edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Boyack RachelRACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you Madam Speaker. It's a pleasure to take a call tonight on the Grocery Industry Competition Bill. This is a bill whose time has come. It will be no surprise to any New Zealander that Kiwis pay far too much at the supermarket. Many of us have travelled across the Ditch or have family in Australia who remind us regularly—and I must say regularly—just how much more we pay for food at the checkout especially when compared to our Aussie cousins. In my view it is quite outrageous that there are some goods that are made or grown here in New Zealand that are cheaper to buy overseas than here in New Zealand. That is one of the issues that this bill seeks to address. I've spoken a number of times in this House about the supermarket duopoly we have in New Zealand. The Australian-owned Countdown chain and the New Zealand cooperative Foodstuffs and their major chains Pak 'N Save and New World. This duopoly hurts everyone who participates in the market it hurts suppliers who don't receive fair prices for their goods it hurts consumers who pay too much and from my experience as a union organiser in this sector it hurts workers many of whom don't earn as much as they should from working in a supermarket in New Zealand. The high cost of food in New Zealand hurts our most vulnerable. When we have a situation where people on low and middle incomes can't afford to buy New Zealand butter milk and cheese or New Zealand - grown fruit and vegetables we have a problem that we need to fix. This bill will help to fix this by taking further steps to allow new entrants into the market because that is how we create more competition end this duopoly and bring down prices for consumers.One of the key measures that this bill does to address that is to impose obligations on our major grocery retailers through the wholesale supply regime. One of the issues we have is that our supermarket duopolies and our chains not only control the retailer but they control the wholesale food price that distributes to that retailer. And this bill makes changes to that regime which will increase competition allow new entrants into the market and ultimately bring down prices. As I said this bill is one that has been a long time coming. As the MP for Nelson I'm regularly asked What is this Government doing to end the high food prices that we have in supermarkets?" And it's a pleasure to be able to speak tonight on one of the measures that we are taking to do just that. With the current cost of living and high inflation challenges we have in New Zealand this bill could not come at a better time and I commend it to the House.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Tama Potaka five minutes."
Menéndez March RicardoRICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green): Thank you Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Greens to speak to the second reading of the Grocery Industry Competition Bill. I just wanted to first and foremost acknowledge the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee for their very chunky report and the substantive amendments that they have provided.The Greens supported this bill at first reading because we've always stood for enacting laws that support fair trade fair food prices and local sourcing and we do think that this bill goes some way towards that. Personally I want to dream of a world beyond just reforming capitalism but I want to acknowledge that the supermarket industry is absolutely broken and the duopoly hasn't served us. It has created the conditions where ordinary people are being ripped off at the counter. A big part of this is around lack of regulations to enable fair trading and a better balance between the retailers and the suppliers. So we welcome the introduction of say the grocery supply code which will be mandatory for major grocery retailers. And we acknowledge the changes that were made by the select committee—for example switching the power to make the code from the Governor-General to the Commerce Commission. I think this is a good change and it's kind of where it should be. There are other changes as well where we'll introduce a dispute resolution scheme for the grocery industry as well as extending the protections in the Fair Trading Act to cover the relationship between major grocery retailers and their suppliers. Ultimately what we hope this bill will do is deliver fair prices for consumers. And yes I acknowledge the National Party's comments that perhaps some of those changes are yet to be seen at the extent but I think no one in this House will be thinking that this bill is a silver bullet to address cost of living pressures. It is a necessary reform to address what has been longstanding unfair competition and the member who spoke previous to me Vanushi Walters talked about some of the history in that regard. I too want to acknowledge Consumer New Zealand's strong advocacy on this to get major changes through. And so it is good the Government has listened to some of that advocacy as well.As was said by other members who argue that the effect will be truly seen I think this is why from the Greens' perspective we'll be needing further investment in urban food gardens papa kāinga and other initiatives to provide alternatives to supermarkets. So we look forward to the Government enacting this bill and for other holistic approaches to be brought forward so that everyone has access to an abundance of kai. Kia ora.
SpeechVANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour): Thank you Madam Speaker for the opportunity to take a short call in relation to this very significant bill. I just want to start by acknowledging Mr Woodhouse—I often enjoy his contributions to the House because they do reflect a lot on decision making and the history of decision making which I do think is important for us to consider. He did say that it was too hard for Costco to exist in New Zealand. But Mr Woodhouse you're very welcome to come to the northwest and I will give you a tour; it is a wonderful part of our community. But I think I wanted to carry on the same tone as Mr Woodhouse and reflect on history. One of my most vivid memories as a child was walking into Big Fresh—whether it was the giant grinning pear or the dancing broccoli fruit and veggies took on a distinctly appealing sense in those days. And I'm not alone. Many of us as children were used to walking into a Foodtown or a Big Fresh a Write Price or a Price Chopper. And Mr Woodhouse is quite correct that in the 1980s and 1990s there were a series of mergers and acquisitions which led to Woolworths—well what is now Woolworths—purchasing Foodtown and that left us with basically just one brand standing. And as Consumer NZ's Jon Duffy has said That was the beginning of the end that was the beginning of the status quo which is New Zealand's grocery sector being served by a duopoly." And since then I think what has been equally alarming is the vertical integration and so what that means is one entity controlling every element of the supply chain. Again Jon Duffy says it beautifully; he said "Right from the moment a fish is caught through to the moment it is scanned at the checkout that's fully owned in one case by one entity. When you own the entire supply chain it makes it a lot easier to control the prices that are charged through that supply chain" and that's why we end up with higher prices. This is a Government that is addressing that. We've already introduced legislation to ban restrictive land covenants and this bill will introduce a number of further changes including—as members have spoken to—the grocery commissioner which means that we won't just be floating in a space where we don't understand what the implications are of our duopoly. We will know. There will be reviews every year and we'll also be imposing obligations on the major grocery retailers through the wholesale supply regime. And that will—as Mr Woodhouse rightly identified an issue—make it easier for foreign companies to come into New Zealand and enter the grocery market. This is a bill that is literally about bread and butter issues. It's about making basic goods more affordable for Kiwis and I commend it to the House."
SpeechNAISI CHEN (Labour): I am so excited for this speech. Finally we're at the second reading of the Grocery Industry Competition Bill. This whole entire recess I couldn't help but keep talking to New Zealanders that I had met on my journey over the last three weeks about this bill because this is a game-changer bill. This is a bill that will radically change the way the grocery sector will be organised.Can I just first start by putting on record my thanks to the members opposite for their work in the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee. During our whole entire select committee process we had been very collaborative in the way that we dealt with some of the really meaty issues which were actually covered probably by Andrew Bayly in his speech so I won't traverse all of the issues that we had talked about. However there are some things I do want to highlight. In our grocery sector right now there is a supply chain issue. I went into Central Otago and met with some of the farmers some of the beef and sheep farmers and they said to me that the prices they were getting weren't changing but then at the same time in the supermarkets it was getting more and more expensive. They were asking me Where did the money go?" They weren't getting it at the farm gate. I just had to say to them "Well according to the Commerce Commission investigation we had done last year which has been completed supermarkets earn an excess profit of $1 million - plus per day." I just really want to make sure that New Zealanders know this is the place we started on this whole entire journey. There is a trifecta of legislation to regulate the grocery industry and we wanted to make sure that every single New Zealander gets a fair deal at the checkout.During the select committee process we heard people from the industry including people who were almost victims of supermarkets in the sense that for instance supermarkets were buying out the cold chain transport infrastructure. They were able to charge people for promotion at the end of each aisle when it's a sale—they charge people extra. So it's not just about unit pricing. So the fact is that we've now instigated a grocery sector commissioner which is possible in this bill by being able to put in those legislative anticipations. That is why I commend this bill to the House."
Report of Committee of the whole House
SpeechREPORT OF COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE HOUSECHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The committee has considered the Forests (Legal Harvest Assurance) Amendment Bill and reports it with amendment. The committee has also considered the Counter-Terrorism Acts (Designations and Control Orders) Amendment Bill and reports it with amendment. The committee has also considered the Family Court (Family Court Associates) Legislation Bill and reports it with amendment. I move That the report be adopted.Motion agreed to.Report adopted.
Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you Madam Chair. The final point that I would make in relation to the report that will be undertaken not later than five years after the commencement of new section 7K inserted by clause 4—K" for kilo—is in relation to the point really of the report which is reviewing whether the appointment of the Family Court's Associates "has reduced delays in the Family Court". That's reasonable; indeed it's desirable for there to be a mechanism that says we're going to decide whether this piece of legislation or the new role is actually having an effect.But we don't have language such as "significantly reduced the delays" or "reduced the delays by a more than a trifling amount"—and I'm not saying that I'm necessarily drafting this on the fly better than others would or should but it just seems to me that to review merely whether there's been a reduction at all isn't the right measure. If nothing else it would be I think a mistake for us to regard the new regime as being successful if it only reduces the delays by a small amount for an exchange of a lot of additional resources. So I think perhaps a better measure would be whether (a) the delays have been reduced significantly and (b) reduced by an amount that justifies the investment.Of course it's not to say that we could save some money by not appointing Family Court Associates. The point is really if we've got a certain amount of resource available to the Family Court to improve the outcomes to reduce delays then actually we might be better off spending it elsewhere—maybe just additional judges or maybe you know new courts or some for example audiovisual technology that would enable more cases to be heard more remotely.So I don't think there's any change particularly that's needed to the legislation but I think in relation to the way that that's framed it would be helpful for the record. Because at some point in you know let's say 4½ years' time the Minister of Justice whoever that may be will receive a report from the Ministry of Justice on the effectiveness of the regime—the report relating to the Family Court's Associates and new section 7K—and I think it would be helpful for them to know that their remit is to quantify the reduction in delays. First of all to decide that it's you know significant—if indeed it is; if they can make that kind of determination—and secondly to therefore be able to allow a calculation that this is the best possible bang for buck if I can use that vernacular to assess the effectiveness of the system."
McKee NicoleNICOLE McKEE (ACT): Thank you Madam Chair. Minister that was a great speech that you just gave. It talked about our children and the care and the protection and the importance of making sure that their cases are heard quickly as well as properly so that the detrimental effects that you referred to are not an issue for them. So again Minister I come back to the question of why we are removing Oranga Tamariki clauses from this bill specifically Oranga Tamariki Act clauses from this bill which in turn must have a detrimental effect on the children that are coming through the system if for example a judge is not able to have a registrar appoint another lawyer to assist the courts or even help with adjournments—the actual paperwork that a Family Court assistant was set up to administer to help the judges to process the work to enable our tamariki our children to get through the system in a timely way.Minister I put it to you that if we do actually have the removal of these clauses of the Oranga Tamariki Act away from the Family Court Associates we are delaying some justice to some of the victims of crime that absolutely do need it. So in order to support the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) of the Minister we would like to have clarification on why this has being removed because if it's a good enough reason why we would really like to support it. The Family Court (Family Court Associates) Legislation Bill is a good bill. It's going to help get families through the system very quickly—or more quickly than they are currently experiencing—and yet we have a revised position by the Government in their SOP that we feel will be detrimental to our children going forward. Minister you've just spoken about how important it is that we make sure that our kids are front and centre of this system so this does not make sense; it almost is contradictory. I just seek that further clarification Minister.
Andersen GinnyHon GINNY ANDERSEN (Minister of Police): Thank you very much Madam Chair. Thank you for that point Mr Penk. I would like to respond to that by outlining that the four months that's under the commencement is simply to allow for recruitment of those roles. So that's important for that to be able to take place. Responding to your concerns around wanting to have a commitment from the Government to make sure that this is implemented quickly I think it's really important to remember the genesis of this piece of legislation. It responds to a specific issue that was identified by the review that took place in 2019. That review specifically examined the changes made to the Family Court the family justice sector back in 2014. While those changes in 2014 were intended to save costs in one way or another they had some really significant negative impacts upon our families and they caused significant delays in that space.We know that the Family Court deals with really diverse issues including family violence relationship property and care and protection of children. These are some complex issues that can't be dealt with quickly in some instances. So the changes back in 2014 brought specific recommendations and this legislation is in fact responding specifically to those detrimental changes to our Family Court system. This bill establishes the associate in order to take some of that workload off Family Court judges to free them up for those bigger more significant issues. And let's remember that the delay for our children not to have contact with whānau for significant periods of time is damaging for our community for our young people. It can be detrimental to the wellbeing of tamariki. So the point I really want to get home today is that this will assist young people to have these issues dealt with in the courts in a far more timely way to reduce the harm that has already been occurring in some of these families' lives.
McKee NicoleNICOLE McKEE (ACT): Thank you Minister for that further clarification. Would the Minister be able to speak to the reason why the other Oranga Tamariki clauses have been removed? You've clarified what is staying and the reasons why—and I thank you for that—but why are we removing some of those other clauses which are available to associates Family Court Associates in other jurisdictions? What I mean by that is in being able to implement the ability to make some of those decisions in other aspects of law why are we removing it from the Oranga Tamariki Act specifically?
