edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Williams ArenaARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you Mr Chair. While the Minister of Justice is considering his answer to my colleague the Hon Dr Duncan Webb's question I just have a discreet line of new questions for him. It's about in Part 2 the meaning of a person" because in situations like say a funeral where you have a deceased person who was a member of a gang and might have a preference to display gang insignia on their coffin as might be a common practice in a gang funeral—the question I have for him is: who is the person who is liable for the offence? Is that person the funeral director? Is that person the person carrying out the funeral? Is that person the executor of the estate?This is not a frivolous question; this is a common situation which we experience in New Zealand Aotearoa. And whether we disagree or agree with the ability of a deceased person's wishes to be carried out in that way there is still a question there about whether the executor of the estate in carrying out that person's wishes would be liable for a criminal offence or a fine under this part. And further to this point would it then be an offence for say the operator of the public place where that insignia was displayed—say for instance the hospital or the transportation for the deceased person or the cemetery—to allow the display of that insignia? I'd like for the Minister to turn his mind to each of those four places where you might have this situation—where a deceased person's wishes are being carried out with the display of gang insignia—and to clarify I guess for the record who might be liable for a punishment under this part if that was carried out in this way or if it is in fact not the intent to punish in this way the executor of someone's wishes when they have died for that kind of a breach of these provisions.I also want to ask the Minister in the context of a tangi where gang insignia is to be displayed at a funeral by the person who is deceased who the person is in that context given that there is often no one proprietor of a marae. Often in these arrangements where there is communally held land and a communally managed marae you might have two legal bodies—legal persons—who are in charge of carrying out the business of that marae. One would be the underlying landowner or the land block. It is often a piece of Māori land with several thousand owners. And then in the situation where you have a marae which is run by a committee that is a body corporate is that the legal person that would then be held to account under this part? Thank you."
Webb DuncanHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you Mr Chair. Now I have a number of Amendment Papers in respect of this part and so I would like an opportunity to speak to them. So what I propose to do is speak briefly as is anticipated by the Standing Orders Committee and then the Minister of Justice perhaps can affirm that he's going to adopt them or perhaps not—but we'll see. The first is in respect of clause 7(1) which is the offence clause for the gang patch ban. It currently reads 7(1): A person commits an offence if the person knowingly and without reasonable excuse displays gang insignia at any time in a public place." My proposed amendment simply adds the words "in a manner which would be threatening or intimidating to a reasonable person" because that is the whole purpose of this legislation. The whole idea is that if there's you know a person in Tokoroa that's wearing known gang insignia and that person is doing it to intimidate the public so that they don't wear red as the Minister said—well fair enough we don't want that going on. Let's create the offence which is consistent with the purpose. Minister will you support that amendment paper?"
Belich CamillaCAMILLA BELICH (Labour): Thank you Madam Chair. Thank you for the opportunity to take a call—my first call—on the Gangs Legislation Amendment Bill in Part 3 dealing with dispersal notices. This is something that I have been looking into as to whether these dispersal notices fulfil the purpose that they purport to need to achieve and I have to say I have some concerns and I would like the Minister to look at some of the alternative ways that this particular provision in clause 9 could be used that isn't in the way that he's envisaged. I've heard his answers to my colleague Tamatha Paul that there are certain examples where in his view dispersal notices wouldn't be issued and I wanted to ask him whether he had received any advice on dispersal notices in relation to activities which would fall outside of what could reasonably be expected to be covered by this clause. The reason that I ask that is because there are human rights issues associated with this particular part of this bill—and the reason for that is it's not unreasonable for most New Zealanders to be able to expect that they are able to gather in a group. For these particular New Zealanders if they are seen as or are suspected to be a gang member and if there are more than three of them they could be issued with a dispersal notice. So that freedom to associate which is one of the fundamental freedoms would be impacted by this bill. So my first question is has he received some advice about those because when I read through it it doesn't appear to me that there are any particular protections in this section that mean that the dispersal notice could only be issued for what we would expect it to be for—for a gang activity. So I wanted to know from the Minister would he consider amending clause 9(1)(b) to change it from to believe that issuing the notice is necessary to avoid unreasonably disrupting the activities of other members of the public." and to add an additional part to say that it connected to a gang activity because there may be situations where—and I mean I know and I think most members of the House would know through their experiences of being in public places in summer that sometimes there are people who are disruptive. Whether that's unreasonably disruptive might be a question of judgment and it might be in cases of illegal activity a question for the police. But what this bill does is it puts a huge amount of responsibility on the person issuing the dispersal notice to first of all determine whether that person is a gang member and then it also asks them to look at whether it's an unreasonable disruption and that isn't connected to their gang activity. So my question to the Minister is whether he has looked at that and I do have some further questions. I'd like to allow the Minister to respond to those but I do have some other questions around the practicalities of this particular section. I know that he's said—and I appreciate—that for the purposes of protest this is not meant to be the purpose of this section. I appreciate that and I think that's clear but I'm talking about other activities. So I wonder if the Minister could respond."
