edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
1. Question No. 1—GCSBHon SIMON BRIDGES (Leader of the Opposition) to the Minister responsible for the GCSBTUESDAY 11 JUNE 2019The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.ORAL QUESTIONSQUESTIONS TO MINISTERSQuestion No. 1—GCSB1. Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Leader of the Opposition) to the Minister responsible for the GCSB: At what specific time on Tuesday 28 May was he or his office first contacted by the GCSB telling him that they had told Treasury that the GCSB did not believe any hacking had taken place and when did he relay that information to his ministerial colleagues or their offices?Hon DAVID PARKER (Acting Minister responsible for the GCSB): On behalf of the Minister—SPEAKER: No I think the Minister is an Acting Minister.Hon DAVID PARKER: I am. I disagree with the member's characterisation of what the GCSB said. However to be helpful in terms of the timing of my contact with the GCSB and the relay of that information: at 8.02 p.m. Treasury issued its press release; at 8.43 p.m. my office first spoke to the GCSB; at 9.43 p.m. Minister Little spoke to the GCSB; at 9.52 p.m. Minister Little contacted the Prime Minister's office; and at 10.25 p.m. Minister Little contacted Minister Robertson by text.Hon Tim Macindoe: It's not funny Grant.Hon Simon Bridges: How many—SPEAKER: Order! Which member interjected?Hon Tim Macindoe: I did.SPEAKER: The member will withdraw and apologise.Hon Tim Macindoe: I withdraw and apologise.Hon Simon Bridges: Why was there a period of hours between him finding out and passing it on to senior colleagues in light of the fact that he's made clear that I'm satisfied that I acted appropriately in a timely way with all the information I had."?Hon DAVID PARKER: There wasn't a delay of hours. Immediately upon the conversation between Minister Little and the GCSB he put a call in to Minister Robertson. Minister Robertson was not available and did not pick up so Minister Little immediately contacted the Prime Minister's office and spoke to the Prime Minister's deputy chief of staff.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister as to whether he's aware of the cyber-security one-stop shop otherwise known as the Computer Emergency Response Team established in April 2017 by one Simon Bridges and does it not say "that in the event of a data breach an individual should contact the relevant business organisation"?SPEAKER: That question is not in order.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Can you sort of clarify why it's not in order?SPEAKER: Because it doesn't relate to the primary question.Rt Hon Winston Peters: But it should.SPEAKER: The member will stand withdraw and apologise.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I withdraw and apologise.SPEAKER: He is on his last warning for this sitting session."
Thursday 30 May 2019 (continued on Saturday 1 June 2019) - Volume 738
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Kāinga Ora—Homes and Communities Bill be read a first time.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 46New Zealand National 44; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Bill read a first time.Bill referred to the Environment Committee.
Kāinga Ora—Homes and Communities Bill — First Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Education (School Donations) Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 19 August 2019.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 56New Zealand National 55; Ross.Motion agreed to.
Education (School Donations) Amendment Bill — First Reading
Immigration (International Visitor Conservation and Tourism Levy) Amendment Bill — Third Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Immigration (International Visitor Conservation and Tourism Levy) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 57New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Bill read a third time.
Immigration (International Visitor Conservation and Tourism Levy) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Clauses 1 to 3
VoteThe question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Jacqui Dean to clause 2 be agreed to: replace 1 July 2019" with "1 July 2020".A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 47New Zealand National 46; Ross.Noes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Amendment not agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 2 be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 48New Zealand National 46; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Clause 2 agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 3 be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 48New Zealand National 46; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Clause 3 agreed to.House resumed.Bill reported without amendment.Report adopted."
VoteThe question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Todd McClay to clause 1 be agreed to: replace Immigration (International Visitor Conservation and Tourism Levy) Amendment Bill" with "Immigration (Tourist Tax) Amendment Bill".A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 47New Zealand National 46; Ross.Noes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Amendment not agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 1 be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 48New Zealand National 46; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Clause 1 agreed to."
