edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
9. Question No. 9—HealthHon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour) to the Minister of HealthQuestion No. 9—Health9. Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour) to the Minister of Health: Is it correct that he was advised of Health New Zealand's plan to block early access to the cancer drug Keytruda on Friday 2 August and that he did not take action to address this issue until after it was made public?Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Health) on behalf of the Minister of Health: To the first part yes. To the second part first thing on Monday morning the Minister spoke with health officials regarding this issue. I'm pleased to see that Health New Zealand has taken a pragmatic approach informed by clinical advice to deliver these treatments thanks to the Government's transformative investment to deliver up to 26 cancer treatments.Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: How much advice does he need in order to recognise that blocking early access to a life-saving cancer drug is a bad idea?Hon CASEY COSTELLO: On behalf of the Minister these decisions are clinical decisions made by Health New Zealand and he has faith in Health New Zealand to come up with pragmatic solutions based upon clear clinical advice.Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Is it correct that Health New Zealand officials had the impression that the delay in implementation of the Government's flagship health policy was acceptable because he failed to set clear expectations on delivery?Hon CASEY COSTELLO: On behalf of the Minister no.Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Is it correct that documents released under the Official Information Act show he did not progress work on his original promise to fund cancer medicines to a Cabinet paper until public backlash against the Budget and don't New Zealanders deserve a Minister that will fight for better healthcare for them?Hon CASEY COSTELLO: In answer to the second part of the question they deserve a Minister that will fight for better health outcomes and this Minister is fighting for better health outcomes by delivering a transformative investment in cancer treatments for New Zealanders.Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Can he confirm he is still the Minister of Health or has the Prime Minister's office decided to try out some talented associates for the role?SPEAKER: You need not answer that question.Hon Casey Costello: Oh come on. Let me.SPEAKER: OK OK. Answer it.Hon CASEY COSTELLO: We have—on behalf of the Minister—a very competent associate health Minister who is actively supporting the Minister in his role.
2. Question No. 2—FinanceNANCY LU (National) to the Minister of FinanceQuestion No. 2—Finance2. NANCY LU (National) to the Minister of Finance: What approach is the Government taking to managing spending and reprioritisation in Budget 2025? Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): The Government's fiscal approach to Budget 2025 has three elements: first there will be a very high bar for new initiatives in the Budget and these will be limited to the most important Government priorities; second significant savings will need to be found beyond those already identified in this year's Budget; and third with a small number of exceptions Government departments should expect to receive no additional funding in the Budget. They must manage cost pressures within their baseline and if they want to do new things they will need to reprioritise from existing activities. This Government is serious about responsible management of public finances. Nancy Lu: How will she ensure departments are delivering within their baselines? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The Government has introduced a new tool called performance plans which departments must now prepare. Departments must set out how they are planning to deliver within set baselines over the medium term. That will almost certainly involve trade-offs. Performance plans must be clear about those trade-offs so Ministers can make the necessary decisions. Performance plans will also set out any risks to financial sustainability department performance or delivery and explain how those risks will be managed. Performance plans are an important part of our Government's approach to Budget 2025 and to future Budgets as well. Nancy Lu: What sort of information will performance plans contain? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Among other things a performance plan must provide information about a department's purpose and resources its impact—for example how the department is currently delivering value—and the drivers of its cost pressures and how these will be managed. This will help change people's focus to medium-term fiscal sustainability and away from the idea of an annual Budget lolly scramble. Nancy Lu: Where are the requirements for performance plans set out? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Last week the Cabinet Office released a circular setting out in detail the requirements for developing and maintaining performance plans. This can be found on the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet website. Over the past six years Government spending has been taken from $80 billion a year to $140 billion a year and in response this Government is embedding a culture of responsible spending restoring fiscal discipline rightsizing the Government's footprint and improving the efficiency and productivity of spending. Performance plans will help achieve that.
