edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Williams PotoHon POTO WILLIAMS (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector): Thank you Madam Speaker. I am really pleased to have the last contribution to say the last few words on this particular bill to actually tell the National Party why we are here fixing this bill up and it has got a lot to do with the families of 51 victims in Christchurch. One of the things we are fixing up is the hole that that party made in there by actually supporting the Supplementary Order Paper which means that the man who shot 51 people in Christchurch now has the right to be advised that he can go on the electoral roll. I for one would spend four days fixing that up. That's shambolic and shameful and if you over there want to protect the rights of victims you will not play games with the electoral law again. I for one commend this bill to the House and condemn them for their shambolic and shameful games that they played last week.
Faafoi KrisHon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Broadcasting Communications and Digital Media): One of the first things that came out of the National leader's mouth when he became Opposition leader was that he wasn't interested in opposition for opposition's sake. So what is happening here tonight is exactly that. So the question I put is: why aren't you backing your leader—why aren't you backing your leader? And if it's not that you're completely out of touch because this is not an issue that the country cares about.So if you're going to go back to your offices and think you've got a little win tonight I'd suggest you actually think about what happened in your caucus today and have a bit of reflection about that. Either this caucus isn't backing its leader or it's the same tired old party that it was before the leadership change or a bit of both and I suspect I'm right on both cases. It's not the party of English and Key anymore; it's just a sad old skeleton of what it used to be.
SpeechGARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora Madam Speaker. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. I want to direct my comments to the previous speaker David Bennett because in my career of more than a decade I don't know if I've heard a more embarrassing and frankly egregious contribution. He got up and within his first words were insults were making things up—absolutely egregious. Here we are and the last member which was more of a measured actually slightly substantive contribution said Well why aren't we here debating how we can improve people's lives?" The answer of course is: we are not here debating the very many things we need to do because that party decided to become legislative saboteurs and waste Parliament's time. We're here literally cleaning up a mess that they decided to play politics with something as fundamental as electoral law to try—and I don't know what they were trying: to prove a point that they were all the clever kids who would try and stymie progress? Because frankly it's an embarrassment. Here we are trying to fix a mess that they caused because they would rather play games.Around this Chamber are 33 memorials to where Kiwis served to defend our democracy. But instead National would rather play politics—not just politics petty politics. It's frankly disgusting. Now I wish we would actually have a substantive debate around principles and values because that was sadly lacking entirely lacking from those contributions—a party that's focused on petty politics rather than principles.Now I'm proud to stand here as someone who is proud that we are removing the prohibition against prisoners serving a sentence of three years or less to be able to exercise their human rights. Look I would go further than the other parties that we're forming a Government with because we have principles and values and when the Green Party exercises its votes in this House we do it with integrity. I just wish you could say the same from that party."
Wood MichaelMICHAEL WOOD (Labour—Mt Roskill): I've got some news for the National Party: nobody cares. Nobody cares about their silly little procedural trick last week. Nobody cares that the House has had to come back today to put the bill to rights. Nobody cares.There is one useful thing that members and parties and this House can do across their multiplicity of beliefs and that is to come to this House and to vote for the things that they believe in. And in respect of this bill every single party across this House the New Zealand First Party the Labour Party the Green Party the ACT Party have at all stages voted for what they believe in in respect of this bill. There is one party that is an exception to that who thought it was more important to try and play a game to try and play a trick that ultimately will have no meaningful outcome and that absolutely no voter out there will care about this year.So I stand proudly as a member of a party that's voted for what we believe in with this bill and will do so again tonight and I'd urge members on the other side of the House to reflect upon whether it was really all worth it given that nobody cares.
SpeechHon CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): Tēnā koe Madam Speaker. With respect to my learned colleague across the House Chris Penk who is in all respects a rather gentlemanly chap—considered chap—this is what we would describe as a fix-it" bill which fixes an issue created by the National Party playing petty politics during the committee stage of the Electoral (Registration of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill last week after the National Party took us all down the rabbit hole of being opposition for opposition's sake. I would like to commend the Minister of Justice Andrew Little for doing what he said he would do which is to act quickly and fix it to restore the democratic right to people in prison who have been sentenced to less than three years to be able to enrol and vote. It's now being sorted. Thanks. I commend this to the House."
Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): I thank the Minister for that answer and just seek his guidance on the commencement date. I wonder if he would agree that the Act should come into force somewhat later than the day after Royal assent given the turbulent passage of related items of legislation such that the official website legislation.govt.nz the last time that I had a chance to check it hadn't been able to update and therefore correctly reflect the current law following last week's changes.
Little AndrewHon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): I follow the rule of statutory interpretation that says that the general entails the particular but not necessarily vice versa.
Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you Madam Chair. I wonder if the Minister of Justice would care to comment on the alternative possibility that the Act be named Electoral (Registration of Some Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill" as opposed to "(Registration of Sentenced Prisoners)" to reflect the reality that in fact it will not be all but some sentenced prisoners who will be able to vote as a result of this in conjunction with the previous legislation."
Little AndrewHon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): Thank you Madam Chair. Yes as I understand it it will apply to local body elections such for DHBs and councils.
Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): I'd just like to record first of all that I'm grateful for the circulation of the report from the Crown Law Office in relation to the Electoral (Registration of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill. The good news is that I have that in my hand; the bad news is that it seems to be a previous version thereof. The more substantive point is that—as the Minister has said the issues engaged are the same as the bill that was passed last week so I don't intend to be painful on that point. Although I do just note for the committee that the date of the letter is 14 February 2020. I note that's St Valentine's Day so I hope that I'm not embarrassing myself and the Attorney-General by bringing to the public attention that he's perhaps deliberately sent me a note along those lines. Either that or it's a mere issue of photocopying that the wrong one's gone through. But in any case I think the Minister makes a fair point that indeed the issues were canvassed in this document. Alternatively of course someone is very prescient knowing that all this time later there would be an error such as we witnessed last week such that this would be required. But in any case obviously it's essentially the same report so I don't intend to engage further on that. I would just note however moving to one further point in relation to Part 1 I wonder if the Minister would confirm whether the enrolment information to go to the Electoral Commission would affect the position with regards to prisoners under three years of incarceration voting in DHB elections and alcohol licensing trust elections.
Brown SimeonSIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): I'd like to turn the attention to the issue of prisoners running for Parliament and I know that was an issue which has been discussed earlier because it's a serious issue. It's an issue and I'd like to ask around whether—and I guess my question is not so much around—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): It's not in the bill.SIMEON BROWN: I know it's not in this part but the question I would like to ask is whether anything in this part precludes prisoners from standing for Parliament and their registration. So it's an issue which I think is very important because we're talking about serious offenders.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): It's not relevant to this bill.SIMEON BROWN: I'm asking the question whether anything in this part precludes a prisoner from being able to stand for Parliament because I think that's a question that people would like to—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Well it may well be a question that people would like to know but it isn't relevant to this—SIMEON BROWN: Well does anything in this part preclude—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Sorry it isn't relevant to the bill before the House. It might be a question of interest but actually the Minister is not required to address issues that are not before the House. This bill has a particular purpose and it doesn't include that.
Little AndrewHon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): Well I would have thought it stands to reason that because the change in sentence in accordance with the clause results in the prisoner becoming disqualified for registration then upon advice from the prison manager the Electoral Commission—assuming this bill passes and the Electoral Commission wins back the power to remove disqualified voters from the roll—then that prisoner will be removed from the roll. That would have been the case last week but the National Party voted against that.
Brown SimeonSIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you for the answer to the question. So when the prison manager advises the Electoral Commission what action does the Electoral Commissioner have to do?
Little AndrewHon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): I invite the member to read the clause very carefully. There could be any number of reasons why a prisoner's sentence changes and therefore pushes them into disqualification territory. It might be that previous charges not previously tried or considered by the court and therefore not the subject of the sentence that landed that prisoner in prison in the first place may have been processed and an additional sentence added. It may well be that the Crown appealed the sentence because it considered that the sentence was too short and the prisoner got a longer sentence. So any of those things could apply.In any event the clause is very clear: it is the prison manager who must do that at such point that the prisoner's sentence as amended pushes them into disqualification territory and for the benefit of all members of the committee of the whole House can I just record that. I understand the Attorney-General's advice has now been put on the Table.