Andersen GinnyHon GINNY ANDERSEN (Minister of Police): Thank you very much Madam Chair. They are good questions Mr Penk. I understand that the Ministry of Justice has undertaken consultation specifically with the New Zealand Law Society on the development of the new role that this legislation is proposing. The Law Society broadly supports the new role.I am aware that the Family Court Associates will come from what is potentially a relatively limited pool of family lawyers. We are not aware of any concerns through that consultation that that would put additional pressures on current workforce.During consultation I think it's worthwhile noting that the Law Society advised that there were approximately 173 presently practising lawyers who would meet the requirements of the role; that seemed to indicate that there would be a level of interest and potentially too a groundbreaking and new interesting role to play. I would anticipate that within the legal profession there would be some interest in taking up this new opportunity particularly if it's part of a pathway to deliver more efficient and better justice outcomes for our community.In terms of the total number of Family Court Associates it's still to be confirmed. It will be influenced by the Remuneration Authority's salary determination that is yet to occur. The Ministry of Justice does anticipate that up to six Family Court Associates will be established as part of the initial tranche of recruitment and the remaining positions would then be filled over the following two years. So that is the aim. The training as you requested to know by judiciary will be similar to that of a judge.I just wanted to pick up on one other point made by Nicole McKee and I probably should have been clearer in my response to your question. In relation to the Oranga Tamariki Act if a judge is not available a Family Court Associate may issue a warrant—I should have been clearer on that—authorising the search for and if necessary the uplifting of a child or young person suspected ill-treatment neglect deprivation abuse or harm.If authorised by the Attorney-General registrars deputy registrars justices of the peace and community magistrates may also exercise this power only if a judge is not available. I understand that that is a rare occurrence that that's not there. An independent judicial officer with legal training and experience is appropriate for the Family Court Associate to exercise a power when a judge is not available.I'd like to make clear that this clause is not removed through the Supplementary Order Paper because the power is equivalent to that of a registrar. Under the bill a Family Court Associate will exercise all the powers of the registrar.
Chhour KarenKAREN CHHOUR (ACT): With all due respect Minister I have huge concerns around the changes with this Oranga Tamariki and really I'm looking for an explanation as Nicole McKee has pointed out because I feel these changes should have had a bit more discussion. What are we going to tell parents and what are we going to tell the young people that are coming before the Family Courts—that they can't have their delays reduced they can't have a quicker pace of having their cases seen because it's to do with the Oranga Tamariki Act? And many of these families wait months to even get before a judge.I just don't feel this is good enough. Many actually have their cases moved again and again and again every time a judge cannot see their case or they are moved to a different court. And what's the difference? You know are we going to create a two-tier system: one for kids that aren't under the Oranga Tamariki Act and one for kids that are? It just seems a bit weird that this was not discussed more and we couldn't have a bit more public consultation around these changes because they don't seem like minor changes to me.
Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you Madam Chair. My point in relation to the Oranga Tamariki aspect was slightly different from that of Nicole McKee which is just to press the Minister a little bit on her answer which was—and I think I genuinely characterise this fairly—that these changes are being proposed by the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) because these are very weighty" matters that are involved. And it seems to me that all the matters that the Family Court undertakes are weighty matters; they are important they are serious whether or not under the Oranga Tamariki regime—and even accounting for the fact that there seems to be a difference of opinion about what exactly is in and out. But if all of these matters are weighty then I don't think with all due respect it's enough to justify the SOP change that's proposed simply to say "Well these matters that it is proposing to deal with are weighty" as though to imply some others are not. I do also want to ask the Minister for an answer on those questions that I put forward before. Unless I'm remiss and actually missed those—and I apologise if so—I don't think that we heard an answer on the subject of the workforce issues potentially of lawyers becoming Family Court Associates and therefore you know being removed from column A albeit to be put in column B. And also those supporting resources that are going to be needed: if those are absorbed or more to the point not available to the Family Court Associate because there's only a certain number that are associated with the work of Family Court judges then I'm not certain that we'll be very much better off. Albeit that as I say—and I'll try and strike a brighter note to finish this contribution—that I think there will be a positive change but I'm just trying to get my head around exactly what that will be. And on that note before I resume my seat again I think I'm right in saying—albeit that I now doubt myself having heard the Minister say differently—that the figure of 25 percent is the estimate of the amount of time that Family Court judges spend doing administrative tasks which you know might be able to be relieved by the Family Court Associates. But I think that's a different question from the extent to which we can expect the backlogs to reduce.I really hope and expect that the backlogs will reduce by more than 25 percent. But I do wonder—and I appreciate that the Minister has not been the sponsoring Minister and has sort of come in and I want to say this as kindly as I can: she's doing that role in place of the Minister who has been the sponsor albeit that as the chairperson of this committee she is already familiar with it. So I welcome any addition or further information she can provide on all those points."