Immigration (International Visitor Conservation and Tourism Levy) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Part 2
New Zealand Public Health and Disability (Waikato DHB) Elections Bill — First Reading
Brownlee GerryHon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): We certainly understand the need for a shortened period of consideration by a select committee but it does seem that the 17 June date is particularly short. Given that this week coming is a recess week and so the select committee itself is not likely to meet this week and even if they did public submissions that might come on this bill would not be available for the committee to consider it leaves just one sitting day for the committee to make consideration to hear anybody who might want to put a counter view—and I'm sure there will be; that's the way it is with these things—before the report-back date of Monday 17 June.It would therefore not seem unreasonable for a three-week period to be considered by the select committee given particularly the ability of the House to get this bill finished in the early part of August. The ballot papers for this election will not be printed before the closing date for nominations which is a date in September so there is plenty of time. While I can understand some caution I think caution that denies some public opportunity to make a comment particularly when the whole House today has said this is an appropriate course of action as far as the bill is concerned is a little bit off. So would it be appropriate for me now to move an amendment to the motion?SPEAKER: I'm going to check as to whether it's an amendable motion and I'm also looking at the Government to see whether they'd be willing to move it by a week as requested by leave. I'll get advice on both at the same time. Yes the member can amend it if he—Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Well then I would move that the report-back date for this bill—SPEAKER: No I think what you are moving is that the date of 17 June be changed to 24 June.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: If that is an extra week—24th or 25th—that would be fine.SPEAKER: The 17th to the 24th—seven days.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I'll take your maths over mine any day Mr Speaker. Thank you very much.SPEAKER: I sense there's an agreement so what I'll do rather than do all the written stuff is I'll seek leave to amend the date in the motion. Is there any objection to that? There appears to be none.The question was put That the New Zealand Public Health and Disability (Waikato DHB) Elections Bill be reported to the House by 24 June 2019 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions; during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House; on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House; and outside the Wellington area despite Standing Orders 191 193 and 194(1)(b) and (c).Motion agreed to.The House adjourned at 2.50 p.m. (Saturday)
Salesa JennyHon JENNY SALESA (Associate Minister of Health) on behalf of the Minister of Health: I move That the New Zealand Public Health and Disability (Waikato DHB) Elections Bill be reported to the House by 17 June 2019 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions; during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House; on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House; and outside the Wellington area despite Standing Orders 191 193 and 194(1)(b) and (c).The reason for the need for the shortened select committee hearing period is that polling day for local government elections including district health boards is 12 October 2019 and this bill needs to be passed well in advance of that date before significant steps in the election process occur. This is in order to provide certainty around the local election processes to avoid unnecessary cost and resource being applied on preparation toward any election and to ensure transparency for the public including any persons who may have been considering standing as candidates that the election is not proceeding. Thank you Mr Speaker.
Strange JamieJAMIE STRANGE (Labour): Mr Speaker thank you for the opportunity to take a brief call on this bill. As a member of Parliament who's based in the Waikato region I'm certainly very proud of the work that the staff do at the Waikato District Health Board (DHB). The challenges in the leadership have certainly been well documented over the past few years and I'd like to acknowledge the leadership of our Minister of Health the Hon David Clark for the work that he's done around bringing stability to the DHB.The reason this bill is here is to cancel the elections and that's to give the commissioner time to bring about that sense of stability and return to a stable pathway moving forward. I commend this bill to the House.
Willis NicolaNICOLA WILLIS (National): As I understand it this is the first that we have heard on the Opposition bench that there'd be an early report-back for this—SPEAKER: Order! Can I just say that the Minister of Education when he introduced the bill quite properly gave notice of that. NICOLA WILLIS: Well we here on this side of the House cannot see why the report-back needs to be so early. We think that a full select committee process is warranted. Already in our first reading speeches we have raised a number of questions that will require detailed feedback not only from ministry officials but also from school leaders from parent organisations and from communities across the country. For that reason we would seek a longer time for the select committee to consider this bill. We think that would be proper.
Hipkins ChrisHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): I move that the Education (School Donations) Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 19 August. This is a very simple bill. It has five clauses. It puts into law a very straightforward idea which is that if schools don't comply with the requirements then the money should be able to be recovered. The shortened time frame is required so that schools will have certainty when the new regime is introduced and when they're setting their budgets for next year.SPEAKER: I just want the member to put the motion again. He omitted to say which year.Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Oh did I? OK. I move That the Education (School Donations) Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 19 August 2019.