Brown SimeonSIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): I'd like to ask a question around clause 7(5) where it says If at any time after a prison manager sends a prisoner's information to the Electoral Commission the overall length of a prisoner's sentence or sentences of imprisonment changes in a way that results in the prisoner becoming disqualified for registration as an elector under section 80(1)(d) the prison manager must advise the Electoral Commission." I'd like to ask the Minister whether that in effect means that if someone commits an offence whilst they are in prison and they are then given an additional sentence which puts them above a three-year sentence which means they would be technically disqualified—does this actually disqualify them from voting or does this provision just simply mean the prison manager must advise the Electoral Commission of that and then the Electoral Commission must do the disqualification?"
Little AndrewHon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): Well any number of members could take responsibility for the flaws in the bill but actually a lot of it sits on that side of the Chamber. In any event the bill was passed and it was very clear that it could be fixed. That undertaking was given that night because all parties in Government accepted that it needed to be fixed. That was the commitment we made to each other and we have done that. There are no Supplementary Order Papers to pollute or contaminate this process and we are in the process of correcting the flaws in the bill.
Brown SimeonSIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): So why did the Minister then pass the bill and vote for it in the third reading knowing that it was a flawed bill?
Little AndrewHon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): The member asked a very good question and the member may or may not know that when the original bill—the one that was passed last week in its deformed state—went to the select committee because the select committee was split was equally divided it could not make a decision on the bill including an obvious improvement to it that actually members opposite wanted and so the bill was returned unchanged. Of course there was no guarantee or indication that were that bill to be returned to the select committee the select committee was in any better position to do anything other than what it did before which was not make a decision and refer the bill back to the House unchanged. On that basis given the track record of that committee in its handling of this legislation there was no merit at all in returning the bill to that select committee.
Brown SimeonSIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you Madam Chair. I've listened very carefully to the Minister's answers to those questions from my colleague Chris Penk and the Minister of Justice tried to assert some sort of shambolic behaviour on behalf of the National Party in his comments. I'd like to ask the Minister: why did he not support the motion by the Hon Nick Smith to put the bill back to select committee after the committee of the whole House last week?
Little AndrewHon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): I thank the member for his question about Te Tiriti o Waitangi. The truth is the Waitangi Tribunal recommended that the disqualification on any prisoner be removed. That was the Waitangi Tribunal and it laid out a case for that and it said that Māori who are deregistered if you like or dis-enrolled from the electoral roll are nearly 12 times more likely not to re-enrol and therefore to vote than Pākehā who were affected by the legislation. In any event as the member knows—as indeed the Government of the day did in 1993—a judgment gets made about what fits a modern democratic principle. A principle that can be easily defended because I think New Zealanders understand—which might explain why 78 percent of submitters to the original bill supported it—is that those who were in prison in one election and who by dint of the fact they were on a sentence of less than three years are guaranteed to be out of prison by the next election must have a right to have a say on who is leading the country that they are going to be released free into. That is the underlying principle of this bill.
Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Is the Electoral Act which this amendment bill seeks to amend going to be consistent with the Treaty of Waitangi—as in I suppose if I were to rephrase the question: does the Minister expect that the Waitangi Tribunal would consider that the Electoral Act which this bill amends will not represent a breach of Te Tiriti o Waitangi following the passage of this bill?
Little AndrewHon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): Well I think it is a matter ultimately for the Chair but it has been correct for members on all sides of the Chamber to put some context around the legislation. Most members I think have spoken to the legislation but I can't account for it and it's not my responsibility particularly for members opposite and the contributions they make. If the member is concerned about what some of his colleagues have said—and I agree with him; he should be concerned about them—that is a matter for him and his caucus.
Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you Madam Chair and again thank you to the Minister. If it is not relevant to the passage of this particular piece of legislation that prisoners should have the right to vote as determined by various senior courts why have the Minister and other Government MPs been referring to that numerous times throughout the legislation—throughout the passage of this bill tonight?
Little AndrewHon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): No that wasn't the advertised objective. I'm not sure where that member and his colleague Mr Falloon are getting their advice from. They're watching a different channel or something—I don't know. But the stated objective of this bill was to correct the errors or the oversights or the inconsistencies of last week's legislation. So this bill is focused on two principal things and one is the duties or obligations on prison officers to give advice to prisoners. So whereas last week's legislation required prison officers to give advice to prisoners—all prisoners—regardless of length of sentence that they were entitled to be on the roll when demonstrably they're not and to collect information and pass it to the Electoral Commission that is fixed in this bill. The other thing that is fixed is whereas before—and indeed in the legislation passed by the National Government in 1993—the Electoral Commission had the right to remove from the roll disqualified voters that power is being reinstated in this bill. Those are the things that are happening in this bill. Whatever else that member thinks was advertised he's got the wrong advertisement or the wrong product or he is watching the wrong channel. But what I said about this bill is what is happening.
Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you Madam Chair—in anticipation—and thank you to the Minister for that answer. But is it not true then that this bill fails to fix the problem that has been advertised to which it was supposedly the solution—namely inconsistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act?
Little AndrewHon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): Well the member will know that what this bill does—this bill does not change the rules about qualification or for that matter disqualification for voting or enrolling. That was last week's bill. What this bill does is deal with the administrative end of it which because of the shenanigans that happened last week means that the administrative provisions—that is to say the duty or obligation or role of prison officers to give advice to prisoners who might otherwise be eligible to vote and indeed the collection of information that is then forwarded to the Electoral Commission—are what we are correcting.The other thing that is corrected is the removal in last week's legislation of the power of the Electoral Commission to remove disqualified voters from the electoral roll. To the extent that this bill does those things it upholds their right to vote in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act it is consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.
Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you Madam Chair. How can that be the case when the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act has been said to be inconsistent not only by our previous Attorney-General but also senior courts as the Minister of Justice has referred to in that it does not afford to all prisoners the right to vote and the net effect of this bill including in conjunction with the previous bill tabled last week was such that some prisoners remain unable to vote.
Little AndrewHon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): Yes that is precisely what it does.
Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you Madam Chair. I am grateful to the Minister for his comments. Taking the Minister at his word that that will be made available can I ask without having had the benefit of reading it does the advice or the report of the Attorney-General state that the net effect of this legislation will be that the Electoral Act is consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act?
Little AndrewHon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): I think it would be helpful if all members of the House could proceed on the basis that all members of the House vote in a consistent and principled fashion but we've got past that part. So look the reality is that when events happen like the ones last week and we're called upon in very short order to remediate them processes don't go as smoothly as they might otherwise do. But with all due respect particularly to that member who commands an enormous amount of respect on the other side of the House because of the thoughtful approach to lawmaking that he takes the reality is that whatever that member and his colleagues might say about members on this side of the House—whether members from the Green Party whether me—the truth is that members on that side of the House bear responsibility for what happened last week too. Do not demand of members on this side of the House perfection that that member and his colleagues have shown they're incapable of demonstrating.
Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you Madam Chair. Does the Minister believe it would be helpful for that to be available to members of Parliament prior to the passage of legislation or indeed its introduction more particularly?
Little AndrewHon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): It can be made available very shortly. We've just got to crank up the photocopier.
Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you Madam Chair. To the Minister: is that publicly available?
Little AndrewHon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): I can in fact assist the member and indeed possibly even correct myself that the Attorney-General has indeed provided advice. I have it in my hands—in relation to this very specific bill; that is the No. 2 bill—and it confirms that it is consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. It is dated 26 June.
Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you Madam Chair. So do I understand the Minister correctly that his view of a common-sense approach to lawmaking is more important than the law itself in terms of the procedure that is to be followed with legislation being introduced in this House?
Little AndrewHon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): Well I suppose for those of us who live in the common-sense world in the world of practicality we don't sort of do things over and over again if we can possibly avoid it. I can't speak for this House of course or members opposite but we don't want the Crown Law Office or the Ministry of Justice having to provide identical advice for a bill which is there trying to reinstate what was in a previous bill but for the fact that there was a little bit of shall we say bobsy-die at the committee stages thanks to members opposite. So I understand the point the member is making but the reality is that member has recourse to advice from the Attorney-General that certifies that this bill is consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.
Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): To the Minister is it not the case that the law requires that a bill that is introduced to the House be subject to consideration at least by the New Zealand Attorney-General as to whether its issues engage the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act?
Little AndrewHon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): Thank you Madam Chair—that's all right. CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I was taking a breath—I was taking a breath. Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Madam Chair this is an answer that will possibly apply to many questions that the members opposite wish to ask tonight if the second reading debate speeches are anything to go by and that is this: the provisions of this bill have been before a select committee. The provisions of this bill were in the bill that was in the House last week that bill was subject to examination and scrutiny by the Justice Committee and so in answer to that member's question: the Attorney-General has provided advice in relation to identically equivalent positions in this bill that happened to be in a different bill—the bill passed last week. And that member can be reassured that these provisions are consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act which is nothing less than the High Court the Court of Appeal the Supreme Court and the Waitangi Tribunal asked for.
