edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Hipkins Chris; Bishop ChrisBUSINESS STATEMENTHon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): Kia orana Mr Speaker. Legislation to be considered next week will include the remaining stages of the Firearms Prohibition Orders Legislation Bill and the Overseas Investment (Forestry) Amendment Bill; the second reading of the Maniapoto Claims Settlement Bill; the committee stage of the Oversight of Oranga Tamariki System and Children and Young People's Commission Bill; and the third reading of the Three Strikes Legislation Repeal Bill. The Estimates debate will begin and there will be an extended sitting on the morning of Thursday 4 August.CHRIS BISHOP (National): I thank the Leader of the House for his update. I notice that the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary Bill has now been reduced to No. 24 on the Order Paper and it's just hit its six-year anniversary of being reported back from what was then the Local Government and Environment Committee. I wonder if he has an update on passage of that bill through the House.Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I can indeed confirm that there is a lot of legislation on the Order Paper at the moment because it's a very busy and very productive Government with a busy programme for New Zealand. I can confirm though that the Kermadecs are nowhere near Te Puke.
Rurawhe AdrianTHURSDAY 4 AUGUST 2022The Deputy Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.KARAKIA/PRAYERSDEPUTY SPEAKER: Te Atua mana te 'akameitaki atu nei matou iākoe no te tākinga meitaki ta'au i riringi mai ki runga ia matou. Te 'akaruke nei matou i to matou tu tangata. Te 'akamā'ara nei matou i te Ariki Vaine e te pure nei matou kia arataki koe i ta matou 'uri'uri'anga manako kia rave matou i ta matou 'anga'anga i roto i teia ngutu'are na roto i te pakari te tuatua tika e te 'ākono'anga meitaki no te ao e to matou basileia Nūtirēni na roto i te ingoa o Iesu Mesia 'Āmene.
Tuesday 2 August 2022 (continued on Wednesday 3 August 2022) - Volume 761
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the question be now put.Ayes 75New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Noes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Motion agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The question is that Nicola Grigg's amendment to clause 2 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 207 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Noes 75New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Amendment not agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 2 be agreed to.Ayes 77New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Clause 2 agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Members we have a few seconds before I can report progress—oh no; we've got no seconds!Progress to be reported.House resumed.
Animal Welfare Amendment Bill — In Committee—Clause 2
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the question be now put.Ayes 75New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Noes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Motion agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 1 be agreed to.Ayes 75New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10.Noes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Clause 1 agreed to.Debate interrupted.
Animal Welfare Amendment Bill — In Committee—Clause 1
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the question be now put.Ayes 77New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Motion agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 1 be agreed to.Ayes 77New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Clause 1 agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): The question is that the Minister's amendment to clause 2 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 187 be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 87New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 33New Zealand National 33.Amendment agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 2 as amended be agreed to.Ayes 77New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Clause 2 as amended agreed to.Bill to be reported with amendment.
Three Strikes Legislation Repeal Bill — In Committee—Clauses 1 and 2
VoteCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the Minister's amendment to Part 2 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 187 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 85New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; ACT New Zealand 10.Noes 33New Zealand National 33. Amendment agreed to.The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 85 Noes 32.A party vote was called for on the question That Part 2 as amended be agreed to.Ayes 77New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Part 2 as amended agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the Minister's amendment to the Schedule set out on Supplementary Order Paper 187 and the tabled amendment be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 87New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 33New Zealand National 33.Amendments agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Golriz Ghahraman's amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 180 is out of order as being inconsistent with the previous decision of the committee.A party vote was called for on the question That the Schedule as amended be agreed to.Ayes 77New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Schedule as amended agreed to.
Three Strikes Legislation Repeal Bill — In Committee—Part 2
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That Part 1 be agreed to.Ayes 77New Zealand Labour 65; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 43New Zealand National 33; ACT New Zealand 10.Part 1 agreed to.
Rurawhe AdrianREPORT OF COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE HOUSECHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Mr Speaker the committee has considered the Three Strikes Legislation Repeal Bill and reports it with amendment. The committee has also considered the New Zealand Bill of Rights (Declarations of Inconsistency) Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment. The committee has also considered the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill and reports progress. I move That the report be adopted. Motion agreed to.Report adopted.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ian McKelvie): The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. today. The House adjourned at 12.56 p.m. (Wednesday)
Andersen GinnyGINNY ANDERSEN (Labour—Hutt South): I move That the question be now put.