Visitors — Laos—National Assembly
6. Question No. 6—Prime MinisterDEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori ) to the Prime MinisterQuestion No. 6—Prime Minister6. DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori ) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all of his Government's statements and actions?Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Yes and especially our action to lift maths achievement among young people Māori and non-Māori. It's absolutely appalling that just 12 percent of Māori heading off to high school are at curriculum for mathematics. And if we're serious about achievement and opportunity then we actually have to turn that around. So we have a plan and that means more resources for every child Māori and non-Māori in every classroom in New Zealand. And since we released that plan I have to say to that member we haven't heard anything from Te Pāti Māori on student achievement—no nothing to say about Māori achievement nothing to say about our plan and nothing to say about turning lives around of our young people. [Interruption]SPEAKER: That's politically interesting but not particularly helpful for the order of the House.Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: In light of comments made by John Key at the National Party conference that Māori are the indigenous population of New Zealand and Treaty partners so you have to treat them with respect." does he believe that his Government is treating Māori with respect?Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: John Key is a private citizen and a former Prime Minister and he's entitled to his own views but in this case I agree with him.Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: What actions will he take to uphold New Zealand's legal obligations as ruled by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to hold Israel accountable for their illegal occupation of Palestinian lands and their war crimes against Palestinian people?Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well as that member will well know we have said for many years that those occupations are illegal and the ICJ has actually confirmed New Zealand's longstanding position so we support that.Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke: Is his Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage's erasure of te reo Māori greetings from official Matariki invitations an example of his Government's treating Māori with respect?Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: As I said before we value te reo. We should be comfortable in this country speaking te reo and English. In this case he was addressing a letter to a foreign Minister and felt it was best delivered in English.HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE: If te reo Māori is good enough for King Charles to use in his official Matariki greetings why is it not good enough for the New Zealand Government?Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Again I'd just say the Minister made a decision to say that he wanted the communication to be in English so that the Australian Minister could understand it."
Chhour KarenORAL QUESTIONSQUESTIONS TO MINISTERSQuestion No. 11 to Minister 6 August—Amended AnswerHon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children): I seek leave to correct an answer I gave in response to oral question No. 11 yesterday.SPEAKER: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.Hon KAREN CHHOUR: Thank you Mr Speaker. In my primary response to the Hon Ginny Andersen in oral question No. 11 yesterday I stated that family violence and sexual violence were an important component of the Government target to reduce violent crime by having 20 percent fewer people be victims of assaults robberies and sexual assaults. I meant to say 20000 fewer people not 20 percent.
Brownlee GerryPETITIONS PAPERS SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLSCLERK: Petition of Chloe Hatch requesting that the House urge the Government to increase funding for mental health counselling services in primary and intermediate schools. SPEAKER: That petition stands referred to the Petitions Committee. No papers have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation. Select Committee reports have been delivered for presentation.CLERK: Report of the Governance and Administration Committee on the 2024-25 Estimates for Vote Prime Minister and Cabinet andinterim report of the Health Committee on the Improving Arrangements for Surrogacy Bill.SPEAKER: The interim report on the bill is set down for consideration. There have been no bills introduced.
Urgent Debates Declined — Te Reo Māori—Removal from Matariki Invitation
Brownlee GerryURGENT DEBATES DECLINEDTe Reo Māori—Removal from Matariki InvitationSPEAKER: I've received an urgent debate letter from the Hon Willie Jackson seeking to debate under Standing Order 399 the removal of te reo Māori from an invitation to Matariki celebrations from the Minister of Arts Culture and Heritage. This is a particular case of recent occurrence for which there is ministerial responsibility. The big hurdle however for applications for urgent debate is whether the issue raised warrants setting aside the business of the House. This application does not meet that threshold. The application is declined.
Brownlee GerryVISITORSLaos—National AssemblySPEAKER: I'm sure members will want to join with me in welcoming and wishing a warm stay in New Zealand to members of the Lao National Assembly who are present here in the gallery.
Utikere TangiWEDNESDAY 7 AUGUST 2024The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.KARAKIA/PRAYERSTANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Te Atua Mana te akameitaki atu nei matou iakoe no toou takinga meitaki taau i riringi mai ki runga ia matou. Te akaruke nei matou i to matou tu tangata te akamaara nei matou i te Ariki e te pure nei matou kia arataki koe i ta matou uriuri anga manako kia rave matou i ta matou angaanga i roto i teia ngutuare na roto i te pakari te tuatua tika e te akaaka no te meitaki e te au o to matou basileia Aotearoa. Amene.
Local Government (Electoral Legislation and Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill — Third Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Local Government (Electoral Legislation and Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 55New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6; Tana.Motion agreed to.Bill read a third time.