Penk ChrisPart 1 Amendments relating to registration of sentenced prisoners as electorsCHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Madam Chair thank you. I have a succession of questions which in the spirit of committee stage debates as we run them these days I'll address in short order on each occasion. My first question to the Minister is whether a report was produced by the Attorney-General in relation to the question of consistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act first; whether any of the issues in the bill engaged such rights; and if so whether such consistency is achieved? CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Oh the Hon—Hon Andrew Little: Andrew Little. CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): —Andrew Little—yes.
Little AndrewIn CommitteeHon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): I seek leave for all provisions of the bill to be taken as one debate.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is.
McAnulty KieranKIERAN McANULTY (Labour): I'm amazed. I'm amazed at the gall of the other speaker that would dare tonight of all nights mention a leaked poll—the night that Newshub published their own leaked poll that had Labour at 55 percent. So I stand here with utter confidence Mr Simon O'Connor that this side of the House knows exactly what the public wants. What they do not want is that party playing silly games. There they were standing last week patting themselves on the back and giving themselves high-fives because they thought they'd pulled a swifty. Then they looked at the news and no one covered it because the media realised that they were pathetic—that they thought they were cool but they weren't. It was a reminder of back in the old school days.But here we are fixing the mess that they needed—DEPUTY SPEAKER: Talk to the bill.KIERAN McANULTY: That's right. It's a great bill. We are fixing this mess and having to come back unnecessarily because the National Party wanted to play games. It hasn't worked for them. It's not going to work for them at the election. I have absolutely no hesitation in commending this bill to the House.
Warren-Clark AngieANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Thank you Madam Speaker. I'm delighted to take a very short call this evening on this bill and very very pleased to commend it to the House. However before I take my seat I'd just like to say I'm very pleased to be standing and speaking because what you will see from this side of the House is a clear and consistent plan to follow through on what we wanted to do. What you'll see from the Opposition is flip-flopping and they're constantly doing it. I commend this bill to the House.DEPUTY SPEAKER: I won't see anything—I mean I will see it but don't bring me into the debate. That's not a good use of you". I know we've loosened it up but that's not a good use."
Kanongata'a-Suisuiki AnahilaANAHILA KANONGATA'A-SUISUIKI (Labour): Kia ora Te Mana Whakawā. Kei te tautoko ahau i tēnei pire ki Te Whare. Kia ora.[Greetings Madam Speaker. I support this bill to the House. Thank you.]
Swarbrick ChlöeCHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green): E Te Māngai tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. Well done National! You guys won the game of politics. I hope that you feel really stoked about this situation.Just to make it really clear to members of the general public who are listening to this debate in the House today how we got here is that the National Party decided that they would vote for half of a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP). The first half of that SOP would have enfranchised all prisoners. The second half required that prison officers had to enrol and register prisoners basically to enable the first half of that Supplementary Order Paper in the name of my colleague Golriz Ghahraman. The National Party decided in the committee of the whole House stage of the first iteration of this bill that it would be really fun not to vote for that first part but to vote for the second so that they could bring us all back here so that we had to do this second round under urgency to remedy that mistake. And well done well done! This is what you guys wanted. Cool; you won. We're quite happy to say that you won on this point. You played the game but you played the game with people's lives and you have wasted time in Parliament which you are now—Simeon Brown: That member is a disgrace.CHLÖE SWARBRICK: I will not be called a disgrace by members of the Opposition who are happy to tell me what to do with my uterus and take away my right to marry. So the National Party have played the game of politics. They've played it well but that's all that they can claim today. It's not the moral high ground in any way shape or form. And in fact I think that most New Zealanders would be gutted if not disgusted to see this time in the House wasted right now. We will not waste any more time debating this bill but support it and hope that we manage to get it through because it's simply common sense. The Green Party supports it.
