edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
SpeechHARETE HIPANGO (National): Thank you Madam Speaker. I'll take a brief call this evening because importantly my colleague the Hon Paul Goldsmith who does sit on the Justice Committee has addressed the House. The National Party does support this bill and in my spokesperson role for children it's actually complementary that I do make some comments—brief comments albeit—on the Crimes (Child Exploitation Offences) Amendment Bill which is being supported it would appear unanimously by the House this evening at this third reading.I remember that former colleague Louisa Wall had introduced to this House on 2 July 2020 the Harmful Digital Communications (Unauthorised Posting of Intimate Visual Recording) Amendment Bill and when we had the Crimes (Child Exploitation Offences) Amendment Bill which is before the House this evening I do recall speaking in the House and signalling and indicating that in fact Louisa Wall's bill addressed a significant proportion of what was in the Crimes (Child Exploitation Offences) Amendment Bill. In reading the Justice Committee's report it's interesting to note that a good part of the amendment bill that I am speaking to this evening has actually been deleted and that is in reference to the fact that the concerns associated with digital communications with a young person under 16 with intent to mislead and also with intent to cause harm has been addressed within the Crimes Act and also within the bill passed into law the harmful digital communications amendment bill. So in short the bill now before the House is in a considerably amended form compared with that which was introduced heeding and cognisant the Crimes Act does in fact address the concerns. But the amendment now before the House under this bill aligns with the Crimes Act and also Louisa's bill—now law—to make it consistent.Also just for the sake of clarity before concluding there was mention that was made by the previous speaker that the harmful digital communications amendment bill or the reference to that was specifically addressing crimes against women. It's actually not specifically addressing crimes against women although it's indicated that victims may be women or others because under the Harmful Digital Communications Act it states that the person commits an offence knowing that the individual who was the subject of the recording has not expressly consented. So I thought it was really quite pertinent to clarify that yes women are victims but victims are not only singularly women per se. In concluding it's really very appropriate in my role as spokesperson for children that this bill the Crimes (Child Exploitation Offences) Amendment Bill is passed into law.
Leary IngridINGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): Thank you Madam Speaker. I just rise in support of my colleague Angie Warren-Clark who has put her name to this really important bill which seeks to create more protections for our young people in the digital space. We have a history on this side of the House where there are a few champions of women's causes who have put through members' bills that pertain particularly to the digital space. I'm reminded of a bill by our former colleague Louisa Wall which looked at protecting young women. We've also had other bills in this area and I believe that this bill now under the name of Angie Warren-Clark really extends those protections. So I just want to commend my colleague for taking on this work. I want to thank her also for the work that she is doing wearing another hat which also has a kaupapa for protecting women's reproductive health actually with the New Zealand Parliamentarians' Group on Population and Development or the NZPPD. We had a really good meeting this evening and we know that working across the House on these types of issues is what makes progress. So it's good to see the discussions happening. It's good to see that the legislation is attempting to keep up with the digital environment. It's very difficult because technologies change all the time but this is one way of doing it. So it's great to see support from I presume around the House and I really want to commend my colleague Angie for taking on this important kaupapa. I commend the bill.
St Peter's Parish Endowment Fund Trust Bill — First Reading
SpeechIAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): It's a pleasure to take a short call on the St Peter's Parish Endowment Fund Trust Bill. I think the contents of this bill have been very well explained to the House so it really remains for me to talk about the select committee that the bill will come to. We've had all sorts of bills in our midst in the last few weeks and this is now a church bill. We've had all sorts of other bills so we do get a diverse range of things to do.So I suppose a couple of comments I'd make on this is that if you think about the last bill we had a significant amount of money being made available to an organisation which then had to put it into a trust fund to protect it for future generations. The interesting thing for me about this bill and I'm not for a minute saying it will fail in the future but the reason they've got so much money now is because it's been so well protected in the past. I just hope that in the future these much more liberal allowances in fact enable it to be protected in the future. Because this is one of the few bills that come before this House that's actually liberalising an organisation to spend money or to use money for useful purposes not the opposite. So I think that will be an interesting little discussion for the select committee to have.But clearly it's been brought to the House by the Minister of Finance and his local list MP Nicola Willis and we can only hope that—well I'm absolutely certain that it has been brought with the best intentions. I guess the interesting thing will be where the select committee gets to with its consideration of the bill. That's really all I need to say because everything else has been said. Thank you Madam Speaker.