O'Connor GregGREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): Thanks Mr Speaker. I think everybody that ever comes to this House of whatever hue wants to actually make a difference. We want to make a better society and when we actually sit down and start thinking about whether we could do this or whether we could actually implement something that's going to make life better generally we'll go back down to education—educate educate educate. The gap that's opened in our society between the haves and the have-nots the alienation that results—so much of it arises out of a lack of education and a lack of opportunity. So what better way when we sit down to fix that which ails this country than to look at those at the bottom end those who find it hardest to pay the bills. I've actually had the experience of sitting down with police officers who are reasonably well paid and pulling apart and dissecting their spending and it was these sorts of costs that really just did add up. These are the ones that really put on the pressure. It was the cash you had to find for something like this that did cost the shoes that did cost the ability to play in a sports club. Those things actually alienate those from the lowest socio-economic schools or lower-decile schools from those for whom paying $100 or $150 isn't really an issue. So when you look at it it makes so much sense to do this. It makes so much sense in so many ways that this is another impost that parents won't have. This actually will mean a little more cash. It's not the fact that there'll be more cash left over; it's just trying to find that money. It's when the uninsured car gets stolen it's when the car breaks down and there's no money—these are things where probably many in this House don't understand just what an impost that is or how impossible it is when there is no money to fix those little things. So this is one of those things we can do. By itself it won't fix all that ails us. It won't by itself create a fairer society but it will be part of those necessary strategies that will help us go a long way towards it. So I commend this bill. Bill read a first time. Bill referred to the Education and Workforce Committee.
Stanford EricaERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you Mr Speaker. I would just like to start my contribution by making it very clear that on this side of the House we support reducing education costs for families and for parents and we will support this bill through first reading but we have many concerns. Let's not dress this up as anything other than what it actually is and that is a massive broken promise by this Government and this Minister and we will hold them to account for this. At the 2017 election Minister Hipkins came out and he said We will end school donations for all parents and for all students." and parents were swayed by that. They put their trust in this Minister. They believed what he said and he is now reneging on that because what is happening is not all students and all families. In fact parents have been waiting and nothing has happened for 18 months. Parents have now paid two lots of school donations. So out of their three-year term—which I'm sure is all it will be—in two out of the three years families are not getting what they believed they were getting because they believed the Minister's word. And they Jan Tinetti are very despondent about that.So many times when we reminded Mr Hipkins of his broken promise—I love this; it's always my favourite saying from Mr Hipkins—he said that it was a promise yet to be delivered—not a broken promise but a promise yet to be delivered. And today his language follows on from that. He calls this a "next step along the way" and says many parents will benefit—backtracking language because he knows it is a promise that he is breaking. Mr Hipkins has let parents down and now is further letting them down because only decile 1 to 7 students will be eligible if the school takes it up. So firstly it was a broken promise because it's not all kids and now secondly it's only decile 1 to 7. I pointed out earlier last year on my member's bill the Education (Social Investment Funding and Abolition of Decile System) Amendment Bill that the decile system is a terrible way of figuring out where need sits because not all parents and families in need are in low-decile schools. It is a poor way of allocating need. I argued that the Tomorrow's Schools report argues that and the Minister well knows it and his department knows it because he's working on a bill to get rid of the decile system. We know that and yet here we are delivering to parents in need through the decile system an outdated method. Just to wrap up I want to talk about my electorate. In all decile 10 schools or almost all in fact we have struggling families. We have the single parents like Marama Davidson who have multiple children who are struggling and they will get nothing. They put their trust in this Minister and they will get nothing. It was originally a promise that they have yet to deliver on and today it is a partially fulfilled promise. Although we will support this at first reading we will be strenuously looking at this bill in the select committee stage to make sure that these guys are being held to account and that they fulfil their promises and that this is actually fair and what parents were promised."
McAnulty KieranKIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Yet again we've seen another example of the National Party trying to make noises and a song and a dance and carrying on about something that makes sense and the profession actually wants. We've had speakers like Jan Tinetti stand up and give real examples from real teachers and real principals in charge of real schools telling them that this policy is going to make a real difference. And I say to the National Party that their approach throughout this debate where you've got some speakers saying one thing saying that this is a bad idea and then you've got other speakers saying that this doesn't go far enough—they've got to forget the gun and grab the cannoli and stop being distracted.The thing is that here we are in a debate about the Budget and the National Party are thinking that there is always money in the banana stand—that they can stand up and they can speak in opposition to absolutely everything. The rest of the country is looking at them—particularly in this instance on this bill which is a good idea and is hugely popular—and they're saying They don't represent us." This Government is standing up for what matters for this country."