Costello CaseyORAL QUESTIONSQuestion No. 12 to Minister 1 August—Amended AnswerHon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Police): Point of order Mr Speaker. I seek leave to make a personal explanation to correct a statement that I made regarding police numbers in question No. 12 on 1 August 2024. SPEAKER: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. Hon CASEY COSTELLO: In response to Ms Andersen's second supplementary question to question No. 12 on 1 August 2024 I wish to correct the Hansard record which quotes me stating that reaching 2711 would mean that we will have increased the police force by 500. We will have increased the police force by 500 when we reach 10711 constabulary. I'm taking the first possible opportunity to correct this and I apologise for any confusion to the House.
Gangs Legislation Amendment Bill — In Committee—Part 1
12. Question No. 12—Tertiary Education and SkillsCAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour) to the Minister for Tertiary Education and SkillsQuestion No. 12—Tertiary Education and Skills12. CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour) to the Minister for Tertiary Education and Skills: What recent actions have been taken to begin public consultation on the redesign of the vocational education and training system?Hon PENNY SIMMONDS (Minister for Tertiary Education and Skills): The Government has begun a six-week period of consultation on the proposed reforms for New Zealand's vocational education and training system. We propose to replace the top-heavy centralised Te Pūkenga with a network of regional institutes of technology and polytechnics and an industry training system that is closer to industry. These proposals will put the vocational education and training system on a sustainable path and restore accountability and responsibility to communities and industries while removing unnecessary complexity and bureaucracy.Cameron Brewer: Why is this redesign important?Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: The vocational education and training sector is an absolutely critical part of our tertiary education system. It provides skills knowledge and career pathways for individuals into industries and professions that are vital to the economic prosperity of New Zealand. New Zealand needs a strong vocational education and training system to ensure our people our industries and our communities can thrive.Cameron Brewer: How will it help ensure provision in the regions?Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: To be successful vocational education and training must be responsive to local needs have industry buy-in and be financially viable. We need to restore our polytechnics to their rightful place as anchors of learning opportunities for individuals and as a regional development tool for communities and industries. For regions like Northland Taranaki and the West Coast of the South Island it is important to have access to online provision so that a blend of on-campus and online delivery can be utilised to ensure financially and academically sustainable provision.Cameron Brewer: What will the changes do for industry training?Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: A strong industry voice in vocational education and training is critical. This Government wants a model that is better connected to employers including small and medium enterprises so that they have a sense of ownership of industry training. Standard-setting in the system also requires a sharper focus on the activities that industries most value. Our industry training must be driven by and for industry. I want to acknowledge the many staff in both industry training and polytechnics who have endured uncertainty for many years and thank them for their ongoing commitment to our vocational education and training sector.