Cameron MarkMARK CAMERON (ACT): Thank you Mr Chair. Minister farming looks pretty easy when your plough is a pencil and you're a thousand miles away from the field. I know as a farmer every day farming has got more expensive. As you will have heard in this House today—it's been canvased on this side of the Chamber—this trade is worth tens of thousands of dollars to those that are involved in it. The figures out of Infometrics have alluded to moneys in between $49000 and $116000 per farm. How do you reconcile that to my previous question when I stated that we are in a cost of living crisis and this House has conceded that point historically and as of today on-farm pressures have grown exponentially fuel has gone up exponentially fertiliser costs have got up exponentially and here we are: you're taking away in some instances tens of thousands even hundreds of thousands of dollars from those that use this trade. Can you please for the sake of everyone in this House with some transparency tell these farmers how on earth with less than a year to go they can reconcile their fiscal and business models? I think rural New Zealand deserves an answer.
O'Connor DamienHon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister of Agriculture): The commencement date of 30 April 2023 we think is a fair and just date. I announced this in 2019. We've provided the industry with two years' transition. The risks to our reputation from the ongoing trade we thought was acceptable to provide the industry with a fair and just transition. We've seen the Supplementary Order Paper but we will not be supporting it.
Kuriger BarbaraBARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): Thank you Mr Chair. I would also like to encourage the Minister to pick up the Supplementary Order Paper in the name of Nicola Grigg around the commencement date.So there's a couple of reasons that I think are very strong reasons for pushing this date out further. One of them is that since this whole shambolic process started a war has broken out between Russia and Ukraine and food security is of the essence. We heard yesterday that a large number of these animals are actually going for milking animals so that populations who are buying these animals can feed milk to their children. Now the Minister may well say that Yes we are fit for a better world and we feed you know this proportion with high quality products."—some of it's still going out in commodity I must note. But actually if we take out a proportion of what we produce and what we present it doesn't matter what category of food value you put it in it leaves a gap in the food security of the world. So that is one reason this was unforeseen at the time that Cabinet made the decision not to listen to the submitters in the Primary Production Committee.The second reason is that Minister you said yourself this morning we are going to have to as an industry have a major discussion about the bobby calf industry. It's going to be a very difficult thing to replace given the nature of our farming systems and how they work. By the Minister putting this option on the table and taking out the live export option you're taking away options from those people who choose to give those animals a further life and send them to another country where food security is questionable as we say. So one of the things that the Government's not been good at is thinking about the consequences of its actions. I think given that and given that the Government is always talking about just transitions—we haven't seen any just transitions yet—we want fair and affordable transitions to anything this Government might propose even though we don't agree with what the Government's trying to do here. I think in fairness to the industry and to the sector and to everyone involved in agriculture in New Zealand wouldn't it make sense Minister to have a fair and just transition? Let's look at the bobby calf industry first before we take drastic steps like as proposed in this legislation."
Cameron MarkMARK CAMERON (ACT): Thank you Mr Chair. Evidently the commencement date of this legislation is 30 April 2023. Minister you're cognisant—I can only hope—that we're in a cost of living crisis never more felt than in rural New Zealand. The Federated Farmers survey that you probably saw yesterday said that confidence in rural New Zealand has never been so blessed low since 2009 when the survey first started. Minister this is a $261 million economic earner to that part of rural New Zealand and I'd wager anyone worth their salt it's worth significantly more.Talking about the commencement date sir—and I know Mr Chair might call me up if I go over—we are talking about the commencement date and this is less effectually than a year away. This is a massive economic earner. It gives farmers surety and less than a year away this economic fiscal income is being taken from them. We are living in a cost of living crisis never more felt than in the rural sector—the price of fuel price of fertiliser everything is going through the roof and farmer confidence has tanked. Why on earth would you expedite this date through this piece of legislation? I think the rural sector deserves an answer. You've got to come clean with it and explain why.
Rurawhe AdrianANIMAL WELFARE AMENDMENT BILLIn CommitteeDebate resumed.Clause 2 CommencementCHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): We come now to clause 2. This is the debate on the commencement. The question is that clause 2 stand part. I will be listening very carefully to make sure that this very narrow debate will be about the commencement.