SpeechDARROCH BALL (NZ First): Thank you Madam Speaker. I won't take too long. I just want to point out one thing that actually Chris Penk said and I want to reflect on that a little bit. So Chris Penk said that there's a difference between principle and politics. That's what he said. I can't quite compute that with what the National Party has done last week and this week. So I just want to get something straight and I want to make sure it's on record and that everyone understands why we're here. Last week the National Party voted for a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that gave all prisoners the right to be enrolled to vote. Everyone needs to understand that the National Party last week voted for an SOP that gave all prisoners the right to be enrolled to vote. That includes the Christchurch shooter. They did—the National Party did right? So that's the first thing. And what they've done is they're standing up—and David Seymour said it too on that side of the House—and they're saying that it makes the current law unworkable now. Tim van de Molen: That's right.DARROCH BALL: It makes it unworkable now. So we've got a That's right" from over that side of the House. So the National Party agrees with that. And they get up and they lecture us on how unworkable it is and what Mr Brown says is what a shambles this legislation is now. That's what he said. Mr Brown said this is a shambles now. So let's get that thing straight. Today we've got an SOP that would correct that—Tim van de Molen: There's no SOP.DARROCH BALL: —sorry legislation that would correct that—and the National Party's voting against it. So not only did the National Party vote for a piece of legislation that gave every single person in prison the right to be enrolled to vote—and they say it's a shambles of a piece of legislation now—but we've got a piece of legislation on the Table now and they're going to vote against that. Now if that's not the pure definition of disgraceful petty politics I don't know what is and I hope people are watching the level that the National Party are stooping to to make some stupid idiotic political point. Anyone over that side of the House I dare to stand up and justify why they voted for that SOP last week and are voting against something that's going to fix it this day. I dare any member of the National Party to have the courage to stand up and do that and they won't because they don't have it. I commend this bill to the House."
Lubeck MarjaMARJA LUBECK (Labour): Thank you Madam Speaker—a delight to be able to take the last call in this debate. Unlike Mr Seymour I was in my room watching this debate play out last week and was absolutely astonished to see the disarray and shambles on that side of the House. Normally they pretend to be quite organised but what I saw play out there was total total disarray. I sort of think it has an explanation to do with how their party runs in general. But according to the last speaker Andrew Falloon he wanted to paint a picture of people on the other side being reasonable. Now I have to think back only to a comment of Dr Smith last week comparing this House to a Nazi establishment; so don't tell us here that that side of the House is so reasonable. I would like to say that we shouldn't be wasting the time of this Parliament. That party continuously trying to undermine the good work that is being done on this side is an absolute waste of taxpayers' money and I commend this bill to the House.
van de Molen TimTIM VAN DE MOLEN (Third Whip—National): I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It is quite appropriate for a member to react to interjections from the other side of the House and we've heard continuously through this debate Mr Little with his raucous interjections on a range of topics. For Mr Falloon to engage with that is entirely reasonable and within the Standing Orders.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): If that's what he would have been doing it would have been.
van de Molen TimTIM VAN DE MOLEN (Third Whip—National): I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Thank you Madam Speaker. Now recently we discussed Speakers' ruling 48/3 in relation to the nature of the split calls where it's an unusual arrangement" that the second person gets the remainder of the time and I'd just note that at that time we agreed that—or your ruling was that that wasn't the case in a structured split call agreed between National and Labour. But given the more relaxed or informal nature of this split call would it be appropriate under that ruling for Mr Seymour to have an additional three minutes that Mr Greg O'Connor did not use? ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): It's not a point of order and I suspect that when you raised it you may have been aware that that's not a point of order. No it is not appropriate. You could seek leave for Mr Seymour to have additional time. TIM VAN DE MOLEN (Third Whip—National): Well yes I seek leave for Mr Seymour to be given the additional three minutes that—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Ruth Dyson): Is there any objection? There is."
O'Connor Greg; Rurawhe AdrianGREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): It's not often I agree with that member the Hon David Bennett who probably makes some of the most trite speeches in this House but he did mention on this occasion how we should be here talking about the economy. We should be working on many of the things that need fixing. I came to Parliament to do just that as did most of us. And what do we end up doing? We end up with games. As a result of the Hon Nick Smith playing games last week we are back here doing this. This bill the main part of it was passed last week. Yes it restores voting rights to those who have less than three years in prison. It prepares them. It's the only chance that those people who are most alienated will ever—the only thing they'll ever do that puts them as part of mainstream society. That did pass but there was some very childish behaviour led by the Hon Nick Smith now being perpetuated by those members opposite. Hang your heads in shame. This is waste. It will be fixed today as it should be but please please don't treat this place like a playground like you did recently and force us all into this position because it is shame on those of you who are endorsing what you did. I commend this bill.Tim van de Molen: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Sorry my mistake. I should have called that as a split call. I didn't and so I've got it reversed around the wrong way but I'll now go to a five-minute call from David Seymour.