Chhour KarenKAREN CHHOUR (ACT): Thank you Madam Speaker. It's a pleasure to take a short call on the St Peter's Parish Endowment Fund Trust Bill and stand in support of this bill. It makes sense and it just allows such a wonderful organisation to take control of their own destiny instead of having to constantly come to Parliament to make these decisions for them. It brings an ancient piece of legislation into the current century and I think that this is a really positive thing. I myself haven't had the opportunity to visit St Peter's or have any events there myself as well but I have heard some pretty amazing things about what they are doing to contribute to the community and people afar. I believe there always has to be a place for people to go where they can feel welcome no matter who they are where they come from or what their gender sexuality race or faith is so that they know they won't be turned away and they know there's a place that they will be welcomed especially in the times we've faced in the last few years. With isolation with COVID with the floods with the cyclone and with all of these things that are going on we rely on community organisations and churches to provide for these communities and that's what St Peter's has been doing. They've been providing for their community feeding their communities spiritually and physically with food when people need it and I believe that this is really important that we back them to be able to take control of what they do with their funds and allow the trust board to have that discretion and to be able to do what they need to do to open up some of those funds and release the full potential of what they will be able to do in the future. So I wish them all the best and I look forward to seeing what they can do when they have control because they've done amazing things with the restrictions that have been in place so far. So I really look forward to seeing what they're going to do and I commend this bill to the House.
SpeechDr ELIZABETH KEREKERE (Green): Kia ora. Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. Ngā mihi aroha ki ngā whānau o Ōtautahi i tēnei rā.[My condolences also to the families of Christchurch today.]It is indeed wonderful to rise on behalf of the Green Party in support of this private bill that makes amendments to the trust deed governing the St Peter's (Wellington) Endowment Trust Board. I acknowledge the member for Wellington Central for bringing this to the House.The Green Party envisions a strong and independent tangata whenua community and voluntary sector within Aotearoa that contributes to ecologically and socially sustainable ways to enhance our social environmental cultural physical spiritual mental and economic wellbeing. St Peter's has definitely contributed to this.The Anglican Church is one of the oldest and most historical institutions in Wellington and it is known for its diverse and welcoming congregation embracing all regardless of sex gender sexuality race or faith. They do have a long history as my colleagues have alluded to of advocating for LGBTIQ communities including that landmark sermon on homosexuality in 1967 which is just incredible. They have even hosted me to speak in there and we filmed the documentary Beyond Conversion in that church. We note that social justice has always been fundamental to St Peter's mission and the church also hosts The Free Store and the DYA weekly ethnic food bank. They have also actively contributed to democracy. They regularly submit on bills to this House—and I note particularly climate change the zero carbon bill and conversion practices.Now we note that this trust was set up such a long time ago in 1922 for the benefit of their parish. That capital amount in the fund has of course grown significantly through donations and bequest and used for church maintenance and upkeep as well as community-based projects because that's what the current trust deed allows.However those trust deeds do have a limited ability to disperse those funds and that surplus income as they would like to. So we note that this bill makes it easier for them it provides more flexibility and enables the trustees to distribute those funds as they see fit and not be restricted to the income which is earned in the previous year. As others have stated it modernises the governing arrangements and limits the liability of its members.So in a better world an organisation could hold a hui of its members update their ancient trust deed and make sure it complies with best-practice and relevant legislation such as the one St Peter's held in April 1921. But in this world this organisation has to repeal a law from 1927 and make a new one to achieve its own goals and spend its own money. So this bill will ensure that they don't need to change the law again in order to change their trust deed. We support St Peter's vision and I quote that These changes to the endowment trust deed will ensure that the church's long engagement with the people of Wellington will continue for another 100 years." So we commend this bill to the House. Kia ora."
Hawke's Bay Agricultural and Pastoral Society Empowering Bill — Third Reading
SpeechThird ReadingANNA LORCK (Labour—Tukituki) on behalf of the Hon Meka Whaitiri (Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): I move That the Hawke's Bay Agricultural and Pastoral Society Empowering Bill be now read a third time.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the motion be agreed to.Motion agreed to.Bill read a third time.
Hawke's Bay Agricultural and Pastoral Society Empowering Bill — In Committee
Kuriger Barbara; Belich CamillaIn Committee Parts 1 and 2 the Schedule and clauses 1 and 2CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members the House is in committee on the Hawke's Bay Agricultural and Pastoral Society Empowering Bill. Members we first come to Part 1.CAMILLA BELICH (Junior Whip—Labour): I seek leave for all questions to be taken as one debate.CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is none. The question is that Parts 1 and 2 the Schedule and clauses 1 and 2 stand part.