Voting — Correction—Three Strikes Legislation Repeal Bill
Rurawhe AdrianVOTINGCorrection—Three Strikes Legislation Repeal BillCHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Before I call on clause 2 I have a correction to a vote that was held earlier on Part 2 of the Three Strikes Legislation Repeal Bill. The question was that the Minister's amendment to Part 2 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 187 be agreed to. The vote was declared as Noes 32. It should be Noes 33. That was the National Party vote. So the record will be corrected to Ayes 85 Noes 33.
SpeechHon EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Tēnā koe Mr Chair. Thank you. So as the Minister noted the bill is about the welfare of animals. Fish are defined as an animal under the Animal Welfare Act. So there's a Supplementary Order Paper in my name to expand the bill to include the ban of the live export of eels. I acknowledge the work that the Minister has done and the huge work by organisations like Save Animals from Exploitation and by Mojo Mathers and Gareth Hughes on this topic of live export of sheep and beef. But eels as the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment has highlighted are under significant threat and on a pathway to extinction. Extinction is a fundamental animal welfare issue. So what consideration did the Minister give given that the bulk of the export of eels are live eels and New Zealand has no ability to control how those eels are treated or killed at their final destination? So there are two issues: the fact that eels are exported is contributing to fishing pressure and to their decline which could lead to extinction—CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Yeah I'm going to remind this member that this debate is about clause 1 the title not Part 1 or 2 so the member can carry on.Hon EUGENIE SAGE: So just two questions to the Minister: in terms of bringing in the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill what consideration did he give to other species such as eels and will he give any consideration to that in future amendments to the Act?
Webb Duncan; Rurawhe AdrianDr DUNCAN WEBB (Chief Whip—Labour): Point of order. Mr Chair I wonder if to ease debate and noting the member's speech I can seek leave that the bill be taken as one question.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): OK. Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection. Who would like a call on clause 1? I call Nicola Grigg.
Cameron MarkMARK CAMERON (ACT): Thank you Mr Chair for the opportunity to question the Minister on the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill.This is ideological as I would assert. It's the idle vapourings of an ideological mind all asunder. We're trying to ascertain in the rural sector what the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill will ultimately mean to rural New Zealand.I ask of the Minister to give clarity to multiple parts of the bill. How does he reconcile that this blurs the lines as has been asserted with the downing of Gulf Livestock 1 and animal welfare of animals in transit? I'm trying to ascertain that.Obviously we acknowledge that there was a terrible loss of life but how does he reconcile this difference that Ministry for Primary Industries reviewed the transport of animal livestock in 2019 and found that it could continue? I acknowledge that Mr Chair's going to ask me in quick succession to speak on the first part of the bill but this speaks to the onerous nature of yet another piece of legislation that is going to affect the rural sector.My question to the Minister is: how does he reconcile the $261 million loss to the rural sector in terms of an economic earning revenue stream? There have been assertions that this could potentially be $475 million over two years in short order should—CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Can I remind the member that we're on clause 1 which is the title not a second reading speech about the whole overall bill. If you could relate your comments to the title that would be great. Thank you.MARK CAMERON: Thank you Mr Chair. Thank you for the opportunity. I reiterate my concerns in regards to the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill. There are real concerns that this has been blurred between what is the animal welfare issues that this seeks to address and is it not an ideological blurring of the lines between animal welfare in transit and the downing of the Gulf Livestock 1 ship? Can the Minister please clarify the difference in that regard?
Rurawhe AdrianANIMAL WELFARE AMENDMENT BILLIn CommitteeClause 1 TitleCHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I remind members that they are able to participate remotely. If you are on Zoom and want to take a call please type call" into the chat. You should also use the chat if you want to raise a point of order. If we receive a new tabled amendment I will advise members so that they can refresh the House papers page to see the new amendment. Finally it would be helpful for members to ask multiple questions if they have them of the member in charge during their call. Members we come first to the debate on clause 1."
New Zealand Bill of Rights (Declarations of Inconsistency) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Clauses 1 and 2
Rurawhe AdrianClauses 1 and 2CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Members we come now to the final debate—clauses 1 and 2. This is the debate on the title and commencement. The question is that clause 1 stand part.Clause 1 agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The question is that clause 2 stand part.Clause 2 agreed to.Bill to be reported without amendment.