10. Question No. 10—PoliceSUZE REDMAYNE (National—Rangitīkei) to the Minister of PoliceQuestion No. 10—Police10. SUZE REDMAYNE (National—Rangitīkei) to the Minister of Police: What feedback has he seen about Police's community beat patrols?Hon MARK MITCHELL (Minister of Police): The feedback has been overwhelmingly positive. Communities across the country have responded positively to the Government's approach of getting police back to basics and focused on getting out in their communities. It was great for the Prime Minister and me to get out with one of the beat teams in the Auckland CBD recently. The team told me how much they're enjoying the public contact. Often they attend jobs that are very negative and they highlighted how much they're enjoying the positive interaction they're having with the public whilst on the beat. They're enjoying getting to know their beat and identifying and dealing with the problems and issues that exist. They feel like they have real ownership of it and are proud of the difference they're making. I am proud of them also.Suze Redmayne: What feedback has he seen from shopkeepers?Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well following a central Wellington retailer reporting a woman putting clothing in her bag early last month the beat team responded swiftly. They apprehended the woman who turned out to be a prolific shoplifter with over $1000 worth of products on her person from several of the other shops in the area. A store manager contacted Police and provided highly complimentary feedback on the beat initiative the visibility of police staff and the timely response she received.Suze Redmayne: Have members of the public had anything to say?Hon MARK MITCHELL: Yes my inbox has been inundated with correspondence from the public who are relieved and happy to see police out and about and providing reassurance. One quote that stood out to me was: I know it's only day one but great to see the first of the new community beat officers out on the streets. A big thumbs up. I feel that will help make me and others safer on our streets."Suze Redmayne: Have any other communities benefited from police being highly visible?Hon MARK MITCHELL: Yes the hard-working member for Rangitīkei has passed on to me that as she meets with retailers in her communities the feedback has been extraordinary. Everyone is delighted to see police back on the beat and keeping our community safe."
9. Question No. 9—Prime MinisterDEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori ) to the Prime MinisterQuestion No. 9—Prime Minister9. DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori ) to the Prime Minister: [Cook Islands Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]Does he stand by all of his Government's statements and actions?Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes and especially our actions to turn maths achievement around for young Māori. The maths achievement data released on the weekend was deeply concerning especially for the just 12 percent of young Māori who are not at curriculum in maths at year 8 according to the data from last year. Shockingly 76 percent were more than a year behind. All Kiwis Māori or non-Māori deserve a shot at a better life and that starts with an outstanding education. That's why our Government is taking action to deliver a world-leading curriculum and to turn those results around for Māori and non-Māori children.Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Does he have confidence in the Minister for Children?Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yes.Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: How can he have confidence in the Minister for Children given that she cannot guarantee that tamariki and rangatahi will not be abused in her boot camps?Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well no Government can guarantee that but they can do everything they possibly can to make sure there is protection and safeguards in place for our children. These are our most vulnerable children. We want powerful targeted interventions and we're putting huge amounts of service around them to make sure that they are safe. [Interruption]Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Supplementary.SPEAKER: Just wait a minute—no stay on your feet; wait for that quiet.Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Does he stand by his decision to repeal section 7AA from the Oranga Tamariki Act given that the former children's Minister Tracey Martin said in her oral submission yesterday We do not have a child protection service in this country. We have a child crisis service. As a nation we wait until there is damage done to a child either emotionally physically or spiritually before we [can] take any action. 7AA is the key to making this change to become a country that supports child protection."?Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We do not want any ambiguity. We want the wellbeing and the best interests of the most vulnerable children in our country to be at the heart of what is happening here.Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: If his primary concern is prioritising "health and wellbeing of the individual child" why doesn't he strengthen section 4A of the Oranga Tamariki Act which makes it clear that "well-being and best interests of the child or young person are the first and paramount consideration" instead of repealing section 7AA?Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: We want the immediate safety stability and wellbeing of a child to be at the heart of what the Government does caring for our most vulnerable children—period."
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That debate on this question now close.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 55New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6; Tana.Motion agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that the Minister's amendments to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper No 51 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 55New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6; Tana.Amendments agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb's tabled amendment to clause 4 inserting the words and understood" to the definition of gang insignia be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 55New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6; Tana.Noes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Amendment not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb's tabled amendment to clause 4 excluding any insignia or item that is not readily visible and identifiable from the definition of named person be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 55New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6; Tana.Noes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Amendment not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb's tabled amendment to clause 4 definition of named person be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 55New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6; Tana.Noes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Amendment not agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That Part 1 be agreed to.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 55New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6; Tana.Part 1 agreed to."