Hawke's Bay Agricultural and Pastoral Society Empowering Bill — Second Reading
Debate By Leave — Ministerial Resignation—Minister of Police
Rurawhe AdrianSPEAKER: In accordance with leave that was moved and granted I'm proposing the following speaking order: the next speaker will be a Labour member followed by the Green Party the ACT Party Te Paati Māori and finally the Labour Party again.
Bishop Chris; Rurawhe AdrianDEBATE BY LEAVEMinisterial Resignation—Minister of PoliceCHRIS BISHOP (National): Point of order.SPEAKER: New point of order?CHRIS BISHOP: New point of order. I seek leave for a debate to be held lasting one hour into the resignation of the Hon Stuart Nash as Minister of Police with the speaking order to be determined by you and the Clerk forthwith.SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection to that? There is none.
Rurawhe AdrianPETITIONS PAPERS SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLSSPEAKER: No petitions have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation. No papers have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation. A select committee report has been delivered for presentation.CLERK: Report of the Petitions Committee on the petition of Arthur Yeo on behalf of the New Zealand Equestrian Advocacy Network.SPEAKER: No bills have been introduced.
SpeechWEDNESDAY 15 MARCH 2023The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.KARAKIA/PRAYERSHon POTO WILLIAMS (Assistant Speaker): E te Atua kaha rawa ka tuku whakamoemiti atu mātou mō ngā karakia kua waihotia mai ki runga i a mātou. Ka waiho i ō mātou pānga whaiaro katoa ki te taha. Ka mihi mātou ki te Kīngi me te inoi atu mō te ārahitanga i roto i ō mātou whakaaroarohanga kia mōhio ai kia whakaiti ai tā mātou whakahaere i ngā take o te Whare nei mō te oranga te maungārongo me te aroha o Aotearoa. Āmene.[Almighty God we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed on us. Laying aside all personal interests we acknowledge the King and pray for guidance in our deliberations that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom and humility for the welfare peace and compassion of New Zealand. Amen.]
Tuesday 14 March 2023 - Volume 766
Criminal Activity Intervention Legislation Bill — In Committee —Parts 1 to 5 and Clauses 1 and 2 (continued)
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the committee report progress and sit again presently.Ayes 108New Zealand Labour 64; New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.Noes 10Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Motion agreed to.House resumed.CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The committee has considered the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Amendment Bill and reports the bill with amendment. The committee has also considered the Criminal Activity Intervention Legislation Bill and reports progress in order for the House to progress the Severe Weather Emergency Legislation Bill and for the committee to sit again presently. I move That the report be adopted.Motion agreed to.Report adopted.
Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Part 2
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That Part 2 be agreed to.Ayes 108New Zealand Labour 64; New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.Noes 12Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Motion agreed to.Schedule 1CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the Minister's amendments to Schedule 1 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 318 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 108New Zealand Labour 64; New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.Noes 10Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10. Amendments agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That Schedule 1 as amended be agreed to.Ayes 108New Zealand Labour 64; New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.Noes 12Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Schedule 1 as amended agreed to.Schedule 2A party vote was called for on the question That Schedule 2 be agreed to.Ayes 108New Zealand Labour 64; New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.Noes 12Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Schedule 2 agreed to.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the question be now put.Ayes 74New Zealand Labour 64; ACT New Zealand 10.Noes 46New Zealand National 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10;Te Paati Māori 2.Motion agreed to.The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 76 Noes 44.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the Minister's amendments to Part 1 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 318 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 108New Zealand Labour 64; New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.Noes 10Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Amendments agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That Part 1 as amended be agreed to.Ayes 108New Zealand Labour 64; New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.Noes 12Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Part 1 as amended agreed to.
Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Amendment Bill — In Committee —Part 1
Taxation (Annual Rates for 2022-23 Platform Economy and Remedial Matters) Bill (No 2) — In Committee —Clauses 1 and 2
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That clause 1 be agreed to.Ayes 76New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 44New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.Clause 1 agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the Minister's amendments to clause 2 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 319 be agreed to.Amendments agreed to. CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Andrew Bayly's tabled amendment to clause 2 is out of order as it was not lodged with 24 hours' notice.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 2 as amended be agreed to.Ayes 76New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 44New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.Clause 2 as amended agreed to.Bill to be reported with amendment.House resumed. CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Madam Speaker the committee has considered the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2022-23 Platform Economy and Remedial Matters) Bill (No 2) and reports it with amendment. I move That the report be adopted.Motion agreed to.Report adopted.
VoteCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Brooke van Velden's amendment deleting clauses 195 to 198 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 321 is out of order as it was not lodged with 24 hours' notice.A party vote was called for on the question That Part 5 be agreed to.Ayes 76New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 44New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.Part 5 agreed to.ScheduleSchedule agreed to.
Taxation (Annual Rates for 2022-23 Platform Economy and Remedial Matters) Bill (No 2) — In Committee —Part 5
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That Part 4 as amended be agreed to.Ayes 76New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 44New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.Part 4 as amended agreed to.
Taxation (Annual Rates for 2022-23 Platform Economy and Remedial Matters) Bill (No 2) — In Committee —Part 4
VoteCHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): OK. So Andrew Bayly's tabled amendments to Part 3 are out of order as they were not lodged with 24 hours' notice.A party vote was called for on the question That Part 3 be agreed to.Ayes 76New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 44New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.Part 3 agreed to.
Taxation (Annual Rates for 2022-23 Platform Economy and Remedial Matters) Bill (No 2) — In Committee —Part 3
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the question be now put.Ayes 110New Zealand Labour 64; New Zealand National 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2. Noes 10ACT New Zealand 10.Motion agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Minister's amendments to Part 2 set out on Supplementary Order Papers 319 and 322 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 74New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Noes 44New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.Amendments agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Brooke van Velden's amendments to Part 2 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 321 are out of order as they were not lodged with 24 hours' notice. Nicola Willis' tabled amendment inserting new clause 99A is out of order as it was not lodged with 24 hours' notice.A party vote was called for on the question That Part 2 as amended be agreed to.Ayes 76New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10 Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 44New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.Part 2 as amended agreed to.
Taxation (Annual Rates for 2022-23 Platform Economy and Remedial Matters) Bill (No 2) — In Committee —Part 2
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That Part 1 be agreed to.Ayes 76New Zealand Labour 64; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 44New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.Part 1 agreed to.
Taxation (Annual Rates for 2022-23 Platform Economy and Remedial Matters) Bill (No 2) — In Committee —Part 1
12. Question No. 12—SeniorsTERISA NGOBI (Labour—Ōtaki) to the Minister for SeniorsQuestion No. 12—Seniors12. TERISA NGOBI (Labour—Ōtaki) to the Minister for Seniors: How will older New Zealanders benefit from the Annual General Adjustment on 1 April?Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Minister for Seniors): Thank you Mr Speaker. Yesterday the Prime Minister announced a cost of living package that will see around 1.4 million Kiwis benefit from increased income support to help with the cost of living. On 1 April the Annual General Adjustment will also come into effect and our seniors will receive a boost to their income. Couples on superannuation will get a fortnightly increase of $102.84 and a single person living alone will receive an additional $66.86. This is one of the largest ever increases to superannuation and will go a long way to support older New Zealanders with the cost of living pressures they face.Terisa Ngobi: How will the 1 April increase for superannuation compare with previous increases?Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: This will be one of the largest ever increases to superannuation. This year's 7.2 percent rise in superannuation is up on the 5.9 percent increase from last year and will help those over 65 keep up with the cost of living pressures.Terisa Ngobi: How many older New Zealanders will benefit from these changes?Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: The changes will come into effect on 1 April and will support around 880000 older people receiving New Zealand superannuation and the veteran's pension as well. As Minister for Seniors it is my priority that we do as much as we can to support our seniors.Terisa Ngobi: What other income support is available for older New Zealanders?Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: This Government has known for some time now that older New Zealanders do face rising costs particularly during those winter months. Early on in our time as Government we implemented the winter energy payment. This payment will come into effect on 1 May. It means that single people on superannuation will receive an additional $20.46 a week during the winter months while couples receive $31.82 over those winter months.