McKee NicoleNICOLE McKEE (ACT): Thank you Madam Chair. Thank you Minister Andersen for answering those questions. I am a little bit confused however around the Oranga Tamariki Act because the reference that has just been made by the Minister referred to the uplift of children needing to be commissioned by a judge but we're actually retaining that within this bill.Sections 39 and 40 are specifically being retained which relate to—section 39 is the placement of safety warrants and section 40 is about the warrant to remove a child. So they're actually there and being retained and what's being removed is the ability for the associate to appoint a lawyer to assist the courts as well as the associate being able to direct the registrar to appoint a lawyer the associate being able to review the declaration of lawyers' payments—all of that's being removed along with the direction to persons to attend counselling leave to be given to make representations the ability for the registrar to convene a mediation conference and also the ability to adjourn proceedings. These are what I would've thought were aspects of the bill that would speed up the process without causing harm to the child or individuals caught up within the Oranga Tamariki Act.So I am confused because the Minister said that this was actually about removing the warrants and warrants to remove a child but actually those are the only two aspects that are being kept within the bill. While there was some consideration had at the Justice Committee we had decided at select committee to not impose these changes.So at this stage Minister I'm loathe to actually support the Supplementary Order Paper because I think the removal will be detrimental to our children under the Oranga Tamariki Act. I just wonder Minister if you're able to clarify that a bit more.
Andersen GinnyHon GINNY ANDERSEN (Minister of Police): Thank you very much. There's a number of questions so I'll try and work my way through all of those. So in response to Ms McKee in relation to the Supplementary Order Paper making specific reference to the Oranga Tamariki Act and why that has been taken out I recall we had several submissions that were really concerned that some of those really significant care and protection issues should stay with a judge. That when you are talking about the potential uplift of a child from their biological family or from their home or their whānau that that was a significant issue. In several of those submissions the Justice Committee discussed that and the Minister of Justice has considered it best to remove those clauses from the bill that give a Family Court Associate the powers of a judge under the Oranga Tamariki Act. And I think that's just due to the weightiness of making that decision around care and protection of a child.The other question that members provided was the other two minor amendments in the Supplementary Order Paper specifically clause 70B which amends Schedule 2 of the Oaths and Declarations Act and also clause 7K which is the report relating to Family Court Associates. The Supplementary Order Paper makes two minor amendments to the Family Court Associate. So the Family Court Associate can take the oath of allegiance and judicial oath in line with judicial officers. So it adjusts the timing of when the Family Court Associate role is reviewed in order to ensure the role is fully embedded before the review commences. And that's that five-year period that's been already discussed tonight.The discussion around—sorry there's another question before that. There was the seven-year question that Mr O'Connor provided that there was a difference between the Coroners Amendment Bill which provided that four years' experience I think in comparison to this piece of legislation which under new section 7A will provide that lawyers with at least seven years' experience with suitable training experience and personality for the role can be appointed. That's the same as a Family Court judge. So the reason for the seven years is the same level of experience required for a Family Court judge. And that takes into account that some of those decisions: while they are intended to be administrative and a lower level from a judge it's still important that the requisite skills are in place and the requisite experience to respond to those issues are there. I think that leads in quite nicely to Mr Penk's question in and around what difference is this going to make—by having this additional resource in the courtroom what real difference will this make in terms of the current waiting times. And the estimation I've been provided advice for by the Ministry of Justice is approximately a 25 percent change in the existing wait. So the additional resource will have roughly one-quarter of a difference in terms of that space.I think that's all of the questions but I'm happy to take some more if I've missed anything.
Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you Madam Chair. I would have happily deferred to the Minister but you've provided me the opportunity to ask a couple more questions still. So a couple of questions that are in the arena of wondering how the bill's provisions will play out practically speaking in the court system. And particularly I'm wondering about workforce issues. I note that the bill says quite explicitly that a person who is a Family Court Associate cannot also be doing employment that the Governor-General considers would be inconsistent or detrimental to that. Fair enough; that makes sense.But also that the person cannot be practising as a lawyer during that time. And obviously if someone is to be inducted to the role of Family Court Associate as my college and friend Simon O'Connor has pointed out that would be after a certain amount of experience and qualification as a barrister or barrister and solicitor I think he said. So if we are going to have someone go from a pool of lawyers to a practising—an expert in the space into a Family Court Associate role then that is what colloquially is often referred to as robbing Peter to pay Paul". I do wonder if we are going to make the error from a system-wide perspective if we're not careful of having more hands making light work on the judicial side but fewer practitioners who are available to do that work. Unless of course the Minster can put our collective minds at rest by suggesting that there might be some way in which this is not the case. For example by encouraging young or not necessarily young law students—I say that as one who was a mature student myself at one point which sounds ridiculous now at the ripe old age of 28 I think it was but I certainly felt my age at that point. Anyway. So workforce issues associated with the fact that the Family Court Associate would no longer be practising as a lawyer by definition or indeed as required. The other one would be just in terms of courtroom resources for example the physical courtrooms themselves and the space needed to practise law and to make these decisions or facilitate these outcomes. I wonder if we're not providing any more resources or any more opportunity for the matters to be heard then while we might have more warm bodies engaged in the task—that is effectively deciding the matters as a judge or Family Court Associate—we might not be very much better off for it. We might have a logjam in terms of the physical space and administrative support—dare I mention it—from registrars and others who help out as well as opposed to having the pressure point merely being the personnel requirements at the judicial level.So with those practical questions—courtroom and resources on the one hand and the workforce issues on the other—I'd be grateful for the Minister to explain how the bill might affect the system that we have at the moment."
SpeechSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Thank you Madam Chair. I'm hoping this question which is more a small curio is more articulate than the last bill. I'm looking at Part 1—well clause 4 which is inserting your new section 7A. In particular—actually I don't know how you use nomenclature—it's the one that says that A Family Court Associate" needs to have been "for at least 7 years" someone who has held a "practising certificate as a barrister or as a barrister and solicitor". Then further down that their term is "of not more than 7 years".Very quickly—I've got no quibble with that—I'm just curious because we passed a piece of law recently for associate coroners which I would argue is a similar role but why I'm asking because it's a curious thing an associate coroner only needed five years' experience and is to be reviewed every five years. So again it's not a quibbling or an argumentative point; I'm just curious with what to me is two similar bills—why is it seven years for Family Court Associates but only five years for associate coroners?"
Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you Madam Chair and I'm indebted to our friend and colleague Nicole McKee for asking that question which had also crossed the minds of members on this side of the Chamber. I won't add to it further except to say that I think that with this Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 350 having been introduced at the committee of the whole House stage and—to the best of my knowledge as someone who sat in on I think most of the consideration at the Justice Committee—without knowing the background it would be very helpful indeed to know what's intended but also where that's coming from so to speak.Also within the SOP we see that there is to be a report made following the introduction of the Act on the subject of how much delay is going to be reduced by the Act coming into force. I think I'm right in saying that the effect of the SOP will be to say that the report doesn't need to be produced within five years of the Act coming into force; it's just that it needs to have started within the five years and so it could be produced at some point after that. It does strike me as a bit ironic that if we're going to have a report into whether delays have been reduced the report itself can be delayed. But if the Minister of Justice has got any comment on that and can put our minds at rest I suppose that from the Government's point of view it would be a matter of some urgency to assess the effectiveness of the Act. That would be helpful.The other one I suppose just within the SOP as well—and I'll sit down after this point because these points are sort of bundled up together by reason of being in the SOP if not otherwise thematically linked—would be that in Part 2 of the bill we're going to have a new Subpart 6A it seems and this is going to require the judicial oath and the oath of allegiance to be taken by Family Court Associates. The oaths of allegiance—they're very much topical at the moment but I presume that the idea of this is very much consistent with the idea that these Family Court Associates are effectively judicial officers. And again I would suggest to you and to the committee Madam Chair and Minister that actually we're really creating a new judicial officer - type role.For that reason I would also just add in—while I'm on my feet—that it seems to me that if the administrative burden is high then in addition to providing additional personnel to administer the processes actually the processes themselves can likely be simplified and improved.So with that somewhat mixed bag I'll resume my seat and invite the Minister to respond particularly on the point—I think actually the most substantive one of those was the one that Ms McKee raised regarding the Oranga Tamariki regime and the Family Court Associate processes now being disconnected.