Lee DeniseDENISE LEE (National—Maungakiekie): Thank you Mr Speaker. At least this bill is going to select committee—that's my opening line. We want to reduce costs to parents and we want to examine this in select committee and we will look forward to the chance to do so. It's important that we do so. This is a very big topic and it is partially delivering on a promise from this Government.It has been delivered—partially delivered I would say—in a very erratic fashion and here's why: they're using an outdated system to deliver this. By their own admission it's time for the decile system to be relooked at. What we have here is using on the one hand a lot of debate against our own team. Erica Stanford had a member's bill to relook at the decile system. There is an arm's-length approach to the work that the Hon Nikki Kaye has undertaken. And by their own admission the Government is using a Tomorrow's Schools review to review the decile system. Yet they are using this mechanism the decile system to deliver on a partial promise to scrap donations" to everyone—not to some to everyone; that's what we were promised. So this bill will create confusion for the parents who thought that they'd all be captured by the campaign promise. Struggling parents in decile 8 9 and 10—and yes there are some struggling parents in decile 8 9 and 10 and to say otherwise would be completely disingenuous. There's also going to be massive variable take up in deciles 5 6 and 7 and I know that the Minister can't argue with that. I spoke to two colleges both decile 6 they have clearly said to me that they will not benefit from this policy—two colleges decile 6. By the way they're not in my area. Integrated schools—are they going to be covered? We don't know.I would like to give a final say to a principal of a decile 3 college and he said "Financially Denise it'll be likely quite good for us. However in my opinion the money should go towards teachers and settling the strikes. The greatest need and thing that makes the most difference is high-quality teachers." We've had the largest education industrial action undertaken in history—thousands of teachers taking to the streets in protest. The Budget's underwhelming. We've got cuts in the Investing in Educational Success initiative—that programme which will ironically see fewer salary payments to teachers. That is very ironic given the industrial action that we're in the middle of right now.We support this to select committee but we want to hear from parents integrated schools and educators on how they see the priority spend of this Government. They're using an outdated decile system to partially deliver their promise."
District Court (District Court Judges) Amendment Bill — Third Reading
Patterson MarkMARK PATTERSON (NZ First): What a negative bunch the National Party over there are. It's with a growing sense of incredulity that I have witnessed this sitting block and this bill in particular the National Party rail against user-pays funding for our much-needed transport infrastructure or charging foreign tourists to come here and use our conservation estate or to build our much-needed facilities in our regions. Won't those local councils and won't the conservation department be looking for that funding? Now to cap it all off I see them in the House today railing against a measure to take the fees away from our poorest families—$150 a year per student; $265 million over four years and they are grudgingly saying that they may support it. What a miserable bunch.This will make a material difference as Jan Tinetti pointed out before for our lowest and poorest families in those February months when they've just come out of Christmas when they've got to buy their school uniforms. There they are lumped with these extra charges and we are taking them away. That is the core of what this Wellbeing Budget is all about. So New Zealand First will be absolutely supporting this measure without any hesitation or grudging as we're seeing from over the fence. You need to re-evaluate your values over there because it's just not good enough to be railing against this thoroughly sensible measure. New Zealand First supports this bill to the House.
District Court (District Court Judges) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Part 2
District Court (District Court Judges) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Part 1
Tinetti JanJAN TINETTI (Labour): I'm delighted to take a call in the Education (Schools Donations) Amendment Bill. I just think this is an incredible bill that is going to make the biggest difference to education in this country.I've been commenting to a couple of people in the last few days saying that if I was still in my former job that I would be really really excited. In fact this was probably the first Budget in a long long time that I would have been incredibly excited about. Now an example of that is how that played out. I can remember I think it was the 2015 Budget from the previous administration—I think it's either that or the 2016 Budget—but I remember at the time being so despondent after that Budget. It was probably the Budget that made me feel very very upset because our school operations grants at the time were frozen and that made a big difference to my school and to the money that we had to work with.The previous speaker that just sat down Nikki Kaye talked about their funding review at the time and how they had targeted funding to children. I know in my particular school that 75 percent of my children were actually under the targeted scheme. We were told that that would bring in more funding. Well it just so happened that the following year my funding went down by $9000. It was the same amount of children—exactly the same amount of children. With that funding freeze in place $9000 was what my operations grant went down by.Yesterday I spoke to the now principal of my former school who could not thank me enough for this particular bill coming through. He said to me that this is going to make between $25000 to $30000 difference to that school and that will make a huge difference to those children in that school and what the principal can actually offer. So this bill will make a difference.I do need to tell one more story. I got another call from a principal yesterday a local principal saying Thank you thank you thank you." It was a decile 5 school because we often hear about the decile 1s but let's hear from the mid-decile schools and how this bill will make a difference to them. A decile 5 school principal said to me "I can never get my donations in. I'm so excited because this bill will make $85000 difference to my school."—an $85000 difference. I can only imagine as a former principal what I could do and the plans that I could be making for next year with that big difference.So with that I'm very very excited about what this bill will mean for the children of this country and I have no hesitation in commending it to the House."