11. Question No. 11—PoliceHon MARK MITCHELL (National—Whangaparāoa) to the Minister of PoliceQuestion No. 11—Police11. Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Whangaparāoa) to the Minister of Police: What is the percentage increase in incidents of retail crime from 2021 to 2022 and were there over 100000 incidents of retail crime last year?Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Police): Yes there were over 100000 instances of retail crime last year and Police advise me that the increase is 39 percent—but isn't it fantastic that we've made a record investment in police? We've delivered nearly 1700 more police to hold the bad guys to account and keep our communities safe.Hon Mark Mitchell: When the Minister says that the Government has had real success in combating retail crime is a measure of that success a 39 percent increase in retail crime to over 100000 incidents in a year?Hon STUART NASH: Well we realise we've got an issue with retail crime but this is one of the things where actually technology drives outcomes. There's a system called Auror where we have made it so much easier for retailers to report crime to police. Let me give the member an example: in 2018 10845 retail crimes were reported through Auror; by 2022 that had increased to 69000. But because we realised Mr Mitchell that this affects all our communities we put in place the National Retail Investigation Support Unit and we've implemented the Retail Crime Prevention Programme.Hon Mark Mitchell: What does he say to the owners of a restaurant I visited over the weekend who were targeted by thieves last week who say that the retail crime we are seeing is the same as what they left behind in South Africa?Hon STUART NASH: Well I'm not aware of that restaurant but I would say that Police has invested millions of dollars in our Retail Crime Prevention Programme. As mentioned we have the National Retail Investigation Support Unit. We are going really really hard against those who commit retail crime and thank goodness we have the ability to do so because we've invested in 1700 more police across the front line since we became Government.Hon Mark Mitchell: What does the Minister say to the owner of the Pacific Superette in Auckland who is closing his superette for fear of being attacked again and because the Government blames him for selling cigarettes?Hon STUART NASH: I don't think you will find anyone in this Government who blames any shopkeeper whatsoever for being attacked or robbed. That's a terrible thing to say Mr Mitchell. What I would say is that we've invested on average over $15000 in every store that has come to us and asked police to help them prevent crime. As mentioned Mr Mitchell thank goodness we have 1700 more officers to help solve these crimes when you think that police numbers fell—police numbers fell—in the last three years of the previous National Government.
10. Question No. 10—PoliceDr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei) to the Minister of PoliceQuestion No. 10—Police10. Dr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei) to the Minister of Police: What announcements has he made on significant police milestones?Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Police): Last week I was delighted to showcase the results of the police's Operation Cobalt. Introduced in June last year Operation Cobalt focuses on disrupting unlawful gang behaviour and has had a great success in addressing serious offending and holding people who commit serious crimes to account. I'm extremely proud of the fantastic work the police have been doing to keep our community safe building on the significant investment our Government has made in them. Dr Emily Henderson: What are some of the measures of success of Operation Cobalt then?Hon STUART NASH: Well I'm delighted to inform the House that as of 2 March this year police have seized over 300 firearms conducted 945 searches under warrant and—here's the kicker—entered over 28000 charges against over 7000 gang members and associates across a number of crime types. It is great to see this level of enforcement activity by the police that helps keep our community safe.Dr Emily Henderson: And what is the investment the Government has made in the police Minister?Hon STUART NASH: Record levels. As well as additional funding in Budget 2022—thank you Minister of Finance—this Government has been giving police the tools to crack down on gangs since we came into office. This includes resources to recruit the 1800 additional police officers we promised when I was last Minister of Police. Police are on track to deliver on this target and since June 2017 we've added 1687 new officers to the front line and I've been to about 40 graduations.Dr Emily Henderson: What was the additional investment in Budget 2022 there?Hon STUART NASH: Well thanks to the Minister of Finance the Government allocated $562 million for law and order in Budget 2022 for work targeting and removing unlawful firearms off the streets and progressing firearm prohibition orders. The Government is committed to ensuring police have the resources to hold those who commit serious and violent crimes to account.
8. Question No. 8—Regional DevelopmentTĀMATI COFFEY (Labour) to the Minister for Regional DevelopmentQuestion No. 8—Regional Development8. TĀMATI COFFEY (Labour) to the Minister for Regional Development: What announcement has she made about the completion of regional development projects in Taupō?Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister for Regional Development): I'm pleased to inform the House that this week on 9 March the Prime Minister and I were in Taupō to officially open the Taupō Town Centre Transformation project the new Taupō Airport terminal and the eastern arterial shared path. These three projects strengthen the economic resilience of Taupō and of course the wider region. This was pleasing because it was a Government-supported project but regionally led and that regional leadership managed to deliver those three projects on time despite the multiple challenges from COVID supply chain issues and I commend them all for their work.Tāmati Coffey: Why are these projects important for the Taupō region?Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: Taupō Airport is not just a gateway to the central North Island but it's a lifeline utility in an emergency or crisis with growing tourism and aviation businesses located around it including a rescue helicopter. The new terminal is also three times larger than the old terminal expanding capacity to keep both local people and businesses connected and to bring more people into the region. For the town centre transformation project this has transformed the street and lane network connecting the land to the lake and creating a quality place to attract people to spend time in the town centre which will bring a range of social and economic benefits.Tāmati Coffey: What economic benefits were there for Taupō during the construction of those projects?Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: During COVID we prioritised the creation of job retention and over the course of these three projects approximately 280 people were employed in the construction of those projects. These were co-investments in partnership with the Taupō District Council its airport authority local businesses and the community. From those investments nearly 90 percent of the total cost for the town centre project was spent on local businesses. These benefits will have long-lasting impacts for Taupō Ngāti Tūwharetoa and the people of the wider region.Tāmati Coffey: Why are these regional investments important for the whole economy?Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: As this side of the House strongly believes our regions are the backbone of our economy and particularly when it comes to our export sector. The Government is continuing to deliver projects to make our regions even better places to live and to work. We're committed to ensuring our regions have the infrastructure that they need to grow and to boost regional economies through genuine local partnerships. We will also use our experience from rolling out these kinds of regional development investments to shape our locally led recovery from Cyclone Gabrielle.