McLellan TraceyDr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour): Thank you Mr Chair. I do have a question that's quite specific to what I hope would be some new information if the Minister is able to give it to us. It's a relatively straightforward question and it shouldn't take too long.When we think about the core purpose of the Gangs Legislation Amendment Bill as a couple of other people have intimated at its heart it's about reducing intimidation etc. and it's using this specific means this specific methodology as a proxy so to speak to enable that to happen. But I noticed in the regulatory impact statement—I think very early on it talks about the limitations and the constraints on the analysis that was able to be done in relation to this bill—it said Narrow scope: Agencies were commissioned to fulfill the Government's commitments on gang policies included in the 100-Day Plan." It sort of strikes me therefore that that in itself has constrained some other counterfactuals or some other information that we could perhaps have brought to the forefront. I think it's important we consider the rest of that paragraph where it says "This commissioning and timeframes limited the options … [available] to be considered that would achieve this objective."So I'm asking the Minister: as part of the process that he went through because there is always more than one way to skin a cat isn't there given that the purpose was to reduce the intimidation that gangs have or can partake in how did he come to the conclusion that removing gang patches as opposed to—and I'm assuming that he balanced that up against other potential measures. Is he able therefore to give us a little bit more information about his own process with regard to that so that we can perhaps understand a little bit more fully how this particular piece of legislation fulfils that process? And maybe even just one or two examples would suffice. But I think given there have been several questions asked over the preceding sort of two hours where we've talked about the purpose of this legislation—that have raised really good questions. And when we think about not just the impact on young people but the impact on young Māori men and various other questions that have been raised I think more pragmatically if the Minister could give us any sort of insight as part of this committee stage as to—given that the regulatory impact statement says quite specifically that it had very little opportunity to evaluate properly given that this needed to be rushed through so to speak as part of the Government's 100-day plan. But even still there must have been some sort of comparison so I'd love the Minister to tell us about that."
Nimon KatieKATIE NIMON (National—Napier): I move that debate on this question now close.Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Point of order. Thank you Mr Chair. Just a point of order around the fact that we haven't quite finished—oh thanks for putting the mike on. We haven't quite finished part—CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Mr Xu-Nan perhaps if you're going to take a point of order you'll wait until a decision's been made—Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: OK—here and now.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): —and sit down. Now I'm aware the member has recently come to the House. The member's also not aware as I am of matters that have been discussed in the previous over two hours of this debate. So the member needs to understand that just because he hasn't been in the Chamber and he hasn't been part of the debate it doesn't mean the issues haven't been discussed. I make that point for him and for all members that are in the Chamber right now. So now I am in the process of taking a motion from Katie Nimon.KATIE NIMON (National—Napier): I move That debate on this question now close.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): And I will make the comment that having looked at the topics that have been discussed there has been very little new information come forward in the last short while. I'll be looking for some very very new information.
Webb DuncanHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you Mr Chair. I'll start with pointing out that in the previous session where we considered this I asked a question about named people and the need for everyone who is a named person in a dispersal notice which is in clause 4—and I've got an Amendment Paper A dealing with it—to be served so that you don't get the anomaly where one person can associate with the others but they can't associate with them. Now I'm sure the Minister's taken advice on that but I would like his response.The other question I have which is a more policy-based question about the bill as a whole is how it deals with young people because the bill as a whole is pitched as having some offences in it but being a civil bill. However it actually imposes constraints on young people. So in terms of a young person a 13-year-old wearing a gang patch or engaging in disruptive behaviour what's the interface there? So in terms of the purpose of the bill as a whole the Minister just spoke to those—I think it was four—overarching purposes but how does that fit with children? Because these are quasi-criminal infringements if you like. That's probably the best way to put it. If you've been given a dispersal notice it's almost like an infringement notice. And yet children presumably are subject to this quasi-criminal regime and it strikes me that there hasn't been a lot of thinking done around how this bill will fit with the wider framework around the behaviour of young people and the response of not only police courts but also Oranga Tamariki and other agencies to those behaviours. I think that's actually quite an important point because as my colleague was just mentioning this bill does run the risk of pushing a section of our community further away from Government agencies. Of course young people who might be 12 13 or 14 are the very people we want to be drawing into schools healthcare and other agencies rather than dispersing them and having fines for them wearing gang patches or gang paraphernalia. So how children will be dealt with—we'll be very interested to know. But as I said just going back to that need to make sure that everyone who's dispersed is subject to the same regime and has been served with a dispersal order.
O'Connor GregGANGS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILLIn CommitteeDebate resumed from 1 August.Part 1 Preliminary provisions (continued)CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Members the House is in committee for further consideration of the Gangs Legislation Amendment Bill. Members when we were last considering the bill we were debating Part 1. We've been debating this part for approximately an hour and a half so I'm looking for new material relevant to this part of the bill. The question is that Part 1 stand part.