District Court (District Court Judges) Amendment Bill — Second Reading
District Court (District Court Judges) Amendment Bill — First Reading
Andersen GinnyGINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the third reading of the District Court (District Court Judges) Amendment Bill. I'd like to acknowledge my colleague the Hon Mark Mitchell for his fantastic contribution towards this. It's always a pleasure to be on a select committee with the Hon Mark Mitchell but I would like to clarify that in my previous statement I did not say that this bill this policy was the greatest thing in nine years; what I did say was that the former National Government did diddly-squat in the nine years that they were doing it. So I think it's a great bill. Victims are getting justice offenders are being held to account and I commend this bill to the House.Bill read a third time.
New Zealand Business Number Funding (Validation and Authorisation) Bill — Third Reading
Bishop ChrisCHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South): Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. Just a brief contribution from me. It's a funny phrase wellbeing". I'm not sure what is particularly "wellbeing" about Saturday morning urgency but anyway here we are—the new family-friendly Parliament. We support this bill. The Attorney-General has outlined for the House exactly why it is required alongside the Minister of Justice. I think some of the comments around the Family Court reforms and various other aspects of the last National Government are mean-spirited but in the spirit of wellness and wellbeing we will leave those aside—[Interruption] Yeah that's right—that's right. We will leave those aside for now and I think it's for the Parliament to note that it's doing the right thing here. We on this side of the House look forward to speedier and more effective resolution of disputes and we commend the bill to the House. Thank you."
Allan KiritapuKIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour): As a new graduate straight out of law school my first job was clerking for the District Court judiciary in the Hawke's Bay. I saw first-hand the work burden on those courts and it's incredibly pleasing to be able to see that this Government under the leadership of the Hon Andrew Little is increasing the number of judges that we will have in the courts to ensure that that workload is reduced. So I do thoroughly commend this bill to the House.
New Zealand Business Number Funding (Validation and Authorisation) Bill — In Committee—Clauses 1 and 2
Mitchell MarkHon MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): It's a great pleasure to take a call on this the third reading of the District Court (District Court Judges) Amendment Bill. I don't know if I'd necessarily agree with the Minister for Court's comments around the vigorous debate that's taken place on this bill but I think that we're all united on one thing and that is that if this makes a difference in people's lives in terms of victims and their families getting through the court process quicker people having justice delivered more quickly then it's actually a good thing to do.I appreciate the fact in all seriousness that during the committee stage the Minister did answer the questions that we put to him. He did a good job of that but we will be watching very carefully to see that the information and the stats being presented to him by the justice officials which I know will be good—but what are the measurable outcomes? What are we actually achieving here? I think that's going to be very important.I want to acknowledge the chair of the Justice Committee Raymond Huo. Although we did bypass the select committee process he made a strong one-minute-30 contribution throughout the passage of the bill. So I want to acknowledge him. The Green Party made a valiant effort as well—we got to about two minutes—and Ginny Andersen. I want to acknowledge Ginny. She's got a great background and she's passionate about law and order issues. I think she might have over-egged it a little bit when she said that this is the greatest policy that we've seen in nine years. I'm not sure whether you should be announcing this but maybe this is the reform that we're waiting for.Can I acknowledge the Attorney-General. We were lucky to have the Attorney-General in the House at the first reading and he made a very good contribution around the technicalities in the bill that was acknowledged by my colleague Chris Bishop. Finally can I acknowledge Dr Duncan Webb for taking a call in the third reading.We will be watching carefully just to make sure that the effects and the impacts that we want to see in our justice system are achieved and there may be an opportunity to even extend a bill like this if it shows that it's starting to have the effect and the impact we want to see inside our criminal justice system. I'm very happy to recommend this bill to the House. Thank you.