Nakhle RimaRIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini): Thank you Mr Speaker. I rise to take this final call on the third reading of the Local Government (Electoral Legislation and Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill. In essence this bill—Shanan Halbert: What a disgrace Rima.RIMA NAKHLE: I'm just going to take it back to basics because there has been a lot of as my colleague prior said unparliamentary words thrown around in this House. So I'm just going to take it back to basics notwithstanding what's being hurled at me from across the room.First the bill will amend the legislation around Māori wards in local government to how it was before the previous Government rushed it through by stealth in 2021 where the wider community had a fair chance to help decide whether to add Māori wards to their local area.Second for councils who have already implemented Māori wards it provides a pathway for the disestablishment of existing Māori wards that were brought in without having attained wider community support through a binding poll—getting back to basics. And furthermore if these councils choose to retain their Māori wards until the 2025 local elections they will be required to hold a poll a next year's local elections.Third—just bringing it back to basics without hurling abuse at each other because we're all human beings—for those councils that have agreed to establish Māori wards again devoid of having sought the support of the wider community through a binding poll showing wider community support this bill provides a pathway to rescind that decision before the next local election in 2025.I think the fourth amendment that I'd like to highlight as well which is something that hasn't really been touched upon but I understand it doesn't fit the magnitude of the thoughts expressed is that this bill seeks to also address the increasing pressures within the domain of postal delivery of voting papers. So it will amend some of the local election time frames to allow increases for postal delivery and for the voting period.I am just going to go back again if I may to basics about what our key messages are here. All three parties were clear about the fact that they were intending to do this during the election campaign—and beforehand actually back in 2021 when the changes were brought in almost by stealth. I want to say that I know there has been a lot of heartfelt emotion in this debate and there were times when my eyes welled up with tears as well because it has been heartfelt. But I want to reassure my brothers and sisters out there in the community that from a National Party perspective one of our principles is equal citizenship equal opportunity". So whether we personally agree with this or not we agree to it in the coalition agreement and National commends this bill to the House."
Garcia Paulo; O'Connor GregPAULO GARCIA (National—New Lynn): Thank you Mr Speaker. I stand to contribute to the Local Government (Electoral Legislation and Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill. I wanted to begin just by saying that we are the House of Representatives the Parliament of New Zealand and being representatives of New Zealand we represent everyone in our electorates—who may have voted for us; who may not have voted for us—and we establish a pathway into work for Parliament and in local government as well through hard work the building of relationships the establishment of friendships. And so we make and inch ourselves forward.I am originally from the Philippines as everyone knows. The first councillor of Filipino descent was elected in Ashburton in 2017 and it was a big surprise to all of us. Clearly she put herself forward and she had created enough relationships and friendships and support where she found herself being elected as a councillor. I think we have heard harsh words in this debate. We have heard extermination" we have heard "racism"—we have heard a lot of harsh words—but what we aim for in this amendment bill is to give voice to the people that we all represent in the places that they represent. And that does not lose sight of the fact that there may be different constituencies in our electorates. But we in this Government are determined to celebrate the humanity that unites all of us and not to focus on division by using in-group rights and collective identity as a supervening fact over the equality of all of us.The amendment bill seeks only to bring back to local communities their opportunity to have a say in their own governance. If I am not mistaken Māori Filipinos Chinese Indians Pākehā form part of the local communities so when we want to specify a specific treatment to a specific group—in the words of leader of the Labour Party who spoke earlier "when a specific group is treated differently"—that is discrimination. I commend this bill to the House.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): I understand this is a split call—the Hon Willow-Jean Prime."