Webb Duncan; Brownlee GerryHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you Mr Speaker. The chair of the Privileges Committee and the Attorney-General have traversed the conduct of the committee and its considerations well and I don't propose to repeat those other than to say that I thought the committee process in this instance was very appropriate. Given the evidence that we had we didn't need to call any oral evidence and I thought that that actually assisted in reaching a conclusion and upholding the dignity of this House.I do note that in terms of the finding of the committee of a contempt that fundamentally that is a decision of the committee comprised of members of Parliament with the guidance of Standing Orders but reaching its own assessment as to whether the conduct fell above or below what's fundamentally acceptable in this House. We all concur I think. Indeed the member subject to the report has accepted that the conduct in that instance did fall below and was a contempt but I think it's important to recognise that it's not a strict application of a list or a rule but of the values and ethos of this House to that conduct.I think it's important to recognise that there was discussion around what's sometimes called the robustness of this House and the acceptance that conduct that happens in these four walls might be quite extraordinary outside of these four walls but there is still a very clear understanding that there is a minimum standard of conduct to which we must adhere so I don't propose to really explore the report any further. As I've said the Attorney-General has done that in a fulsome way. The process was a good one and I must comment finally that the member who's the subject of the report responded appropriately at all times and has done the right thing in apologising to this House. Kia ora Mr Speaker.SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.Motion agreed to.SPEAKER: Ms Genter the House has resolved that you be censured by the House for acting in a manner that could have the effect of intimidating a member of the House acting in the discharge of their duty. Your conduct is unacceptable in Parliament which is a place of debate and not threatening behaviour.
Privilege — Consideration of Report of Privileges Committee—Conduct of Julie Anne Genter
Wednesday 8 May 2024 - Volume 775
Urgent Debates — Declined
Brownlee GerryURGENT DEBATES DECLINEDEscalation of Conflict in Gaza—Government ResponseSPEAKER: Can I also say that I've received a letter from Marama Davidson and Teanau Tuiono seeking to debate under Standing Order 399 the Government's response to escalations in Gaza. The application does not provide any information about a Government response. The application is therefore declined.
Ministerial Statements — Gas Production—Low Supply Projections
Brownlee GerrySPEAKER: I just wanted to respond the point of order raised by the Hon Kieran McAnulty. He asked me to consider the speech by the Hon Shane Jones in light of Speaker's ruling 150/2. I think this has been a spirited debate—would be a fair thing to say—and I think if the member reflects on the speeches perhaps even the Hansard from the Hon Megan Woods and from Scott Willis perhaps the response from Mr Jones would be more understandable.
Brown SimeonHon SIMEON BROWN (Minister for Energy): Thank you Mr Speaker. I thank members from across the House for their engagement in this important topic. The reality is that we have been faced with the latest projections and information from the Gas Industry Company which have outlined there has been a significant downgrade in production from our gasfields in New Zealand—a 28 percent decline in just the past three months on what was projected to be produced. This shortfall has a significant impact on our country's industries and on our energy security as a nation. It highlights the critical importance of the work this Government is doing to repeal the ban on oil and gas exploration and to ensure that we are achieving the investment we need to reduce the gas that is required for industrial purposes for our schools and our hospitals and importantly for our electricity sector so that we can have that firming for our wind solar and to keep the lights on.The news today that Genesis Energy is going to have to import more coal is a direct result of the fact that we are not producing enough gas as a country. So this is a really critically important report. The Government has a plan on how we're going to address these challenging issues and my message to all parties across the House: New Zealanders wish—want—to have energy security. New Zealanders need energy security. I ask them to back the Government's reforms provide bipartisan support to those reforms so we can keep the lights on encourage that investment and ensure we have the energy that New Zealanders need for our security as a country.
Brown SimeonHon SIMEON BROWN (Minister for Energy): Thank you Mr Speaker and I thank members from across the House for their—SPEAKER: Do they want to speak? Sorry do Te Pāti Māori want to make a contribution?Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Yes.SPEAKER: You need to call.
McAnulty Kieran; Brownlee GerryHon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Point of order. At the appropriate time I wonder if you might be able to have a look at that contribution and perhaps the one from the ACT Party as well and see if it was in line with Speakers' Rulings 150/2 and 150/3. SPEAKER: OK.