New Zealand Bill of Rights (Declarations of Inconsistency) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Part 2
Mooney JosephJOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you Mr Chair. To the Minister I just note that the Privileges Committee recommended that new section 7A of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act in clause 4 of the bill and new section 92WA of the Human Rights Act in clause 7 of the bill be amended to clarify that the Attorney-General must notify" rather than "report to" Parliament and it made this comment that "We see the Attorney-General's role here as being to bring the declaration into the House's consideration rather than reporting substantively on the declaration." I wonder if you could just clarify for the committee what is intended by the notification that the Attorney-General would make to the House what would be contained in that and what would be the substance of it? Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Justice): I thank the member Mr Mooney and also just acknowledge his significant legal expertise and the fact that he has practised in the courts for many years. His legal eye is appreciated when it comes to these technical reforms. Mr Mooney the change in the new section 7A in clause 4 which is that the Attorney-General must "notify" rather than "report to" Parliament is a relatively technical change. The bill as introduced drew the attention of the House to the declaration but it did not require the Government to table a response and that was to avoid pre-empting the deliberations of Parliament by requiring the Government to take a position on the declaration before there had been any discussion in the Parliament. This did not mean that the Government could ignore the declaration but it is up to the Parliament to decide its procedure for responding to that declaration. So just to clarify it's that notification rather than "report to" or provide a report—notify us in this House—and then it is up to us as parliamentarians and the executive to determine our appropriate response. CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): The question is that Part 1 be agreed to. Part 1 agreed to."
New Zealand Bill of Rights (Declarations of Inconsistency) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Part 1
SpeechHon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Justice): I thank the member for the question and I'm happy to spend some time to answer that because I think it is a very important distinction that the member raises. So where these provisions that we're introducing today will apply is not whether courts find that there is a right within the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act that is not justifiable"—you know we see those statements within the courts relatively infrequently—but it's where it is "unjustifiably inconsistent". That threshold there is something quite distinct and indeed we've only seen that in one instance in the duration of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act since its enactment in 1990. So it's very limited to those circumstances.In those very limited circumstances where that declaration of inconsistency is issued by the courts as I said that then is where this process kicks in. It's raised to our attention as legislators and as members of the executive to be able to provide that response."
Goldsmith PaulHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): I suppose I'm not sort of reassured. The point that my colleague Mr Woodhouse is making is if the court decides that there has been an inconsistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and by extension it is not justified and that is the decision that the court sends through to Parliament—that there's been no breach and it's not justified—my understanding of the logic of this bill is that Parliament has to respond to it. An acceptable response ultimately is Well we don't agree. We think it is justified." That I suppose creates a tension between the two parts of Government. Is that an acceptable tension? Let's be clear my understanding is a legitimate response from the Parliament of the day—if that's what the court was saying "This piece of legislation breaches the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act we don't think that the breach is justified." that Parliament could receive that and say "Well sorry we don't agree. We're going to stick with this legislation because we think it is justified." or some other grounds. And I just want to get some clarity from the Minister that that is her understanding and the Government's understanding."
SpeechHon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Justice): Thank you to the member. Look I think those are good questions to raise in this forum and to I guess provide assurances to those that are critically concerned about our constitutional arrangements about the comity between separation of powers and in particular the sequence or decision-making hierarchy and the roles of the various branches of Government. So to allay I think the member's concerns about whether or not the judiciary would be having to I guess in factual circumstances interpret—rather let me put it this way: the judiciary has the role of course of applying the interpretive function. They interpret the law. They interpret the law—they don't have to go and interpret facts so to speak. The facts are the facts. They interpret the law. They apply that and make that declaration of whether or not they determine that there is an inconsistency in the law. Of course section 4 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act provides the further clarifications around the fact that a court cannot strike down or do what other courts may be able to do in different jurisdictions. This bill is relatively simple therefore. It says that where the courts determine that there is an inconsistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act it essentially says to us in the legislature and the executive There's a declaration."—brings it to our attention—"It's up to you as to how you wish to respond to that." So on those grounds about any of the concerns raised—and I appreciate that you've been in those discussions with the Privileges Committee and heard from those experts that I hope also helped to allay those fears. But thank you for bringing that to the consideration of the House today."
SpeechHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you Mr Chair. I just want to flesh out the Minister's response regarding what she described as a set of facts". This will be relevant I think when we come to Part 2 and the certain powers that we might be giving organisations that don't currently have jurisdiction or lawmaking powers. Effectively what we're doing here is not so much saying that something is a breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act overall but the question of whether under section 5 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act the limitation on a person's human rights is justified in the circumstances. Because essentially we already have a legal framework that means for both the courts and Parliament a restriction on a person's rights can be justified under section 5. So any declaration of inconsistency I would imagine has to meet two legs.One is firstly it is a restriction on a person's rights as set out in the Act; and secondly that it is not justified. Because if it was justified we wouldn't be issuing a declaration. So the question of fact that the Minister raises is a really important one because it goes back to my earlier question about the degree to which the court then changed a law because it seems to me that is a common-law declaration of a fact about a piece of legislation that we have passed. I accept the points that the Minister made in response to my question about section 4; section 4 is still I guess pre-eminent in the sense that nothing the courts say or do can have the effect of revoking legislation that this House makes. I get that. But I do highlight a potential conflict.If under section 7A a court is then saying "As a matter of fact it's an unjustified limitation and therefore inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights" that could raise some quite significant legal—a constitutional conundrum even if indeed then somebody takes further court action to say on the basis of that legislation the court should strike out the law. Now they don't have that constitutional power as I understand it. But what I'm trying to do is avoid a situation where that's even possible because we need to protect fiercely the separation between the judiciary and Parliament. And I having gone through this at length through the committee and having heard from a number of experts I'm still a little uncomfortable that if what we are talking about is a question of fact rather than an opinion that then gets debated in this House that has a slightly different impact."
SpeechHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Just a quick follow-up question. I apologise to my colleague Mr Goldsmith who is our justice spokesperson but having been on the committee I think there are a couple of things I did want to flesh out. This is probably a reasonably complex legal question. Is the Minister saying therefore that if a court determines that a part of an Act or an Act itself is inconsistent with the Bill of Rights Act that is a matter of fact not in a legal—sort of a judicial opinion and therefore can't be further fleshed out by any other court? That it basically ends the process and that this Parliament has to accept unquestioningly—effectively it's almost a common-law judgment on a piece of legislation and that then becomes a fact for all time? Because if the answer to that question is yes then it probably means that the process that we need to follow isn't that different whether or not the Attorney-General has provided a Bill of Rights Act vet as the Minister said as a kind of a prediction of the future. So it's a quite complex piece of jurisprudence I think. I'm not a lawyer but it seems to me then that the new section 7A process this House would need to follow and the Attorney-General would need to follow if such a declaration is made isn't going to be that different regardless of what the Attorney-General had already said in respect of the bill when it was being considered.Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Justice): Yeah look I appreciate the member's line of inquiry though I do think it's just important to be clear that no—so first things first in the entire duration of the Bill of Rights Act being enacted there's only ever been one declaration of inconsistency. Often courts can on various factual circumstances say these things might not align here here and here. But to actually bring forth a declaration of inconsistency is a very high threshold. So in those very limited circumstances where the senior courts in particular have determined that they should be required to provide a declaration of inconsistency all that this does in a sense is it just provides some belts and braces—a process by which to bring that to the attention of the House. Of course it's for the House to determine and do what it feels is appropriate. There's no instructive mechanism there by the courts to be able to do anything other than note that there is that declaration of inconsistency.
SpeechNEW ZEALAND BILL OF RIGHTS (DECLARATIONS OF INCONSISTENCY) AMENDMENT BILLIn CommitteePart 1 Amendment to New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): Members we come now to the New Zealand Bill of Rights (Declarations of Inconsistency) Amendment Bill. I think just again it would be helpful if members were to ask multiple questions if they have them of the member in charge during their call. Members we now come to Part 1. This is the debate on clauses 3 and 4 Amendment to New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990". The question is that Part 1 stand part."
Webb DuncanDr DUNCAN WEBB (Chief Whip—Labour): I move That the question be now put.CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): The question is that the question be now put. No? The Ayes have it? A party vote has been called for. Hon Mark Mitchell: Mr Chair—CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): We put the motion.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Point of order. Mr Chair we've just had a vote and you declared the vote for the Noes which means that—CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): No I did not. I did not declare the vote for the Noes. I said The Noes have it" "The Ayes have it" and then I called a party vote and the Clerk was about to conduct a party vote when the Hon Mark Mitchell attempted to take a call.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I'm very happy to have a party vote but I would point out that it's at the discretion of the committee not the Chair to decide whether a party vote is necessary.CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): I accept that. I called for a party vote on the basis of what I heard. Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: We heard no. CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): And I heard yes and no."