Webb DuncanDr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you. It is with great pleasure I rise in this third reading—just acknowledging the workload of the District Court and the fact that with that huge workload they are struggling simply to manage these cases. I think what's happened is that tipping point has been reached where the efficiencies have simply been lost. What we're trying to recover here with these additional District Court judges is really to give them the resources to both hear those cases and manage them effectively. It's hoped I think that greater efficiencies will be achieved over time once that backlog's been cleared once those systems are put back in place and those hard-working judges are not simply running just trying to keep up with the workload as it is. So with this great bill a great initiative by our Minister of Justice and our Attorney-General as you'd expect—I commend this bill to the House.
New Zealand Business Number Funding (Validation and Authorisation) Bill — In Committee—Part 2
Little AndrewThird ReadingHon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister for Courts): I move That the District Court (District Court Judges) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.I don't want to delay the time of the House much longer except to say that this bill has been exhaustively and thoroughly debated and examined by the House in its first and second readings and in the committee of the whole House stage. Without wanting to speak on behalf of the members opposite I think the House can be thoroughly assured that the bill is justified and that the maths adds up. That is to say that when we say that we are providing for an additional 22 judges on top of 160 that 160 plus 22 equals 182. We've had that verified. In the illustrative part of the bill clause 5 amending section 12 the reference to 159.5" when we add 22 to that we get to 181.5. I think that has been verified by international experts mathematical and otherwise.I go back to the substantive justification for this bill and that is that our District Court is overloaded. It has a phenomenal workload not helped by the growing workload in the Family Court and of course the jurisdictional changes in the Youth Court. So even without the changing nature of counsel and other conduct in the criminal jurisdiction just in the Family Court and just in the Youth Court those changes there alone would have justified an additional judicial complement.The way this bill is structured means that if following application of the now accepted judicial resourcing model in the future calls for additional judges we won't have to come back to Parliament for an incremental adjustment. That can be made. That said I want to say constitutionally it is important that Parliament determines the maximum number of judges. That should not be left up to the executive alone. That pays proper respect to the place of the judiciary and its relationship to both the legislature and the executive and it is right that it is this Parliament that should determine the maximum number of judges. It is up to the executive to make sure that they are properly equipped and resourced. This bill does that and I commend it to the House."
New Zealand Business Number Funding (Validation and Authorisation) Bill — In Committee—Part 1
Little AndrewPart 2 Consequential amendmentHon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister for Courts): This part of the bill need occasion no debate whatsoever. It refers to a part of section 12 of the Act that simply lays out an example. It describes the difference between the absolute number of judges and the equivalent full-time number of judges and it substitutes the number 159.5 with 181.5. It is a part of the section that is illustrative only and there can be absolutely no debate about the merits of it at all.Part 2 agreed to.Clause 1 agreed to.Clause 2 agreed to.Clause 3 agreed to.House resumed.Bill reported without amendment.Report adopted.
Little AndrewHon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister for Courts): Just responding to that query this is not a linear equation. We know that the way that—certainly in the criminal jurisdiction—many of those cases are being conducted is changing partly in response to the Criminal Procedure Act. But actually the response to the Criminal Procedure Act is to try and push the envelope on the scheduling requirements that that Act sets out. We're seeing more of that. In addition to that what we've seen is a growth in the number of cases where more serious charges have been laid but through successive appearances in the court eventually an alleged offender is persuaded to plead guilty to a lesser charge. That leads to more court events and a longer period of time before the case is disposed of. So there are all those sorts of things going on. I am totally confident that adding this extra number of judges will make a material difference to the time delays that are currently being experienced in all the jurisdictions across the District Court. Quantifying that is of course almost impossible because every case is different. Part of the challenge of justice is to make sure that the parties involved—victims defendants plaintiffs respondents—are able to respond effectively to what is lodged on the charging sheet or statement claim. They can respond effectively prepare their case so that justice is done. But this will make a difference.Part 1 agreed to.