Halbert ShananSHANAN HALBERT (Labour): Thank you Mr Speaker. All Māori have ever wanted expected is tino rangatiratanga mana motuhake respect for Te Tiriti fairness equity. All Māori have ever wanted is justice to be treated fairly and equitably.Today's debate is actually about barriers and what we see from the Government members in their speeches today is that they go back they go backwards to rules and laws that were implemented put in place to obstruct Māori from advancing in our political system—to put barriers in place that obstructed Māori from better representation from achieving mana motuhake from gaining the justice that our people and all of our communities in Aotearoa deserve. This bill wants to put in place particular barriers that impact access to representation that is only going to be unique to tangata whenua to Māori. This barrier is not going to be put in the way of rural-ward voters. This barrier is not going to be put in the way of general-ward voters. This barrier is not going to be put in the way of property owners having multiple votes in multiple districts where they own property just like our Prime Minister. No it is only Māori wards and their voters that must be approved through a district-wide vote.The Government members say But the Labour Government put this in place" Well that was back in the 90s and under the last Government we took away this barrier that disabled Māori from having better representation because we recognised that it was only a barrier that was put in place for Māori. Today as the Government members boastfully support this bill and legislation to go through the House this is taking Aotearoa New Zealand backwards back to the 90s back to obstructing voices that since Māori had been at those tables has only been applauded has only added value has only supported everyone in particular communities around the motu—Māori and non-Māori alike. Because when a Māori sits at the table who's a representative of a Māori ward they also represent everyone. They also make a wonderful contribution to the future of Te Tairāwhiti. They also make a wonderful contribution to Tukituki to Ngāti Kahungunu and the future of Hawke's Bay. But members of the Government today are choosing to put back in place legislation that obstructs Māori voices from making a contribution to their communities.The Minister today said "What a great day for local democracy.". "What a great day for local democracy."—for who? Not for Māori; it's not for New Zealand. And the fact that the Minister and Government members are so boastful—so whakahīhī—about what they are doing today is simply disgraceful. I end my contribution for today that this started when the Minister made a decision not to put this through the Māori Affairs Committee—not to include Māori and to obstruct them from this discussion."
Meager James; O'Connor GregJAMES MEAGER (National—Rangitata): Thank you Mr Speaker. I had a number of words written in preparation for this third reading speech tonight but I'm not sure whether it's worth it because clearly many of the members opposite haven't actually read the bill don't understand what the bill does and don't actually acknowledge any part of the bill. The bill doesn't remove Māori wards. The bill doesn't remove constituencies. The bill reverts the law back to where it was in 2021 under Jacinda Ardern. It reverts the law back to where it was in the early 2000s as introduced by Helen Clark and the Labour Government and Nanaia Mahuta supported by members sitting on the opposite benches. So I ask the question: is it worth standing up and continuing on speaking to a bill where members opposite clearly don't understand what it does?I thought I would make a contribution because one of the themes that comes across from the members opposite is that they believe that they have the single dictate that they have the one true idea in the world on what it is to be Māori on what it is to count as a Māori and what it is to have your view count as being one that is of Māori world view. They are the ones that get to decide; they are the ones that apparently hold all the cards. If you don't look like them if you don't talk like them if you don't walk like them if you don't think like them then you don't count.So here's a message to the tens of thousands of individuals—of children of young people of workers—out there in New Zealand who identify who whakapapa Māori who don't look like them who don't think like them who don't share their world view and who they think don't count. Well those people do count and we share the view that their individual views count. Whether they share the views of Willie Jackson or Te Pāti Māori their views count. I say to those people who are having their Māori whakapapa questioned by members in this debate tonight: if you do not agree with the members opposite if you do agree that you have individual thought that you are allowed to be a free thinker we will welcome you because we support people regardless of ethnicity regardless of race gender creed who can think independently.This bill does one very simple thing: it restores the rights for local communities to have a say on the creation of Māori wards—a special ward created by statute. It is only right that locals have a say on the creation of those wards. I commend the bill to the House.Hon Willie Jackson: Willie Jackson.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): Are you seeking the call Mr Jackson?Hon Willie Jackson: Yes—yes Mr Speaker.
Gangs Legislation Amendment Bill — In Committee—Part 3
Goldsmith PaulHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): The member asked about the review process and the previous speaker asked whether she could be as a non - gang member issued with a dispersal notice. Of course the requirement is to be a gang member part of the three or more and it's necessary to avoid unreasonably disrupting. So if somebody feels that they have been issued with a dispersal notice and they shouldn't have been the process is to apply to the Commissioner of Police and the Commissioner of Police has to reply within 48 hours. If they point out that they're not a gang member or that there wasn't three or more people involved or that the issue wasn't necessary to avoid unreasonably disrupting the activities of the public then the decision can be revoked. The decision and the communication to the person who's applied needs to be done within 48 hours. So that is the process and it's done quickly through the Commissioner of Police because this is a seven-day period so you want to move quickly. So that's the process that if somebody feels like they shouldn't have been issued a dispersal notice and can demonstrate that they're not actually a gang member well then that was how they would go about it.