Points of Order — Ombudsman (Removal of Age Discrimination) Amendment Bill—Leave to Introduce Declined
Hipkins Chris; Brownlee GerryPOINTS OF ORDERLeave for Introduction and Setting Down as Members' Order of the Day No.1—Ombudsman (Removal of Age Discrimination) Amendment BillRt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition): Point of order Mr Speaker. I seek leave to introduce the Ombudsman (Removal of Age Discrimination) Amendment Bill for the bill to be set down for first reading as members' order of the day No. 1 today for the bill to proceed through its remaining stages immediately following the first reading for there to be no select committee or committee of the whole House and for there to be no debate on the second or third readings.I wrote to all parties in Parliament on Monday advising them that I intended to take this course of action. The bill is very simple—it does two things: it removes the age discrimination; and allows the incumbent who all parties in Parliament seem to indicate has done an excellent job as the Ombudsman to remain in office for the remainder of his term rather than vacate the office based on unjustified age discrimination.SPEAKER: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Brownlee GerryPETITIONS PAPERS SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLSSPEAKER: A petition has been delivered to the Clerk for presentation.CLERK: Petition of Joseph Cohan Griffen requesting that the House urge the Government to halt planned construction of Kāinga Ora homes in Port Street East Feilding until public consultation is undertaken; and note that 260 people have signed a similar petition.SPEAKER: That petition stands referred to the Petitions Committee. No papers have been delivered. No select committee reports have been delivered. No bills are introduced.
Kuriger BarbaraWEDNESDAY 8 MAY 2024The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.KARAKIA/PRAYERSDEPUTY SPEAKER: Almighty God we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed on us. Laying aside all personal interests we acknowledge the King and pray for guidance in our deliberations that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom justice mercy and humility for the welfare and peace of New Zealand. Amen.
Local Government (Electoral Legislation and Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Part 1
Wednesday 24 July 2024 - Volume 776
Webb Duncan; Pugh MaureenHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): I have just a brief question really in terms of the underlying policy of this bill because I was noting that at Waitangi in 2024 Christopher Luxon said I want te ao Māori to thrive. When Māori do well we all know it; New Zealand does well." We like you believe in localism and devolution not centralisation and control. And it strikes me that at the guts of this bill is a movement away from devolution of these decisions from local government. In fact local governments have the ability to choose in their local body whether or not they have Māori wards like they have island wards or rural wards. And I was wondering if there's been a change in the Government policies and in fact now the Government wants centralisation and control.CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members the time has come for the dinner break. The committee is suspended and will resume after the dinner break.Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m."
McAnulty Kieran; Brown SimeonHon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you very much Madam Chair. It's a shame that we only have seven minutes or so until the dinner break but we are very much looking forward to diving into this after the dinner break. There is a lot to cover. It may be a bill of three parts but they are detailed and as the Minister has indicated there is also an Amendment Paper that is thicker than the original bill. So there is a lot to talk about. Of course this has just been tabled. We haven't had the opportunity to dive into this and consider it. So we're looking forward to use the committee of the whole House stage to have that as our only opportunity.I was hoping to be able to have a back and forth. We all live in hope. We've tried this on a number of occasions and it doesn't happen very often but I'll give it a go and we'll see how we get on. I'll start with a very simple question. Would the Minister consider an amendment to include all wards of local body areas all wards under local councils not just Māori wards—that they be treated the same under the proposals within this bill?Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Local Government): No the Government is not willing to accept that amendment. This bill is in relation to Māori wards wards based on race ethnicity rather than geography.