New Zealand Business Number Funding (Validation and Authorisation) Bill — Second Reading
Mitchell MarkHon MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): Madam Chair thank you. Just very quickly I wanted to address the Minister in the chair the Minister of Justice and thank him for clarifying. Like him I've got a high level of confidence in our officials at the Ministry of Justice. They would have done the background work on this. I am just interested to know does the Minister feel that this bill is going to significantly address those issues or is there still some way to go in terms of the analysis that has been done on this? I think that an earlier contribution is that justice delayed is justice denied. We all accept that. Getting cases through into court and through as quickly as possible is not only good for the person that's been accused but of course for the victims and everyone involved. So I'd just be very interested if the Minister has it now in terms of the analysis what impact is this actually going to have in terms of being able to start to clear that backlog? Thank you Madam Chair.
Hipango HareteHARETE HIPANGO (National—Whanganui): Madam Chair.CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): The question is that—apologies. It's moving quite quickly. I'd appreciate members seeking the call quite quickly as well.HARETE HIPANGO: Yes noted. I commend the Attorney-General and the Minister of Justice in relation to the increase of numbers of our District Court judges from 160 full-time to 182. It's a matter where there has always been—certainly in the years of my experience practising as a lawyer for about as is known 30 years—a demand on the work of our judges and that it has never been enough. So to express to the Minister the concern associated—it's acknowledged with the increase of an appointment of another 22 judges. There is the issue of the attrition rate. We have a number of very senior experienced judges who are nearing their retirement age. I'm well aware—because I do continue engagement with my colleagues and also judges serving and that is in a private capacity—that we are going to experience in the next two years a very high attrition rate with our senior judges reaching the retirement age. So how is that going to be addressed by the Government in relation to maintaining the numbers that are required on the bench and how will that be managed because that will be an issue? Of course that will continue to be an issue in terms of managing the volume of people who are utilising the services of the courts and the flow-on into the remand period of time. So if we do have a number of judges retiring those positions haven't been—with reappointments made in the appropriate time we'll see that those longer periods of waiting time on remand may well be reactivated.
Little AndrewHon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister for Courts): Just to respond briefly to those questions just on the latter point. It would be inappropriate for the Minister of Justice or any politician to be making commitments about the way judges should conduct themselves. That would be to overreach the role of the executive the politicians who make the resource decisions and those who have to exercise judicial authority and judicial capacity.This has been based on comprehensive work done by the Chief District Court Judge with the support of the Ministry of Justice and consulted on with the Attorney-General over using a judicial resourcing model that is internationally recognised that has established that we have a structural shortfall in the number of judges to administer the number of cases and the case workload that we have going through our District Court.On the issue about other resources particularly buildings we have a lot of District Courts that are underutilised throughout the course of any week. So I'm totally confident that with the additional judicial complement we will find spaces for them to sit and preside and dispose of more cases. The reason we are bringing this here is that we have great confidence that this will assist in the more rapid disposal of the District Court case workload criminal jurisdiction the family jurisdiction the Youth Court jurisdiction as well as the civil jurisdiction in their court.
New Zealand Business Number Funding (Validation and Authorisation) Bill — First Reading
Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you very much Madam Chair. In this the committee stage of the debate on the District Courts (District Courts Judge) Amendment Bill I would like to just raise some very quick couple of questions. I can ask them very quickly and I'm sure the Minister can answer them very quickly with the word No" being one of the shortest in the English language—if you'll excuse the Blackadder reference.My questions are as follows. The first is whether analysis has been done about the extent to which we can expect faster court processing times. This is very much the raison d'être for the legislative proposal and indeed the Budget appropriation. On this side of the committee as we've explained we think that that's a good thing in itself but I would like to know and we would like to know whether some calculations have been made about the extent to which an improvement can actually be expected. So for example if 12 new judges are to be appointed now and then some other number that's greater than that up to and including 22 full-time equivalents as allowed by the legislation were to be made then how much expected improvement is the Minister banking on by this extra allocation? So that's my first question: whether the analysis has been done.A second question although effectively much the same really is whether he can give a commitment that there will be an improvement of some material degree in the processing times. I expect that in answering that question he'll take into account whether other system reforms might be made to achieve that—for example in terms of maybe the sitting hours of the courts or the physical structures in which judges will be sitting and so forth. I look forward to the Minister's answers on those questions in this the committee stage of the bill. Thank you."