Maipi-Clarke Hana-RawhitiHANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE (Te Pāti Māori—Hauraki-Waikato): Tēnā rā koe e te Pīka otirā tēnā rā tātou e te Whare.[Authorised te reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.][Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]I have a few questions to the Minister and I have asked different questions last week as well. However I'm just going to ask a few questions in relation to Part 3 and I quote A constable may issue a dispersal notice to a person if the constable has reasonable grounds—(a) to suspect that the person—(i) is a gang member;". That is so dangerous because in my eyes and within our experiences that is stereotyping 101 and I circle the definition of what is "reasonable grounds" and to use the word "suspect" is very very dangerous because we know and the data shows that we are over-profiled. Last week I came in here saying that I am consistently being pulled over in a small town like Huntly for no reason. Since the elections and we moved to Wellington not once have I been pulled over. So we already know from experience that we are over-profiled and it shows where 50 percent of the male population in jail and 65 percent of female are of Māori descent. So I want to ask the Minister: what measures does the Minister have in place to mitigate Māori profiling if we're using words such as "to suspect the person is a gang member"? So to put that into context for whānau watching at home if three Māori boys are coming together and they look like gang members does that mean that the police officer has authority to give them a dispersal notice? And why I'm asking questions like that is because we know that it will happen. I've seen my brother get pulled over by a paddy wagon for no reason during fireworks. I've seen it. And we watch it constantly. So this is why we're coming with questions that may sound silly to some but we have to bring them into the House to keep Ministers accountable. Will this happen in our communities? And we know it will.Another question is: what training are police taking to issue a dispersal notice and how will this work? Recently with experiences given from members across this side of the House it was only last week—two weeks ago actually—that a whānau member of mine who had a gang affiliation passed away and we had a tangi for him. And it was only last week that we had our grand final in Rāhui Pōkeka and there were many different gang members there. I was associated with them. I interacted with them. So does that mean that I am liable to get a dispersal notice? And these are the questions that I want to ask even for ourselves even for our party. And then I'd also like to ask—and you can correct me if not Madam Chair—some questions on Schedule 2 if possible for identified gangs.CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Next debate.HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE: OK. Well that's all I've got for this one."
Webb Duncan; Goldsmith PaulHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you Madam Chair. Look it does seem that what the Minister's just said demonstrates how unworkable this is because at one end you've got sausage sizzles and at the other end you've got 50 motorcyclists. We're not interested in the extremes; we're interested in the middle and I'd be really interested in the Minister saying where the line lies.So if we have three people with a couple of dogs which some people might find a little intimidating and loud music clearly gang members at the park yahooing does that cross the line? Is that unreasonably disrupting the activities of other members of the public? Because some members of the public would be disrupted. They'd be disrupted whether they were gang members or not and perhaps unreasonably so. Does there need to be some connection with their gang-ness and the disruption or is that just an incidental? So I think it's all very nice to talk about the extremes but that's not where the problem is; the problem is where the rubber hits the road. The other thing I want to ask you about: you said that the purpose was to stop these people congregating again and being disruptive. Now if that's your purpose that's not what the bill does. Does the Minister intend that to breach a dispersal notice you've got to be being disruptive again? Because if that's the case we've got work to do. I'm going to keep my contribution short because I really want to hear from the Minister and have that exchange which we're supposed to be having here. I want to talk about the fact that once the dispersal has occurred the purpose for the issuing of the notice is actually expired. So giving a notice after the event—two days after the event conceivably—becomes more and more meaningless. That's why I've put in Amendment Paper D which suggests deleting the words or were gathered" so when you serve the notice you can serve it on someone at a gathering or who are gathered. So the "were gathered" makes no sense because to pop round their house the next day utterly undermines the very purpose of this bill which is to disperse. They have dispersed and so to issue a dispersal notice after the dispersal is an absolute nonsense. And of course it's time-bound from the moment of the initial meeting. So the longer you wait the shorter the period of dispersal which again undermines it. So my Amendment Paper says "Look let's not be silly. Let's accept that if we're going to have these silly dispersal notices make them so that they disperse not so that they tell people to disperse after they've dispersed." So that's my Amendment Paper D. I'd be interested in the Minister's comments.Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): I do think the member is somewhat lacking in imagination because it is quite possible that certain gang members might be in the habit of gathering regularly every day for a week in a manner that unreasonably disrupts the activities of the members of the public and so the purpose of having served the dispersal notice would be to stop the re-gathering in that particular circumstance."