Andersen GinnyGINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): E Te Māngai kia ora thank you. Now it's interesting that we have had a refresh in the National Party with a pledge not to be opposition for opposition's sake when that is exactly what has happened with the passage of this piece of legislation. So what this bill now does this No. 2 bill is it fixes the mess and the petty politics that the National Party members played last week.What the National Party did is they voted on three parts of the bill; let's spell that out for those people watching at home. So number one they voted not to extend voting rights to prisoners. Then secondly they voted for prison managers being required to inform all prisoners that they are qualified to be registered as an elector of a district court—[Interruption]ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! A couple of things. Mr King don't bring me into the debate. And both of you and Mr Greg O'Connor stop the cross-Chamber conversation. If you want to have a conversation go outside.GINNY ANDERSEN: Kia ora. And thirdly they voted to abolish the power of the Electoral Commission to remove from the electoral roll the names of people who were disqualified from voting. What an utter mess. They had no consistency whatsoever. So if in the beginning you were opposed to the fact that prisoners should be able to vote if they're in prison for three years or longer come out and say that and stick to it. But the mess that we saw last week is an absolute shambles and it makes a mockery of the democracy that New Zealand has now.So what we need to be doing here is rectifying what was initially the law let's remind everyone and it was a private member's bill under the National Party that changed and removed that right. Subsequent to that we've had the High Court of New Zealand and the Supreme Court of New Zealand ruling in favour that prisoners have the right to vote. Personally I believe that is a good idea for people being able to be reintegrated to have a new chance and unnecessarily punitive measures that the National Party are advocating have not only been ruled against by the highest courts in New Zealand but the strong majority of people believe that if we are serious about turning around our prison population we have to have more legislation like this. I commend this bill to the House.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): The Hon David Bennett five minutes.
Ghahraman GolrizGOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN (Green): Thank you Mr Speaker. I rise to take a short call on this bill given its lack of substance and its administrative purpose this afternoon. The Green Party position is very well-known and it has been traversed by members from across the House this afternoon even in this very debate. We see the right to vote as a fundamental human right in agreeance with the New Zealand High Court the Court of Appeal the Supreme Court and the Waitangi Tribunal. We see it as an obligation of Government to ensure that all basic human rights are provided to us across this land not based on our race religion gender identity marital status or any other moral judgment of the Government of the day. That has always been our position. That is in my strengthening democracy member's bill which stands for universal restoration of the voting rights for all people in our prisons among other things and we were really happy and proud to see that a part of that member's bill was adopted by the Minister of Justice and the House last week. So that's all been very well traversed. There was a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) and it's very very usual in an MMP Government that minor parties and members who are outside of Government—as I am—may put up an SOP to further their party's position on a Government bill and have it be voted upon. Those SOPs are of course drafted by the parliamentary drafters and in this case it was in two parts and the National Party did vote on one part of that bill. Unfortunately they didn't vote on the substantive part; they voted on an administrative part which would have had the effect of requiring prison staff to inform prisoners that they have the right to vote—who don't—and retaining prisoners on the roll who don't have the right to vote because the substantive part was not voted upon. So that is an issue that we needed to tidy up because the rest of the bill has the effect of creating a vast amount of admin work for the Electoral Commission without in fact restoring anybody's right to vote. I had a conversation with the renowned constitutional lawyer and academic Andrew Geddis last week about this in which he called the effect of this bill the creation of zombie voters and so we don't want that. We do want to tidy it up but not because we are giving up on the fight to restore universal voting rights to all New Zealanders; so we will continue to push on. But we do support this bill because we do believe in having law that's consistent and effective. Thank you.