McKee NicoleNICOLE McKEE (ACT): Thank you Madam Chair. Minister it's a privilege to actually support this bill because when we look at what's happening within our Family Court system and the delays that have been occurring to be able to instigate Family Court Associates in the same way that we have with the coroner's courts—we're dealing with a lot of the delays and when it affects so many families in so many different ways we're glad to be able to support this.But what I do have a concern about Minister is the Supplementary Order Paper that came through because while most of it is tidying up there is a whole section in there that is removing the Family Court Associates' ability to deal with matters that would come under the Oranga Tamariki Act. And there is no explanation for why there is the removal of those clauses specifically for the Oranga Tamariki Act. When I went to look at the legislation.govt.nz website it took me to a page that is non-existent as well as taking me to another document which does not address the reasoning why. So everything within this entire bill we would like to support but the removal of the powers to deal with children that are caught up within the Oranga Tamariki Act is concerning especially when the associate will no longer be able to direct persons to attend counselling. They won't be able to grant people leave to make representations. They won't be able to direct the registrar to convene a mediation conference. They won't even be able to adjourn proceedings. And we have heard that we've got some children that have been caught up in the system for eight months or more. With the ability to have a Family Court Associate to speed up the processes why then Minister is it that we're removing Oranga Tamariki from this bill?
Salesa Jenny; Bennett GlenFAMILY COURT (FAMILY COURT ASSOCIATES) LEGISLATION BILLIn CommitteeParts 1 and 2 the Schedule and clauses 1 and 2CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members we come now to the Family Court (Family Court Associates) Legislation Bill. We begin with the debate on Part 1. The question is that Part 1 stand part.GLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth): I move and seek leave to have all parts read as one.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection. The question is that Parts 1 and 2 the Schedule and clauses 1 and 2 stand part.
SpeechSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): I'm 99 percent sure it does. So in effect and again for the listeners at home—[Another member drops a glass of water] I'm just making sure colleagues are OK. In effect the control order has already been triggered for a New Zealander or an individual and consequently this bill is going to limit a little bit further what they can access—that's the important part. The control order is already triggered. This particular person is already if you will on the radar and consequently we are slightly expanding the definition of what they can or in this case cannot access.
Andersen GinnyHon GINNY ANDERSEN (Minister of Police): Thank you Madam Chair and thank you Mr Simon O'Connor. Look I think I recall the submission in relation to the Free Speech Union and I take note that what this legislation aims to do is number one respond to an increasingly complex global terrain in terms of what those terrorism risks are in the way that they present. It's important in that context that we are equipped to respond readily but it's really important that not only do we make sure that our legislative settings are clear but that we also protect the rights and freedoms of those designated individuals—so striking that balance to be clear. So to go get to your point which is the same point I made in relation to the member Nicole McKee it's really important to note that a conviction for an objectionable publication offence is not sufficient for a control order to be granted. So it is important that we go back to the primary legislation—the Act related to control orders which has been passed by this House already—to look right up front in that bill to show that there are some very clear grounds that a real risk in terms of terrorism must be presented. It is really crucial to reiterate to submitters such as the Free Speech Union that just accessing the objectionable material alone is insufficient. It must also be in that second tier in which it poses a real risk outlined under that primary legislation. So I hope that addresses the member's question.
SpeechSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Thank you very much Madam Chair. I'm actually wanting to follow up on what Nicole McKee was asking and as it was very much teased out in the Justice Committee while trying to get to the heart of it around objectionable materials—and I know the likes of the Free Speech Union here in New Zealand were quite hot on this about clause 15. So I think we've got in the right space and I think I want to say that first and foremost but I think it's important to get it on the record and the question—if I can articulate it right to the Minister—is ultimately that it's not so much that the material is objectionable though that's part of it but what really triggers the dynamic here is the person who is accessing it. So it's sort of the Free Speech Union's objection—sorry there are too many objectionable words there. The Free Speech Union and others' concern was that we are widening the notion of what is terrorist material with their basic concept being that this bill could now make a whole lot of other materials be deemed objectionable and then consequently terroristic and they had a whole lot of examples of very violent video games and the like. As I've mentioned to the Minister and others before I don't want any of that stuff—period—but in some ways in a free speech environment it's not for me to decide. So their concern is that we are expanding the notion of what's terrorist into objectionable materials. I think we heard clearly in the select committee—and Nicole McKee was touching on it too and I think we heard it from yourself Minister—that what will trigger a control order is that the person already has crossed a threshold when it comes to terrorism and consequently should not have access to these materials now deemed objectionable. To put it another way the ordinary citizen—while we wouldn't want them to—could still obtain those objectionable materials and not be deemed a terrorist. I don't know if I'm articulating that OK. But if so I'll sit down see how the Minister goes and hopefully—yeah.