Webb Duncan; Goldsmith PaulHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): I think the Minister may want to speak.CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Sorry I didn't see him.Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: I'll yield.Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): Sorry just in relation to the concerns that the member has raised about whānau and important relationships it's worth noting that both the dispersal notices are for seven days or the non-consorting orders do have exemptions for immediate family members and for those engaging in activities like work or education or healthcare so you're not going to be stopped from consorting with your family members and your co-workers if you happen to have a job and exemptions can be applied for lawful attendance at tangi for example. But an exemption would have to be applied for. So we think that makes reasonable flexibility there.In terms of the consultation I will remind the member that the bill has been before a select committee with the opportunity for anybody to engage and have their views on this legislation over the past four months which is how the process normally works and people get an opportunity to have their say. What we're trying to achieve through this part is to provide the Police with two extra tools to deal with situations where gatherings are made which are unreasonably disrupting the activities of the members of the public. And the member referred to three gang members watching football or rugby on the sideline and watching their kids playing rugby. And it would be surprising that that would be a case of unreasonably disrupting the activities of other members of the public. What we are thinking of though is if there were 50 motorcycle gang members taking over a town and meeting in the middle of town; that would be something that is potentially disrupting the activities of other members of the public. And quite rightly if there was one constable on duty in that town and there was nobody else within 100 kilometres then a discretion may well apply. That is why we have given the ability for the dispersal notices to be issued later as an option. And so the legislation provides for that opportunity. Again of course the Police always have discretion as to how to apply or enforce the law on any particular circumstance as regards to their ability to do so.
Goldsmith PaulHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): Well look I thank the previous member Tamatha Paul for her comments. I understand her desire to emphasise the good things that gangs sometimes do—and nobody denies that sometimes they do. Our clear understanding is that on balance they do more harmful things for the community and that's why we have this piece of legislation that is giving the police extra powers to deal with gang activity. But with respect the member is mistaken when she's suggesting for a moment that the so-called pro-social activities of gangs will be stopped by this process because police need to reasonably believe that the dispersal notice is necessary to avoid the gang unreasonably disrupting the activities of other members of the public.So if the gang members are gathering in order to encourage people to have a vaccination I don't think that's going to fall in that category. If gangs are gathering to encourage people to stop taking meth—which would be ironic but if they were—then that wouldn't be unreasonably disrupting the activities of the members of the public. And if they were gathering to run a sausage sizzle in order to raise funds for victims of crime then that wouldn't be unreasonably disrupting the activities of the public. So that is the clear test for this legislation. So it won't be capturing those things. And she also referenced protests and so forth. Again I'd refer to clause 9(3) Limit on issuing" that "A dispersal notice may not be issued to a person who is a member of any group of persons who are gathering in a public place for the primary purpose of demonstrating support for or opposition to or otherwise publicising a point of view cause or campaign." So I'd point the members to those details.In terms of how the dispersal notices would work which was asked by another member. So the police need to have a concern that the notice is necessary to avoid unreasonably disrupting activities or other members of the public. Now issuing the notice—well there's options. One can detain somebody to issue and serve the notice. They could serve the notice in person at the event—a hard copy—or they could send an email. Or if they didn't have an email which has been raised if someone didn't offer up an email address then the police have the power to take them to the station to provide a printed off copy if that is what is required. And obviously as we've said many many times the police have the discretion to determine for themselves what's the appropriate way to deal with any given particular situation. And they could issue a notice after the gathering and the purpose of that is obviously to stop them regathering in another event which would be disrupting the activities of other members of the public.Why are we doing all this? Because this is providing the police with one extra tool in order to help them deal with the disruptive activities of gangs in the public sphere following a 50 percent increase in gang membership over the past six years and widespread public concern."
