to take a call as the last speaker on the third and final reading of the Data and Statistics Bill. Can I acknowledge all those parties in the House that are supporting this bill. Can I acknowledge my colleague the Minister of Statistics the Hon David Clark in ushering this bill. I think it's a thorough bill. It has seven parts it has four schedules and it is around modernising so that we have a fit for purpose data and statistics system in Aotearoa New Zealand.In my brief contribution in this third and final reading I want to just put on record the engagement that this Minister has had with iwi Māori in the formation of this bill but also with iwi Māori in supporting their aspirations around data and statistics. I just want to acknowledge the work of the Data Iwi Leaders Group which comes from the Mana Ōrite Relationship Agreement which was signed under the then Minister of Statistics the Hon James Shaw. I want to acknowledge that. From that particular agreement it commits the Crown to working and engaging with iwi Māori in building their capacity to let their aspiration of better data to inform their decision making particularly in a Treaty settlement context—and I want to say that this bill not only actively engaged with them but we continue to work to build the capacity. If you look across the Māori economy and all those Treaty settlement groups they are massive players economically socially and environmentally in this country. So it's important that we have a data and statistical system that unlocks that economic and social potential in those organisations which do not just benefit iwi Māori but actually benefit all.In contributing as the Associate Minister of Statistics with my colleague the Hon David Clark it's a lovely piece of legislation that modernises something that's dated since 1975. But I particularly want to put on record the engagement this Minister had and continues to have with the Data Iwi Leaders Group which represents the chairs of our national iwi forums. With that small contribution I'd like to commend this bill to the House.
Leary IngridINGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): Thank you Madam Speaker. I think it's important that this House notes that this bill seeks to update legislation which is 45 years old so let's not forget that. I think we're all in agreement about the state of some of the data collection in New Zealand. We're coming from a wellbeing perspective on this side of the House and that means having data which we can use to be able to target interventions to get the best possible outcomes to create equity. Today in this House we have been discussing the Accessibility for New Zealanders Bill. That is an example of a particular sector where there just hasn't been adequate data collection to be able to make very big and quick changes that data collection needs to happen. Others in the House tonight have said how critical data collection is to our democracy and so what this bill will do is update our systems to make sure that we can get better data and that we can therefore have a more robust wellbeing approach. Of course that needs to be balanced with efficiency with value and perhaps most importantly the systems integrity that we've heard discussed tonight.I know when I was studying law 30-something years ago—I actually did my honours thesis on privacy law and at that point there was the Tucker case and the very emergence of the tort of privacy. Well that has changed so significantly. We have had huge developments in privacy law confidentiality security and the things that we need in order to make sure that we do have the appropriate checks and balances on the data collection and the data use. And I'd also add that the bill is in accordance with a whole host of international treaties that look specifically at confidentiality security and appropriate use of data collection. So I think we've reached that position very thoughtfully very carefully through robust democratic processes to make sure that we are falling as close to the perfect line as we can on managing those tensions. There is a statement in one of the regulatory reports that says: of course we could do more but the cost just would not be value for money for New Zealanders. I thank the previous member Chris Penk for his thoughtful contribution and I commend this bill to the House.
SpeechJAMIE STRANGE (Labour—Hamilton East): Thank you Madam Speaker. I appreciate the opportunity to take a fairly brief call on the Data and Statistics Bill at its third reading. I'm sure members would like for me to speak for longer but we have canvassed this bill fairly well here this evening.A lot of what we do in Parliament is updating pieces of legislation. This bill replaces the Statistics Act 1975 and a lot has changed since 1975. In fact the Waitangi Tribunal was created in 1975 Footrot Flats had its debut and there was a gentleman named Robert Muldoon—who some people may have heard of—sitting in the Prime Minister's chair in 1975. So a lot has changed since that time. Society has changed. The way we interact as New Zealanders has changed.But what hasn't changed is the importance of good data and good methods for collecting the data—modern methods to ensure that we have accurate data. Because as we've heard from other speakers data is vital in many areas but particularly in terms of Government agencies—in terms of their ability to support New Zealanders whether it's in health education police housing; in fact in most areas of society where Government agencies are providing support to New Zealanders they do so based on data. It's important that that data is accurate in order for them to make their decisions.Good data and statistics sit at the heart of democracy. We have a strong democracy in New Zealand and it's important that we protect our democracy by ensuring we have good data. I commend this bill to the House.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): I call Chris Penk for a five-minute call.