Criminal Activity Intervention Legislation Bill — In Committee —Parts 1 to 5 and Clauses 1 and 2 (cont)
SpeechCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members the time has come for me to report progress.Progress to be reported.House resumed.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Madam Speaker the committee has considered the Criminal Activity Intervention Legislation Bill and reports progress. I move That the report be adopted.Motion agreed to.Report adopted.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Poto Williams): The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow. Pō mārie.The House adjourned at 9.59 p.m.
SpeechHon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Justice): Look thank you to the member for raising this issue because it's one of a matter of distinction right? So this here so where you can clearly show that somebody has the mens rea and then the actus reus that they've followed through and I have the intent of killing you and therefore I've gone out and tried to kill you—there are charges that exist for that. This here is to capture a whole suite of incidents that we saw particularly last year—and it might have been prior to that; forgive my ignorance. But that was certainly the time when I was in office and you had people with weapons shooting them at homes—not necessarily at people but into homes or past homes in probably quite an intimidatory way.When we looked at the suite of the offences to which they might be liable I mean it was absolutely paltry the charge that came with—it was like a $10000 fine in particular circumstances. So first we had to lift that up where if I'm driving past you and do a drive-by—you know let you know that you should be in danger. I might not be trying to kill you at this point but bang bang past your house or over your house. We wanted to introduce an appropriate offence to respond to that type of activity. That said where there is evidence to support that it was intended to be more malicious than that we would expect that the police officers would charge them with the appropriate offence for those circumstances.
Mitchell MarkHon MARK MITCHELL (National—Whangaparāoa): Thank you Madam Chair. To the Minister in the chair Kiritapu Allan I understand that—I don't know if I can refer to this; you can correct me if I'm wrong Madam Chair but when Minister Andrew Little was in the chair he raised an issue that I wish to raise with him. I'm aware that the Minister may not have been in the House and may not have heard what he was talking about but it related to new section 308A Discharging [a] firearm to intimidate". The argument that he put up is that it's a lesser charge it's not going to be considered quite as seriously as someone that takes a firearm with the intent of harming shooting or killing someone. But I'm just interested to really understand the rationale behind that because we know that if a gang member has got especially a high-powered rifle or firearm and their intent is to take that firearm and use it to shoot into a dwellinghouse then there is a very high chance that someone is going to be seriously hurt or killed with the use of that firearm. It may not even be the intended victim or the intended person that they're actually trying to threaten or intimidate. The current charge comes with a maximum sentence of five years' imprisonment. I'm just wondering what the rationale was behind the fact that this wasn't treated in the same way as someone that picks up a firearm and takes it with the intent of killing or injuring someone.At the end of the day you've got the actus reus you've got the mens rea. The mens rea obviously is forming the intent and the idea in terms of what you're going to do and what you intend to happen and really although you could put up an argument and say—and we've created this argument of course for a defence lawyer—that it was never the intent to hurt anyone or kill anyone; quite simply the intent was just to intimidate or threaten but to me that's a bit of a nonsense because if you take a high-powered military-style rifle and you start shooting into homes those rounds can pass through not one home but they can pass through two or three homes. So you must have formed the belief you must have known that your actions or the results of your actions could've resulted in the serious injury or death of people inside that dwelling or even the dwelling next door. So I'm just interested to know: what was the rationale in terms of not going and not recognising and not saying that actually this is going to be treated in exactly the same way as if a gang member actually picked up a firearm with the intent of going and shooting someone?"