Pugh Maureen; Brown SimeonLOCAL GOVERNMENT (ELECTORAL LEGISLATION AND MĀORI WARDS AND MĀORI CONSTITUENCIES) AMENDMENT BILLIn CommitteePart 1 Amendments to Local Electoral Act 2001CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members the House is in committee on the Local Government (Electoral Legislation and Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill. Members we start with Part 1. Part 1 is the debate on clauses 3 to 17 Amendments to Local Electoral Act 2001" and the Schedule. The question is that Part 1 stand part.Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Local Government): Madam Chair thank you for the opportunity to take a short call on Part 1. Part 1 amends the Local Electoral Act 2001. It puts the poll provisions back in in relation to Māori wards. These are the same provisions that were in place prior to the last Government's change.Hon Member: We can't hear.Hon SIMEON BROWN: Oh—is that not working? Was it me? Is that better? Hello. Is that better? Was it better before—was it? Sorry—well I won't apologise to that side; I'll apologise to this side. [Gestures to Government benches] Sorry.Shanan Halbert: What do you have to be like that for?Hon SIMEON BROWN: Oh I thought I was being kind.CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Can we come back to the bill. Come back to the bill.Hon SIMEON BROWN: It refers to the Schedule which deals with transitional arrangements and deals with some of the postal time frame arrangements as well—which of course is in regard to the extension of the postal voting period for future local government elections which obviously is an issue that's going to need to be further dealt with. This really is simply a fix in relation to the next local elections.There's also two tabled amendments from me. Firstly there's one which is more substantive and that is in relation to requiring councils to make a choice as to whether they will rescind disestablish or have a referendum. So that is requiring councils by 6 December to make that decision. There's a second one which has a typo that has been picked up. The word "or" was missing from one of the clauses and is being fixed."
Debates — Final Report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Historical Abuse in State Care and in the Care of Faith-based Institutions
Brown Simeon; Tuiono Teanau; O'Connor GregHon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Local Government): I have answered the question in relation to why the Government has put this bill through. We are putting this bill through because the public of New Zealand voted for this Government. Hon Kieran McAnulty: How many councils?Hon SIMEON BROWN: Now the member there can keep asking questions; I have answered the question and said that the democratic will of the New Zealand people on 14 October was a vote for this Government and we are passing this legislation. That is why we're bringing this: to ensure the democratic will of the public of New Zealand can be had when it comes to establishing Māori wards.The other question was in relation to statistics. The requirement for statistics is not substantially altered by the bill. Currently Statistics New Zealand provides statistical information to support both parliamentary and council representation reviews under the local Electoral Act. The Government's decision has to certify statistics used for representation reviews.The member who resumed his seat from the Green Party earlier—Francisco Hernandez—all of his questions or the points he made were already addressed in prior parts of the debate if he had been tuning in.CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Members the time has come for me to leave the Chair and report progress.House resumed.CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Mr Speaker the committee has considered the Local Government (Electoral Legislation and Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill and reports progress. I move That the report be adopted.Motion agreed to.Report adopted.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): The bill is set down for further consideration in committee next sitting day. The House is adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow. Goodnight everyone. The House adjourned at 9.56 p.m.
McAnulty KieranHon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Thank you very much Mr Chair. I acknowledge the guidance you gave the committee when you acknowledged it was new material and gave the first friendly warning about repetition. My question is a repeat because the Minister hasn't at all answered or addressed it. It was a very simple question. It was the third time I've had to ask it. I asked him eight times last time we were debating a local government bill so I'll keep asking—what councils asked for this bill?
Kirkpatrick Dana; Tuiono TeanauDANA KIRKPATRICK (National—East Coast): I move That debate on this question now close.CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): I will take some more calls but I do want to acknowledge that there has been new material that has been asked and I do want to acknowledge that. But there is also repetition.
Leary IngridINGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): Thank you Mr Chair. I've got a little bit of a different question which relates to the data and evidence that is being relied on in this bill. And I'd just hark back to the excellent visit that our caucus had to Tamaki Makaurau recently and the presentation by Ngāti Whātua about Māori representation but also Ngāti Whātua representation and what many of us had assumed to be a citywide mana whenua which in fact was explained to us was quite different and was very much coalesced around Ōrākei. And there were some explanations about how the representation in te ao Māori worked of where that mana came from and how that mana worked with those who either whakapapa to Ōrākei or those who were visitors or those who came for a transient period of time. I found it a really enlightening session.So when I look at this and the korero that they had around how that equates to a Māori ward situation and I look at the reliance of data and evidence based on Statistics New Zealand I'm really curious about what decision was made to rely on that evidence. I don't mean to be cynical but we do know there were problems with Statistics New Zealand. And we also know that Māori were a group that were very lowly represented in the data that was given when it was collected in the previous census. So I would say is relatively unreliable and certainly from the representations made to us and I do hope that I'm not doing a disservice to those who represented but my interpretation was from Ngāti Whātua that this was a construct that was quite different and the whakapapa has a very different element to it.So I have a relatively short question for the Minister actually which is: what advice did he receive and what thought did he give to ensure that Māori representation accords with te ao Māori rather than just simply a sort of colonised view of things? And what has he done to assure himself that the information that goes to and from Statistics New Zealand as I can see in Part 1 of the bill and there is a requirement both in both directions as I understand it. What assurance can he give and what assurances did he seek that that information and data set would be complete that there would be trust in that from those who were contributing to it and what assurance did he have that the representation from te ao Māori perspective was going to be met by the bill as it's currently drafted?