Mitchell MarkHon MARK MITCHELL (National—Whangaparāoa): Thank you Mr Chair. I just want to reinforce the comments made by the Hon Paul Goldsmith and I would ask the Minister to respond to that around the commencement and around her plans and the Government's plans in terms of introducing that legislation because he raises a very good point.Currently in the country we have got organised crime gang members and even a tsunami of youth and juvenile offending whereby they feel like they can operate with impunity. It's obvious that they feel that there's no consequences that they're untouchable. It's made our front-line police officers' job a lot more dangerous. It's made it much more dangerous for members of the public. The fact of the matter is the criminal fraternity don't like this legislation. They don't like three-strikes legislation. It's too tough for them there's actually consequences. And so at a time in our country when we are experiencing an increase in violent crime at 21 percent when we're experiencing a massive growth in gang members when we're seeing ram raids when we're seeing domestic firearms incidents in the last two weeks in Auckland with homicides related back to gang members how is the Government going to manage the messaging around commencement of this—around the fact that this Parliament or this Government is removing the legislation that in terms of the organised crime criminal and gang members' eyes was tough unfair legislation that they didn't like.So I think that the messaging around that from the Government is going to be critically important so that they don't just continue to throw more fuel on the fire of a bonfire that a soft on crime Government has built and is now going to be very very difficult to get under control. For some reason it's beyond me this Government—well it's not beyond me because it completely aligns with their ideology is they've come in at a time when New Zealand is experiencing the worst crime wave and the most gun violence we've ever had as a nation. And these guys are repealing the only piece of legislation that actually wrapped some tough sentencing around the people that are committing that crime. So I'd like to know what their messaging is going to be and how they're going to deal with that around commencement.
Goldsmith PaulHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): I suppose the other relevant factor when it comes to when this bill takes effect is the climate that we're experiencing in terms of crime and criminality in this country. It's never a good day I would argue to enact a piece of legislation that sends a message that we're too tough on the worst repeat serious offenders as a country. That's the message that this legislation is passing. So I'd just be interested to know whether any kind of thought will be given to that because you know every day we open up we turn on our phones and see another few shops have been smashed up we open up and we see another few people have been shot in Auckland sadly. People's lives have been upturned victims have been created and that sense of lawlessness in our cities and our countryside continues. So I suppose the question I have for the Minister is what day is a good day for this Government to declare that given all the situations that we face in terms of the breakdown of law and order right now what we need to do is reduce sentences for our worst repeat serious offenders because that's the problem that's most pressing in the justice system.
Goldsmith PaulClauses 1 and 2CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members we come now to our final debate: clauses 1 and 2. This is the debate on the title and commencement. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you Madam Chair. Obviously the date of commencement is the subject of a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP). I think it is slightly emblematic of this Government that they would have introduced a bill starting on a date which has already passed and are then having to have an SOP to change that date.There is sort of a Keystone Kops element to the way that the Government has been operating for the last little while. It's a bit like they spend $800 million on a cost of living payment to go to Kiwis and then they go offshore to French backpackers and so forth. You couldn't dream up this stuff if you were scripting The Thick of It or something like that but these things happen day in day out. It's a bit like the Minister in Sydney in charge of the Olympic Games. He goes down and discovers that the 100-metre track is only 95 metres and it's a bit of a mess and there's a bit of a crisis in the ministerial office trying to figure out how we'd get the 100-metre track to 95 metres.We now finally have this piece of legislation before the House which was meant to commence before we've passed it so the poor old Minister has to—she's a new Minister and I suppose it's fair to say that she could probably point towards Kris Faafoi as being responsible for this minor little muck-up but a muck-up nevertheless. I suppose the broader point is that given these kinds of pretty basic mistakes being made on a regular basis what confidence have we got that we're not going to be back in the House fixing up another little element of this which has been another mistake which they haven't caught in time for an SOP and I could speculate as to what that could be. They could easily have missed some of the Acts that need to be amended. It wouldn't surprise me if they've missed a couple and that's how that works.So I suppose the question I have to the Minister is now that we're going to move the date that it comes in until after the Royal assent and given that mistake how can she reassure us that there won't be other mistakes in this legislation that this House will have to come back and fix soon?Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Justice): I thank the member Paul Goldsmith for his contribution. It's a fair question with respect to why there is a Supplementary Order Paper tabled to amend the date. House time has been few and far between and with the flurry of activity on this side of the House to pass law and good law it is appropriate that we pass that Supplementary Order Paper to amend the date to be the day after the date of Royal assent. It's a common-sense pragmatic amendment and I don't anticipate that it will bring any further consternation to this House.