Hipkins ChrisURGENCYHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I move That urgency be accorded the passing through all stages of the Electoral (Registration of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill (No 2); the first reading referral and instruction to select committee of the Fuel Industry Bill; the second reading of the Forests (Regulation of Log Traders and Forestry Advisers) Amendment Bill; the committee stage of the New Zealand Superannuation and Veteran's Pension Legislation Amendment Bill the Rates Rebate (Statutory Declarations) Amendment Bill and the Taumata Arowai—the Water Services Regulator Bill; and the first reading and referral to select committee of the Protected Disclosures (Protection of Whistleblowers) Bill.By way of reasoning the reasons for the urgency with the Electoral (Registration of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill (No 2)—the need to progress that under urgency—were well canvassed during question time today and will be familiar to members of the House. With regard to the Fuel Industry Bill progressing this under urgency through its first reading and sending it to a select committee will give the select committee additional time than if we waited until Thursday when it would be above the line and therefore available for first reading through the normal processes of the House. The balance of the legislation that I have put in the urgency motion simply progresses one additional stage of those bills to help compensate for the lost time that Parliament was not sitting during the COVID-19 lockdown.If the urgency for the first two bills is completed before 10 o'clock tonight it is the Government's intention to end urgency and to move the extended sitting that we have already notified the Business Committee of. What I did not want to see happen though was urgency to run into early tomorrow morning and then finish and thereby lose those additional hours which is why the other bills have been included in the urgency motion.
Motions — Reserve Bank of New Zealand—Ratification of Funding Agreement
Wednesday 24 June 2020 (continued on Friday 26 June 2020) - Volume 747
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Land Transport (Rail) Legislation Bill be now read a third time.Ayes 60New Zealand Labour 45; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8; New Zealand First 7.Noes 32New Zealand National 30; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Bill read a third time.The House adjourned at 4.09 p.m. (Friday)
Land Transport (Rail) Legislation Bill — Third Reading
Land Transport (Rail) Legislation Bill — In Committee
VoteThe question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 521 in the name of the Hon Phil Twyford be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 60New Zealand Labour 45; New Zealand First 7; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 39New Zealand National 37; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Amendments agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That Parts 1 and 2 and clauses 1 and 2 as amended be agreed to.Ayes 60New Zealand Labour 45; New Zealand First 7; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 39New Zealand National 37; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Parts 1 and 2 and clauses 1 and 2 as amended agreed to.House resumed.The Chairperson reported the Land Transport (Rail) Legislation Bill with amendment.Report adopted.
Urban Development Bill — Second Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Urban Development Bill be now read a second time.Ayes 62New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 8; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 39New Zealand National 37; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.Bill read a second time.
Rates Rebate (Statutory Declarations) Amendment Bill — Second Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Rates Rebates (Statutory Declarations) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.Ayes 63New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.Noes 44New Zealand National 42; ACT New Zealand 1; RossBill read a second time.
SpeechDr PARMJEET PARMAR (National): Mr Speaker thank you. Ha ha! I just want to comment on that anti-road attitude from Chlöe Swarbrick and the Labour Government. They need to realise that buses run on roads. Buses are part of public transport systems so we do need roads not just to support motorists but also to support our buses. Putting money from one pot to the other pot is not a real investment. We want real investment if the Government is really serious about investing in our rail network. The Minister Phil Twyford was really good at using some words like sustainable system" "We need investment." "We need a multimodal transport system." We support all those things but this bill is not supporting that. So that's why we oppose this legislation. Thank you."
McKelvie IanIAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): I can't resist it Mr Speaker. I cannot resist it and the reason I cannot resist it is that I've got 10 minutes to waste because the Government by putting this bill through this afternoon has stuffed my 5 o'clock at the Fat Farmer and I'm very upset about that so I'm going to waste a bit of their time—because I'll never get back to the Fat Farmer by 5 o'clock today. I just want to remind the previous speaker that we too like rail—so much so that one of the members of my electorate yesterday brought a petition to the House trying to get the train to stop in Taumarunui.SPEAKER: Hear hear!IAN McKELVIE: The rail is so bad they won't stop in Taumarunui. So that's another reason for me not to support this bill aside from the Fat Farmer at 5 o'clock.But I just want to remind the Minister because it's ironic—irony is not meant to be used in this House I realise that but it's somewhat ironic that the last Labour Government hypothecated road funding specifically to be used for roads and this one's de-hypothecating road funding to be used for whatever we want and I thought that was quite interesting as well. I do remember the argument at the time put up mostly by Local Government New Zealand at length to get road funding dedicated to roads. And now we're un-dedicating road funding for roads. So Mr Speaker that's my short contribution.SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.Dr Parmjeet Parmar: Mr Speaker.SPEAKER: Oh I'm sorry. Dr Parmjeet Parmar. Sorry the member's got to call loud when we're trying to get out of here!