McKee Nicole; Andersen GinnyNICOLE McKEE (ACT): Let's try that one again. Minister I just want to reflect on Part 2 clause 15 because during the select committee process this was really gone through by both the Justice Committee and also we had submitters who were quite concerned about the restrictions that we were going to put on some objectionable materials. There was concern from some submitters that this would actually make criminals out of people who inadvertently perhaps say just imported a game that was particularly violent and it would put them into the scenario of being potential criminal terrorists that needed designations on them. We fleshed this out as a select committee but I think it would be great if we could actually flesh it out so that it's covered in here to alleviate some of those concerns that those submitters had because it was made very clear to us that it wasn't the objectionable material itself that would cause a person to be designated as a terrorist but rather other activities too. I just wonder if you would be able to respond to that and give clarity to those submitters please? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Minister of Police): Thank you very much to the member. We were just actually having a conversation about this. So it's two-gate or two-tier in terms of how it works in the legislation and you're right that a significant number of the submitters felt that objectionable publication offences should continue to be limited to publications that have been deemed objectionable due to their explicit support and promotion of terrorism. The expansion of deeming grounds is based on advice from law enforcement agencies that the possession the consumption or the use of those objectionable publications that depict extreme violence or cruelty can indicate terrorism risk and they are a feature of cases where people have been investigated for violent extremism or have committed a terrorist act. But it's important to note that this change is limited to the types of publications deemed objectionable under the existing offence rather than introducing any new qualifying offences—and I think that's really important to know. So a conviction for an objectionable publication offence is not sufficient for a control order to be granted on that alone—you don't get a control order just on that. It must also be proven that the person presents a real risk of engaging in terrorism activity and that harks back to the primary legislation of the control orders Act. So number one you have to be engaging with that material; number two that has to be tied to a real risk of terrorism. So I think it's important to reiterate to people who are concerned that it's not enabling people to be subject to a control order just for the fact that they have engaged in some objectionable material alone.
Salesa Jenny; McKee Nicole; Halbert ShananCOUNTER-TERRORISM ACTS (DESIGNATIONS AND CONTROL ORDERS) AMENDMENT BILLIn CommitteeParts 1 and 2 Schedules 1 and 2 and clauses 1 and 2CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members we come now to the Counter-Terrorism Acts (Designations and Control Orders) Amendment Bill. Members we come first to Part 1. The question is that Part 1 stand part. NICOLE McKEE (ACT): Mālō e lelei Madam Chair. Minister I just want to touch on section—I'm in the wrong part my apologies. I'm looking at Part 2 now and I just realised. I'm going to sit down Madam Chair because I was in the wrong part. SHANAN HALBERT (Junior Whip—Labour): Point of order Madam Chairperson. Can I seek leave to hear all parts as one? CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection. The question is that Parts 1 and 2 Schedules 1 and 2 and clauses 1 and 2 stand part.
Forests (Legal Harvest Assurance) Amendment Bill — In Committee
Henare PeeniHon PEENI HENARE (Minister of Forestry): Thank you Madam Chair. Just the question with relation to stabilisation the time frame for stabilisation of land would be a reasonable time to clear the timber and stabilise the land including allowing ground cover to grow. And I guess the key term here would be a reasonable time" as the member will well know when quite often as larger blocks in particular are being harvested there is both things going on at the same time—where harvest continues while stabilising of those blocks continue to go. There is potential in lease agreements to make sure that as you look toward stabilising that it's done effectively and it could impact on how further harvest or the harvest might continue.If we look towards the matter that Mr McKelvie has just raised about you know dare I use the term "slash" or wood debris as they look towards the stabilisation of the land that's just been harvested. So I guess that's probably a little bit more into the detail of how the lease arrangement might look between the forest owner and the lessor. And yeah so "reasonable time" is essentially what's being given there.But I do want to just touch briefly before I end my contribution here to the very important matter that Mr McKelvie did raise it is topical it is important—particularly to those flood-affected areas and those cyclone-affected areas but right across the entire country as forest is a huge part of our primary sector here in this country. The member is right there has been an extension simply because of the sheer volume of interest in the matter for that particular panel to consider before they come back to Ministers and this Government on the full report with respect to the slash matter that's currently plaguing the East Coast."