SpeechDATA AND STATISTICS BILLThird ReadingDebate resumed.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The House is resumed. When the House rose for the dinner break the members were considering the Data and Statistics Bill. NAISI CHEN (Labour): Thank you Madam Speaker. I rise in this House to talk to the third reading of the bill amending the Statistics Act of 1975. Simon O'Connor: Oh great year. NAISI CHEN: I wasn't born before then. Dr Duncan Webb: You always say that. NAISI CHEN: Ha ha! OK I'll stop myself from saying that from now on. I did a bit of research especially for the digital exclusion debate last week in the House which was brought to us by the Citizens Advice Bureau. The bill that we're trying to amend right now is 1975. In 1983—which makes it eight years after the bill was passed—the internet was invented. We've known from speeches previous to this debate already that this world is a very different place than what it used to be in 1975 and rather than just calling it the Statistics Act we know that data is now an integral part of our lives. Fun fact: in the last two days more data has been created and captured than any data from the beginning of human history to the year 2003. So we are in a rapid world of creating and capturing data and we need to govern data in the right way as well. This bill will seek obviously to modernise the framework for accessing data for research to make sure that the Minister and also the Statistician of the Government have the right powers to make sure that we do it ethically and we do it safely. For instance there will be additional safeguards when overseas-based researchers access our data. There is the Five Safes framework we're putting in place through this bill to make sure that we as New Zealanders especially in relation to our indigenous data—our iwi and Māori data which is such a taonga for our nation—protect it in the best way possible while also advancing the way that we govern our country that we do research and that we enlighten ourselves with the technology that we have. On that note I commend this bill to the House.
Data and Statistics Bill — Third Reading
SpeechSPEAKER: I think we're getting pretty close to the time. Therefore what I'll do is in accordance with a determination of the Business Committee call Sam Uffindell to make his maiden statement.Debate interrupted.
Boyack RachelRACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you Mr Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to take a call on the Data and Statistics Bill. I do want to begin by thanking the officials and my fellow members on the Governance and Administration Committee for the considerable work that went into consideration of this bill. It isn't often that a committee considers an entire rewrite of such an important bill that is fundamental to how society works and the work that was done to improve this bill and make it even better was significant. I also want to thank submitters who took the time to come to select committee and who helped the committee to improve this bill—your contribution was incredibly valuable.In this short contribution I just want to note some specific protections that have been put in place to ensure that the privacy of New Zealanders is protected and that the Government Statistician continues to operate both independently but also with the appropriate checks and balances that are required when holding data on New Zealanders. One particular piece is around the delegations—which the previous speaker Michael Woodhouse noted—of the Statistician. We heard during select committee from the Privacy Commissioner around some of the important things that we should do in order to ensure that the delegation powers were used appropriately by the Statistician. One of the things we inserted was a clause requiring the Statistician to publish information about that delegation. And we also just note in the committee report that the Statistician is motivated to take care when considering delegations because ultimately as the Government Statistician they are still responsible for decisions made when they delegate those functions. The other point I just want to touch on briefly is around accessing data for research which as Michael Woodhouse also noted came up significantly in the committee stage of the bill. There are a number of protections that are here in this bill that safeguard the process around accessing data for research. There's a whole host in here around ensuring that that research is in the public interest and that the right type of people are appropriate in order to access that research. And so I'm confident that through the process through select committee we have actually put enough robustness into the bill to ensure that the use of data for research will be appropriate.My final comment I just want to make is the importance of honouring the Treaty of Waitangi and the perspectives of Māori within this bill. It is exciting to have a Data and Statistics Bill that appropriately notes the role that iwi Māori play in the collection of data and the use of that data for their people. So I want to congratulate the Minister on this important piece of work. It's a milestone today as we pass this bill. I commend this bill to the House.
SpeechDAN ROSEWARNE (Labour): Kia orana Mr Speaker. As a new member this my first time speaking in the House. It's a huge privilege to be speaking to the Electoral Amendment Bill an important bill because right now public trust and transparency in the political donations and loans framework is relatively low.I myself have never had the pleasure of receiving a considerable donation for my campaign. If you know of anyone I'll be glad to meet up! My campaigns have always run on the smell of an oily rag. If I did however know wealthy individuals or organisations who had a large amount of money to donate then it's only fair that the public has visibility of it. The key point that I want to make today is that people deserve to know who's bankrolling their politicians. This bill does that. This bill makes various changes to the political donations and loans framework and it also increases the public disclosure about party funding.This bill lowers the threshold for disclosing the identity of party donors from $15000 to $5000. The new $5000 threshold provides a careful balance increasing the amount of information that's publicly available about party donations whilst not providing an overload of information and respecting donor privacy for smaller donation sums. It essentially provides balance. The Minister of Justice the Hon Kiritapu Allan has nominated the Justice Committee to consider the Electoral Amendment Bill. Select committee consideration of such a technical area of the law will be valuable. We welcome public and expert submissions on this bill. So I commend this bill to the House.