SpeechHon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Justice): So to the first inquiry just on the way that new section 18E will operate and function in effect it's a blanket warrant for a period of time that applies to a particular area that can be exercised in one or multiple instances all done under that one warrant. So it's a confirmation as to your understanding of the way in which that warrant operates.As to whether or not a judge may require a report I think there's probably a couple of factors going on there. I think there will be a period of time where—you know you've got to understand the way in which are these warrants working as intended? So giving the court the ability to make a call-in report as to where these warrants have been put in place. I guess it provides another check and balance for New Zealanders because as we talked about earlier this evening that rub between upholding the rule of law and making sure that people aren't undertaking unlawful activities creating public harm and undermining public safety versus I guess the undermining of freedom of movement and being able to operate freely. This is a part of the many safeguards that I think you see hardwired into this Act to make sure that the State doesn't overreach in the use of these warrants and must be accountable.In terms of who will hold that information it's the court. The court will hold that information. Now there's a range of ways in which that information can ultimately become public i.e. court proceeding are by and large open proceedings—unless there are particularly circumstances thresholds have to be met etc. but the beginning presumption is that hearings are opening they're public they're accessible and they're transparent.
McKee NicoleNICOLE McKEE (ACT): Thank you Minister for answering that. I just now would like to move very quickly to new sections 18E an 18G. Again just seeking clarification for the viewers that are at home: 18E is about places and vehicles that may be searched on more than one occasion. Minister if you could please confirm that this actually relates not to one single warrant being actioned on one person multiple times but one single warrant being actioned on multiple people hopefully at the same time. That's just for clarification for those people at home. What this actually means is that one warrant may be produced at the time that they are undertaking a search and seizure on one property but that same warrant is also being produced at other properties at the same time. That's what that section 18E means.Further a clarification to new section 18G which is that the judge may require a warrant report. This is about a judge actually asking the police to really give them back some information as to whether or not the warrant was successful in how it was addressed. But actually it comes down to a judge may" warrant this. So I'd like to know Minister should the judge actually ask for that information? Who is collecting that information? Will it be made publicly available so that we can ascertain that the clauses within this bill are being effective correctly? Thank you."
SpeechHon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Justice): Thank you to the member Nicole McKee. I know that this is a particular area of interest given your life prior to your membership of this House and so these are very legitimate concerns for you and your constituents. I think one of the things that gives me some heart or I guess the safeguard that's hard-wired into the legislation is there at clause 23 which inserts new section 160A(2)(b). The police must undertake reasonable inquiries to ensure that they can locate the rightful owner then there is that process by which they go through. But I think probably getting into the issue that we're all most intimately concerned about here is that the purpose of this legislation is to ensure that firearms aren't in the hands of the people whom we all collectively probably agree in this Chamber they just shouldn't be in the hands of. We only need to recall what happened up there in South Auckland towards the end of last year when there was that particular heightened conflict. Firearms—stolen firearms to the most extent—were the key contributor to undermining public safety in quite a significant way. So the target of this legislation is the unlawful possession of firearms that should never have been in the hands of those that are holding them in the first instance.
McKee NicoleNICOLE McKEE (ACT): Thank you Madam Chair. Minister I'm going to move to Part 3 at clause 23 where we introduce a new section 160A relating to the disposal of weapons. It talks about seizing weapons and I guess weapons" can be all sorts of things. They can be bats they can be knives they might even be cars and quite frequently they're often illegally held firearms.This clause talks about the destruction of weapons. It addresses the consent to destruction and gives the ability for the actual owner of a weapon—whether that be a car a knife or a firearm—to apply within 30 days of a destruction notice for that weapon to be released rather than destroyed. The bill goes on at subsection 2—especially at 160A(2)(c)(ii)—that police will decide if there is a legitimate reason to own and possess and ultimately whether that weapon will be destroyed.When I spoke to the police at the Justice Committee and I queried about stolen firearms being returned to their legitimate owners the police indicated that they would automatically check if the firearm has been stolen and would return that stolen item to its owner. Now the owner may not realise that their stolen firearm has actually been retrieved and seized by police so therefore won't know that they have 30 days in which to apply for the destruction notice to not be valid.The police have said that they will make all attempts to find the legitimate owner of a firearm and I'm presuming also of any other weapons that are being seized—perhaps you know the car is used as a weapon—and that they would at that time ensure that the firearm in this case would be given back to the owner. So I just want to clarify that that is indeed what will happen and that the section 160A(2)(c)(ii) where police will decide if there's a legitimate reason to own and possess is not needed for a firearm owner if they were in legitimate possession when it was stolen at that time.My concern Minister is the potential for police to find a legitimate firearm but then decide that actually they don't want that legitimate owner to possess that firearm. So just seeking clarification please that should an illegally held firearm be found and it's later found that it has been stolen it will not be destroyed if police can with due diligence ensure that the rightful owner receives their firearm back. Thank you."