Brown SimeonHon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Local Government): I thank the member for her questions. The changes in the bill don't affect how Māori wards are implemented such as the fair and effective representation arrangement rules. It is about whether or not Māori wards are established at all and obviously the referendum arrangements. The issues that she's raising in relation to how those wards may be created—there is legislation and are processes already in place and there is the Local Government Commission which ultimately has the final say in terms of how those other wards may be created. Ultimately I reiterate the point that people who stand for election—if boundaries are changed ultimately no one has a right to that particular electorate or council seat. It is the voters who ultimately determine who wins.
Ngarewa-Packer DebbieDEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori): Kia ora thank you Mr Chair. I just want to make sure that anyone that may be offended by my tie puts some sunglasses on right now. Just to progress with the questions I am concerned and Te Pāti Māori does share despite how we come across—we do have concerns for the relationship of this Government with their tangata whenua. I guess we can see local government is confronting enormous challenges—huge challenges—and you are denying yourself and indeed Aotearoa opportunities.The question I have is if we look at the issues that are arising—the fact that we have people who can't afford rates the fact that we have infrastructure needs and we're consistently hearing from the other side of the Chamber about PPPs which in short is public-private partnerships. Those public-private partnerships are reliant on relationships with iwi. So our question to the Minister of Local Government is—if we are taking such Well iwi have a better economy than what we've seen in non-Māori" and if you're reliant on indeed realising opportunities as a chair of an investment subsidiary for iwi I want to know what you're going to do to fix the relationship with Māori. Why would we do any investment with Government when you are denying our rights as Māori despite anyone else that you have in local government? Why would I get involved and why would our iwi across the motu be supportive of infrastructure needs that you have—that you have?Because I tell you now you won't be finding investments inside—the Minister won't I beg your apologies. You will not be finding relationships anywhere else from a PPP perspective. How are you going to I guess unsettle the reputation that is coming out really loud and clear certainly in the other hat that I wear that this is an anti-Māori anti-progress does not want to do business with iwi in an economic sense—what is the Minister going to do leading repeals like this to address the relationship with iwi to be able to sit down and have opportunistic discussions about infrastructure and indeed the futuristic needs of Aotearoa katoa?I guess the other thing that I have to have if in fact we are supporting local government's needs for wellbeing economically environmentally culturally and social—assuming that we all agree on that—is how are you going to overcome this Government's anti-Māori reputation—by supporting and in fact leading this type of legislation—with iwi the only other investors that belong to this nation that are going to be your biggest allies should they be allowed to?"
Brown SimeonHon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Local Government): Thank you Mr Chair. Well I appreciate the member has gone from being opposed to the referendums and saying that they are just a blunt vote to now at least an openness and a willingness to explore them so that is progress. But ultimately this is about giving local communities the ability to decide and that is why we are requiring these to be referendums. The list MP based in somewhere in the North Shore Shanan Halbert his question was around evidence. Look I mean I have answered these questions multiple times this afternoon in regards to the fact that on 14 October last year the voters went to the polls. They voted for parties which said they were going to change this law we were elected and we're delivering it. They might not like that but ultimately that is democracy and we are delivering on what the public voted for us to do and there are thousands of submitters who made it very clear that they support this piece of legislation during the—[Members seek the call]—I love the excitement—CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Let the Minister finish.Hon SIMEON BROWN: —select committee.Rawiri Waititi: Who's running this Government?Hon SIMEON BROWN: I was just scratching my knee actually but I appreciate the enthusiasm. As I said there have been a range of comments and questions that I have answered. Those issues have been well traversed during this debate and the answers continue to stay the same.