McLellan TraceyDr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour): Thank you Madam Chair. When we turn our mind to Part 3 as has just been said it really does focus on those dispersal notices and in itself it might seem sort of relatively straightforward on the surface but when you start looking or trying to picture the practicalities of how they're going to work all sorts of things arise. So I think there's a number of questions that do require further information and certainly further response from the Minister in the chair Paul Goldsmith so that we can have a level of confidence that not only is the activity of issuing a dispersal notice worthwhile—achieves what it says it's going to achieve—but also isn't a risk and doesn't put someone in jeopardy or harm.As the Hon Dr Duncan Webb just said when faced with a group of three or more people who you believe or have reasons to believe are gang members and therefore are in a group and therefore could be disorderly or cause intimidation a constable then has to go and not just tell them that they've got to go away from each other but issue them in writing. As we've heard you know police don't carry paper and they don't have that in written form—so we're certainly led to believe throughout this process—so it's a matter of asking those people individually for their emails so that they can be issued that infringement notice via email and if they don't give that email or don't see the rationale behind what the question is even asking them if they will accompany that police officer to a police station presumably so that something can be prepared for them printed out and given to them. So it feels like there's an awful lot of cooperation involved in a process that by its very nature is a dispersal notice and therefore is probably not likely necessarily to come with that requisite cooperation from those parties.So wondering if the Minister can just give us a little bit more detail particularly in relation to the paper because I know the Minister has said in prior stages—I think in Part 1 specifically made mention of the fact when he responded to a question almost made light of the fact that you know it was as simple as just providing that written notice there at the time. I'm certainly under the impression that that's not necessarily possible so that leaves me to wonder then what is the alternative and has that even been thought about to the point where we're all satisfied that this is something that actually can happen.So my question to the Minister is: how does the dispersal notice get issued if a person doesn't provide their email and doesn't choose to accompany a constable or a police officer to a police station to receive such a notice?
Williams ArenaARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you Mr Chair. A new line of question from me and this is about the importance of not only restricting the use of gang insignia as something which is intimidating but also restricting the use of gang insignia when it is glamorising. I am particularly concerned about this issue with what I've raised in my first reading contribution. I do not think that anyone should be able to glamorise the use of gang insignia and so at clause 8 the exceptions to the prohibition my questions for the Minister in the chair Louise Upston are 8(a)(ii) the media reporting of the news. My question to the Minister is: is it necessary for the news to show the full image of gang insignia or would it be more appropriate for gang insignia to either be blurred or to be used in a way which does not show the full picture? I would put it to her that media reporting about gangs can be done in a way which does not glamorise gangs does not use their insignia does not promote the way that gangs display themselves in a sort of uniform to signify that they are together and that they are an organised movement. Media reports should be really careful to not use gang insignia in exactly the way that gangs intend for it to be used when they are wearing it and so I would ask the Minister whether that is necessary at all.
Webb DuncanHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): I know repetition's not good but there are three things I've asked and the Minister simply hasn't addressed them. The book question: I didn't like his answer but he addressed it so that's done. But he didn't address the question of whether a court should have discretion under section 8A—must" or "may". He didn't address the question of the need for the residence in clause 8A(2)(c) and whether that (c) clause is even necessary there.The other one that is a no-brainer is why on earth there's not an alternative to imprisonment in clause 8A(6). We've only just seen this clause. I accept that these are detailed questions; they're not wide-ranging objections to the policy. They are saying "We're trying to do this. In respect of the 'must' or 'may' question what is the great evil that means that you're going to impose an obligation on a court to make an order when a judge is well placed to determine whether in all of the circumstances it's proportionate and it will address the social harm that is sought to be addressed by this clause?" In terms of the residence question the point is that this is a truly extraordinary intrusion into someone's personal life that you're not only prohibiting them from having gang insignia in their possession or in their room you're prohibiting their flatmates from having gang insignias—if they know about it—in another room. In terms of workability it's an absolute dog's breakfast and it's a horrendous piece of legislation. But for goodness' sake let's not make people liable for a year imprisonment because they know that their flatmate has a gang patch. That is true madness. In terms of the fine we just need to sort that out. Will you support my Amendment Paper saying a $5000 fine is also an alternative?"
White HelenHELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): Thank you. Mr Chair you may recall I sat down before I'd finished making a contribution because an answer came and I was going to come back and the Minister took on that line and answered my question and was very reassuring saying that this was only about public places. But when the discussion has gone on in this committee stage we have talked about clause 8A which actually talks about insignia inside of the home and a prohibition occurring there. Now I am concerned by where that came from because the Minister seemed to be saying that he had considered what the Ministry of Justice said and had walked away from the kind of private application to private space and yet here it is.What I would ask the Minister which is of great concern is: if somebody had a Nazi sign in their house would that be something that this would be subject to? If they had swastikas; if they had material that we would consider at the deepest end of harmful and connected with things like that would that apply or are we just applying it in a way that means that we are not being consistent in our sense of justice and our morality? Especially since we're combining this with going into people's bedrooms.Now that was my initial concern—I raised it I was reassured I had got the wrong end of the stick and this was all about the public space—but 8A clearly says that it isn't. I'd ask the Minister to answer that and consider whether in fact that's something that we should be amending; that's something that we should be looking at and I'd really like an answer to that question. What would happen with a swastika under this law? And why is a swastika—where people have been seriously harmed and victimised in our society as a result of it—if I'm right not subject to the same kind of rules and proportionality? Because remember people going to be imprisoned for this. So what's going on? Thank you.
Goldsmith Paul; Tuiono TeanauHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): I just wanted to respond to one of the questions that the previous speaker Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan raised in relation to the three-strikes legislation—and I'm sure that he's fully aware this: that three-strikes legislation has particular offences that are included in strike offences which does not include the gang patch one. Of course it also has 24 months' imprisonment as a threshold as well which is obviously more than six months. So in relation to that matter: not included.CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Just before we take the next call I do want to note that there has been some new material—so thank you for that—and that has been specific. But then also some of the contributions are starting to get peripheral. Now it is fair for members to ask questions and you might not like the answers that the Minister gives but once those have been addressed it's important that we move on.
Goldsmith PaulHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): Look I just wanted to respond. In terms of the Amendment Papers around someone being convicted three times for flouting the gang patch ban there is a series of consequences that flow so as to give the judicial system greater ability to deal with recidivist offenders in this way and we think that's appropriate.I think this debate has been enlightening because it has I think underlined the confusion in attitudes on the other side of the House in relation to this because we keep on hearing that the gangs are really quite good they're misunderstood they do good things in the community and their expression is important and yet at the same time we hear members say Well of course you don't wear red in Whangārei." [Interruption] Well that's what the member said—"We know we don't wear red in Whangārei.Well why do we not wear red in Whangārei? Because of fear and intimidation of the consequences for doing that and that is precisely what we're trying to deal with in this. Many people have suffered the violent consequences for wearing the wrong thing in the wrong place and the only reason why it would be an unwritten rule that we don't wear red in Whangārei is because of precisely the matters that we're trying to deal with in this legislation."
Webb DuncanHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you Mr Chair. Moving to my next Amendment Paper I wonder if the Minister of Justice firstly might—it's about clause 8(a)—give his response to my initial speech which was to say Well what the heck? Why is this been introduced at the last moment and when did this spring into his head? Why didn't the Justice Committee get a chance to look at it?" And in terms of the debate on this part this is the only chance we get to debate this offence provision in respect of mandatory gang insignia prohibition orders for repeat offences.My amendment paper which is marked "v" addresses the problem in clause 6 because the only punishment given in clause 6 for someone who breaches this order is imprisonment not exceeding one year. Now in every other offence clause that we look at there's a fine alternative. Now it may be—and I don't have the Sentencing Act to hand—in the Sentencing Act if there's imprisonment it's kind of inferred somehow that you can do a fine or community work or some other thing. But that should be clear and certainly the absence of "or a fine"—and my Amendment Paper uses a fine not exceeding $5000; I'm not even sure if that's the right number. But certainly a fine should be an alternative because you know an offence for your kid having the grandad's gang patch jacket in the spare wardrobe clearly doesn't warrant any imprisonment. It might warrant a modest fine but imprisonment? No.So Minister—and I can see you're taking advice and I'm really glad about that because I'm hopeful that you'll be able to respond to this because it does strike me that you need to be consistent in your drafting and the Parliamentary Counsel Office has clearly drafted this and they would usually always have a fine alternative. So I wonder Minister if you'd like to respond to that."