Mitchell MarkHon MARK MITCHELL (National—Whangaparāoa): Minister firstly I just want to acknowledge you addressing my question and the fact that you have shifted the Labour position. You've done a 180 degree turn and you've acknowledged that actually the example that I gave that was used by a previous Labour justice Minister to try to trivialise a serious sexual assault on a female Corrections officer as a pinch on the bottom and as a rationale for being able to repeal this bill—you have rejected that and you have acknowledged that actually that is a serious sexual assault that would be captured under section 129. That was like music to my ears so thank you. Minister I want to ask you what advice you have received and whether or not there has been any analysis done around risk in terms of the new list that you have brought to the House in Part 2 around sentencing and whether or not with the removal of the three-strikes component there is now a risk that there may be lighter sentences applied or parole that the offenders are eligible for that may mean that they're back out of jail quicker sooner than they would have been under the three-strikes legislation and what risk that poses to the community and what impact that has on the victims because that is a serious serious consequence of what you are proposing. It's a serious consequence of what this Government is doing in the repeal of the three-strikes legislation. I would hope that there was some serious work undertaken by her officials to be able to model that and to be able to anticipate whether or not—with the repeal of the three strikes—there was any elevated risk of lighter sentencing earlier parole and serious violent recidivist offenders being back out in the community earlier than they would have under three-strikes legislation.
SpeechHon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Justice): Thank you for that question. I think it's a really important one. I don't consider any offence of any kind to be minimal where it can be categorised as a significant offence. That person that victim would have no doubt felt shame and humiliation and everything that we have these penalties in place for. What I am assured of and this comes back to my friend Minister—Mr O'Connor's point—Simon O'Connor: I liked where you were going there.Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: I'm happy to flick you a cheeky one my friend. All of those offences that are listed like sexual violation all of those incredibly serious violent offences stay exactly that—serious violent offences where the judiciary has discretion to apply the appropriate penalty. No one on this side of the Chamber is arguing that anything in that offence list is inappropriate or should not be deemed as a serious violent offence. Secondly just on the question around the statistics for those that suffer serious mental health issues the report that I have from Corrections is that 91 percent of incarcerated people have serious and significant mental health afflictions.
Mitchell MarkHon MARK MITCHELL (National—Whangaparāoa): Thank you Madam Speaker. I've got a couple of questions for the Minister in terms of how the repeal and new Part 2 is going to interact with sentencing and the dealing of—and she mentioned this in her opening statement or has mentioned this maybe in the House yesterday around the increase in sexual offending. One of the examples that was used and I think it was a very poor example when her predecessor was looking at trying to repeal the three-strikes legislation was a sexual assault on a female Corrections officer and this was committed in her workplace where she was cornered and the offender grabbed her with a sexual intent and nature. It was characterised by the then Government justice Minister Andrew Little as a pinch on the bottom which I couldn't believe in a modern New Zealand that we are trying to trivialise a sexual attack on a woman in her workplace. I want to know whether or not she also considers as the new justice Minister that that is a minor level of offending that shouldn't be captured by the three-strikes legislation and why she feels that it shouldn't be captured by the three-strikes legislation. And now that it's being repealed how is it going to be dealt with in the new Part 2? I would assume that it would be captured under section 129 inserted by clause 22 (4) (attempted sexual violation and assault with intent to commit sexual violation)" which in my view is a serious offence."
SpeechSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): I'll try not to be verbose I think I spoke for 42 seconds in my last questions versus the five-and-a-bit minutes from the Minister. Thank you for the comments around the nature of the offences. If someone's got 60 or so we absolutely accept some of those will be driving cannabis and so forth. But it would be useful if the Minister could acknowledge perhaps that also on those wrap sheets are exceptionally serious offences and it's that serious-level offending which triggered what will soon be I suspect previous three-strikes legislation. That's the first question.The second which she didn't answer earlier is: what are some examples of the crimes which triggered three-strikes legislation and if it—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order! The member might care to help the Chair and identify which clause in Part 2 he's referring to. SIMON O'CONNOR: Delighted to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): I'm looking but I can't find it.SIMON O'CONNOR: Well if I might Madam Chair clause 22 which lists a variety of specified violent offences which I was about to ask the Minister are they the similar or same offences which have been—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): OK. Thank you—thank you.SIMON O'CONNOR: That's OK. So to the Minister can she indicate via clause 22 are the list of those now specified violent offences some or all of the serious offences that once triggered three-strikes legislation such as sexual violation sexual connection with a child; attempted murder; aggravated injury; discharging a firearm; and so forth—are those in clause 22 some of those offences which triggered three strikes?The last question is around her comments around mental health. I certainly understand a number of people enacting crime have mental health issues. I'd like to know if she or officials have any statistics on those engaged in high-level serious offences. Are we talking all those committing those crimes have mental health issues? Is it half? Is it a third? I suppose I'm just keen to understand while she rightly raises mental health: is she arguing from the norm or is she bringing an argument from exception? Thank you.
SpeechHon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Justice): Thank you Madam Chair. And thank you to my colleague. It's an astute observation so I will just quickly walk through it. So thank you.OK so what we have here is this corrects the cross-reference in the Arms Act from serious violent offence" which is the terminology used in the Sentencing Act to specified violent offence in the Victims' Orders Against Violent Offenders Act 2014—so shifting it really from one Act and bringing it under the other. We've also kept the specified offences there as well. I hope that helps.SIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Thank you. We'll have actually two questions but also it's a welcome chance to take one's mask off and stretch one's legs.Part 2: can the Minister—and it's funnily enough on Paul Goldsmith's question which hasn't been answered yet—tell the House what the average or her officials the average number of offences which a person receiving a third-strike legislation has done. I know that the average prisoner I think and this is in general terms within our prisons already has 40 50 60 convictions. So some indication that the Minister could give to the House via her officials would be very helpful because I think it is important for people to understand that the people that the three-strikes legislation is targeted at is not all criminals. As I say it's people with very very very—let's do three verys—serious offences. So that's the first question: how many offences have they had?The second: is the Minister able to tell the House some of the offences which triggered—triggered—the likes of the three-strikes legislation. Again there is potentially a belief out in the general public that one stealing candy bars from babies in parks would trigger this law which it would not. So I'm really interested in if the Minister would give us some examples of what crimes. There's quite a list of them. If it's helpful to her she's changing some of the nomenclature and they're in section 22. But I'd be fascinated if she would read—maybe just five for a start—the nature of the crimes which trigger the three-strikes legislation that she's trying to repeal."
Belich CamillaCAMILLA BELICH (Labour): I move That the question be now put.
Mitchell MarkHon MARK MITCHELL (National—Whangaparāoa): Thank you Madam Chair. I just want to start with the last statement the Minister made. She keeps standing in this Chamber and saying that in 2009 the Labour Party identified this was bad law and that from that point forward this has been bad law. But the Minister has not been able to stand in this Chamber and give us one example or one stat any advice to actually explain to New Zealand and this committee why this three strikes legislation is bad law. I have asked now for direct responses to my questions twice and they've not been responded to; they've been ignored completely. So I think that speaks volumes in itself. The final thing that I'd say and I'd ask the Minister is this: at the moment in this country there's a very strong feeling within the public certainly within the police within our first responders and with our corrections officers that there are no consequences currently sitting inside our justice system. I want to acknowledge the example that Nicole McKee used of the police officer that was shot in Hamilton. He has been in contact with me in recent months. There is a very strong feeling inside this country that currently there is a lack of consequences for offenders and especially recidivist offenders that are committing crimes. Can the Minister explain and at least acknowledge or show that she's in touch enough with the mood in the country to explain why this Government is taking the time of this House to repeal the only legislation on our statute book that actually from a victim's perspective and from the public's perspective gives them some confidence that there's going to be proper sentencing and consequences put in place?
Edmonds BarbaraBARBARA EDMONDS (Junior Whip—Labour): I move That the question be now put.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): I'm still seeing members making different contributions but thank you for that.