SpeechHon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Justice): Look I'll just briefly respond. In response to the query from the member at Subpart 6A in what will be the new clause 18C(1)(h) the purpose of that particular provision it's really to focus on where—if a place is to be searched or it isn't owned or occupied or used by a member of an organised criminal organisation but instead by a person who is encouraging or assisting with the conflict. So for example somebody who might be supplying weapons within that vicinity and that person must be specified in the warrant. There's some analysis that's been done particularly in light of the Privacy Commissioner's submission in the departmental report as well around pages 11 and 12 at paragraph 72 which help elucidate some more of the official thinking there.
SpeechCRIMINAL ACTIVITY INTERVENTION LEGISLATION BILLIn CommitteeDebate resumed.Parts 1 to 5 and clauses 1 and 2 (continued)CHAIRPERSON (Hon Poto Williams): Members the House is in committee on the Criminal Activity Intervention Legislation Bill. When the committee reported progress we were considering the question that Parts 1 to 5 and clauses 1 and 2 stand part.
McAnulty KieranInstruction to Governance and Administration CommitteeHon KIERAN McANULTY (Minister for Emergency Management): Thank you Madam Speaker. I move That the Severe Weather Emergency Legislation Bill be reported to the House by 16 March 2023 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions) and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House despite Standing Order 196.The rationale here is pretty simple and it's been articulated well by many contributions in the House: that the contents of the bill and what it proposes to do is urgent in nature. It will assist those that have been impacted by the cyclone and if we delay then it will prevent them in their recovery. It could lead to local councils not being able to make decisions. It could prevent local authorities from declaring a local emergency if another severe weather event or natural disaster hits. It could mean that some businesses through no fault of their own have to stop trading and it could also mean that some people get caught out because of administrative time lines doing emergency works that are required for themselves their businesses or their communities. I don't think anyone in this House wants those things to happen and therefore what we've proposed is that this sit with select committee for a day come back to the House on Thursday and then we complete this so that once it's passed they can continue with the recovery with those protections.I want to take the opportunity to acknowledge other parties in the House but in particular Chris Penk and Michael Woodhouse for the constructive way in which you've dealt with both the Hon Grant Robertson and I around this matter. No one likes rushing things but we also didn't want to go through urgency; that wouldn't have been proper. Through the conversations and the discussions that we've had in a really constructive manner we've been able to find a way through this and I just want that on record that it's appreciated.Motion agreed to.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Criminal Activity Intervention Legislation Bill.
Severe Weather Emergency Legislation Bill — First Reading
SpeechASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is That the Severe Weather Emergency Legislation Bill be considered by the Governance and Administration Committee.Bill referred to the Governance and Administration Committee.
Little AndrewHon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Defence): Thank you Madam Chair. And thank you for those two contributions—first from Harete Hipango and I'll just respond quickly to Ms Hipango's contribution. The reference to threatening behaviour or intimidating behaviour is I think—and can be—widely understood and it goes beyond physical threats. It can be the use of voices it can be a mere presence. And I'm confident that the courts have considered enough of these matters to be very clear about what can constitute intimidation in those particular circumstances and indeed threatening behaviour. To Nicole McKee's question and I think we do have to be careful sometimes that when we come to this House with axes to grind that sometimes we don't cause those issues to get in the way of I think a reasoned and reasonable debate. I disagree with the member's analysis on the application of section 48 of the Arms Act. It does not apply in the sort of circumstances that the law has been found inadequate to cover when it comes to drive by shootings. Section 48 of the Arms Act is very much focused on what happens around a property or a dwelling. It focuses on the largely accidental or unintended discharge of a firearm and where there is some intent and damage to property or buildings. It is not intended to deal with the situation where somebody is openly in the public on a public street on a high road and acting like a galah by discharging a firearm with the intent to intimidate people around them. And the reason why this has been added into the law is not because of any inadequacy of the Arms Act—the Arms Act is very good now thanks to the good work of the Hon Stuart Nash—but this is an inadequacy in the Crimes Act that needs to be addressed so that the police dealing with antisocial behaviour by those who would use firearms in a public place to intimidate others can be dealt with and the penalty reflects that. That is the material difference between these matters. I move That the committee report progress and sit again presently in order to progress the Severe Weather Emergency Legislation Bill.