Little AndrewIn CommitteePart 1 Substantive amendmentHon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister for Courts): Thank you Madam Chair. Just very briefly the first part is the substantial part to the bill. It is the part that changes the number in section 12 of the District Court Act 2016 from 160 to 182. I'm advised by officials that the information that went up on the website on Thursday night had a typographical error and notified that the figure was to be 172. For the avoidance of doubt and for every member who is gathered here to debate this very important issue today I just want to be very clear that the figure is 182. The Budget however provides funding for an additional 10 judges plus two Youth Court judges. There is still some gap. That means in future years as the Chief District Court Judge applies the judicial resourcing model we can calibrate what is needed in terms of the number of permanent judges at any particular point in time.I know that members opposite in the first and second reading debates have raised issues about broader criminal justice reform and they are right to be aware of that. What I think we are realising is that there is a number of initiatives that need to be considered before you even get to legislation. One of those is a District Court being fully equipped to do the job they must do efficiently and effectively and in accordance with the accepted principles of justice that we all in here believe. We do that when we resource the court and the bench properly which is what this seeks to do.
Webb DuncanDr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. Very briefly I just want to acknowledge the immense amount of work that the District Court judges do. It is absolutely the workhorse of our justice system and the entry point for most of the justice that goes on. I also recognise the intense work that judges do in the Rangatahi Courts and the Youth Court and the fact that these judges will be able to address those issues with young people in the way that they do so well and thereby hopefully keep our prisons less full and also clear those remand queues—the people who are on remand often in custody—and then again lower the prison muster. So on all those bases this increase in the District Court judge numbers is very much appropriate and I commend this bill to the House.Bill read a second time.
Mitchell MarkHon MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): I'm very happy to take a call on this—the second reading of the District Court (District Court Judges) Amendment Bill. It doesn't seem that long ago that we were in the House debating the first reading of the District Court (District Court Judges) Amendment Bill. It seems like only yesterday!Can I acknowledge the previous speaker Ginny Andersen. Look we do support this bill. We think that it will help expedite and clear some of the backlog. We haven't seen a lot of detail around it. So if I cast my mind back to the first reading debate the Green member Golriz Ghahraman made a very good point and she raised the issue around whether there are going to be enough courtrooms available for the extra judges. So it's just simple things like that that we need some detail on. Where are the judges going to go? How are they going to be prioritised so the pressure actually in the system is relieved? So I'm going to just take a short call to say that we do support the bill but I guess in committee stage we can start to actually dig into some of the detail around it. Thank you.
Andersen GinnyGINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker for the opportunity to speak on the second reading of the District Court (District Court Judges) Amendment Bill. This bill does a fine job of unpicking nine years of damage under the past National Government by having more judges because justice delayed is justice denied. Victims before our court system need to make sure they get a fast trial and they get their rights and their abilities to see justice quickly. That has been denied for a long time as we've seen our courts grind to a halt under the past National Government. There are members opposite as well as I that saw that first-hand.So I would like to say good work to the Government on making sure that this gets done quickly to make sure that people who are before our courts get heard promptly and that they get the justice that they deserve. Therefore I commend this most excellent bill to the House.
Little AndrewSecond ReadingHon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister for Courts): I move That the District Court (District Court Judges) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. As I said earlier this bill will amend the District Court Act so that we can lift the cap currently set at 160 to 182. We're not intending to appoint an additional 22 judges at this point but the Budget provides for additional funding for an additional 10 judges in the District Court and an additional two judges in the Youth Court. The bill is being passed under urgency because the need for those District Court judges is now urgent. The backlog of District Court cases—particularly in the criminal jurisdiction because of the extra number of events related to each criminal case—is growing. The need for the Chief District Court Judge to have reallocated more judges to the Family Court to deal with that extraordinary backlog has meant that the pressure is really on the court.The further consequence of that is that those alleged offenders who have been remanded in custody spend longer in custody. It takes longer for them to get a successful bail application through and that is putting their liberty and freedoms at risk. We know that of those who are remanded in custody only 40 percent wind up with a custodial sentence following conviction as a result. So there is some unfairness in that if we cannot equip the District Court to be more effective in the administration of justice in that respect. This will allow the District Court to manage cases and dispose of cases more efficiently and more effectively. Not only is that good for the public confidence in the justice system and the judicial system but it's good for the individuals whose mental and emotional and physical wellbeing are often at risk or at play in these matters.So passing this bill today means that as soon as we get back into things next week we can start the recruitment process and within a matter of months we'll have those additional judges administering justice helping people dispose of their cases and administer justice for those who are accused of offences and that'll be good for all of New Zealand. I commend the bill to the House.