edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
7. Question No. 7—EducationERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays) to the Minister of EducationQuestion No. 7—Education7. ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays) to the Minister of Education: Will she make the Common Practice Model a legal requirement for teachers to follow and on what date will the final content of the Common Practice Model be published?Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Associate Minister of Education (Māori Education)) on behalf of the Minister of Education: On behalf of the Minister of Education the final Common Practice Model will be released in term 4 of 2023. Teachers are encouraged to use the new maths and literacy curriculum from 2024 and through 2025. It will become a legislative requirement from 2026. Erica Stanford: Point of order Mr Speaker. I didn't ask the Minister about the curriculum; I asked about the Common Practice Model which is a completely different document to the curriculum. So the wrong question has been answered.Hon KELVIN DAVIS: I'll repeat the last sentence: it will become a legislative requirement from 2026. Erica Stanford: Will the Common Practice Model require Structured Literacy to be used to teach every student to learn to read?Hon KELVIN DAVIS: It will provide clarity to teachers so that they know what to teach.Erica Stanford: Can she explain to parents why it is that she's going to mandate a certain method that teachers will use to teach their children to read but she won't say what that method is until after the election?Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Again the Common Practice Model will provide clarity to teachers. Erica Stanford: Can the Minister provide any clarity to this House today on how parents will know after the election how their children will learn to read and whether or not that will be Structured Literacy which has been shown to be the best way to teach children to read?Hon KELVIN DAVIS: We always trust the teachers but when we provide clarity their practice will improve even more.Erica Stanford: Isn't the reason that she will not put her neck on the line and state what method of teaching reading will be compulsory prior to the election is because she's afraid of the controversy and cannot defend her position?Hon KELVIN DAVIS: No that's not the case whatsoever. We'll trust in teachers and as I said the Common Practice Model will provide clarity to them on the best ways to teach.
3. Question No. 3—HealthSARAH PALLETT (Labour—Ilam) to the Minister of HealthQuestion No. 3—Health3. SARAH PALLETT (Labour—Ilam) to the Minister of Health: What is the Government doing to reduce youth vaping?Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Minister of Health): Earlier this week I confirmed a number of new regulations aimed at reducing youth vaping including proximity restrictions and limiting flavour descriptions. These new regulations build on the previous protections we introduced including banning sales to under-18s and prohibiting vape advertising and sponsorship. The impact of these regulations will continue to be monitored. Nothing is off the table in terms of what we need to do to make sure we see a reduction in youth vaping while retaining sufficient tools for smoking cessation.Sarah Pallett: What change is the Government making to reduce the appeal of vaping to children?Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: While some vape flavours are described generically others are described in ways that appear to be designed to specifically appeal to young people. Studies have found that flavours are important for initiation and continuation of vaping among young people. That's why we have changed regulations so that vape products and their packaging will only be able to have generic descriptions that accurately describe the types of flavours.Sarah Pallett: What change is the Government making to make vapes less accessible to children?Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: We want vapes as far from the minds and reach of children and young people as possible. That's why any locations within 300 metres of schools and marae will be off limits for new specialist vape shops. Limiting the proximity of specialist vape shops in this way is intended to make vapes less visible and accessible to young people.Sarah Pallett: Why is the Government working to reduce youth vaping?Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: Many of the regulatory controls are there to protect young people from vaping. Youth vaping has grown despite the laws we've brought in to prohibit sales to under18s. Alongside our efforts to reduce tobacco smoking we want to ensure vaping products are safe regulated and are only being used for cessation purposes as was intended. I'm committed to protecting our tamariki from the risks associated with smoking and vaping products.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That Parts 1 and 2 the Schedule and clauses 1 to 3 be agreed to.Ayes 75New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Te Paati Māori 2; Kerekere; Whaitiri.Noes 40New Zealand National 30; ACT New Zealand 10. Parts 1 and 2 the Schedule and clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.Bill to be reported without amendment.House resumed.
Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Community Participation) Amendment Bill — In Committee
VoteDEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is That the amendments recommended by the Justice Committee by majority be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendments be agreed to.Ayes 75New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Te Paati Māori 2; Kerekere; Whaitiri.Noes 39New Zealand National 29; ACT New Zealand 10.Amendments agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Community Participation) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.Ayes 75New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Te Paati Māori 2; Kerekere; Whaitiri.Noes 39New Zealand National 29; ACT New Zealand 10.Motion agreed to.Bill read a second time.DEPUTY SPEAKER: I declare the House in committee for consideration of the bill.
Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Community Participation) Amendment Bill — Second Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Fuel Industry (Improving Fuel Resilience) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.Ayes 107New Zealand Labour 62; New Zealand National 32; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Te Paati Māori 2; Kerekere; Whaitiri.Noes 10ACT New Zealand 10. Motion agreed to.Bill read a third time.
Fuel Industry (Improving Fuel Resilience) Amendment Bill — Third Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the question be now put.Ayes 72New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Kerekere.Noes 44New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.Motion agreed to.The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 71 Noes 44.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is That clauses 1 to 14 and the Schedule stand part.A party vote was called for on the question That clauses 1 to 14 and the Schedule be agreed to.Ayes 109New Zealand Labour 62; New Zealand National 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Te Paati Māori 2; Kerekere; Whaitiri.Noes 10ACT New Zealand 10.Clauses 1 to 14 and the Schedule agreed to.Bill to be reported without amendment.House resumed.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Mr Speaker the committee has considered the Fuel Industry (Improving Fuel Resilience) Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment. I move That the report be adopted.Motion agreed to.Report adopted.DEPUTY SPEAKER: The bill is set down for third reading immediately.
Fuel Industry (Improving Fuel Resilience) Amendment Bill — In Committee
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Local Government Electoral Legislation Bill be now read a third time.Ayes 75New Zealand Labour 62; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 9; Te Paati Māori 2; Kerekere; Whaitiri.Noes 44New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.Motion agreed to.Bill read a third time.
Local Government Electoral Legislation Bill — Third Reading
Williams Arena; O'Connor GregARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you Mr Speaker for the opportunity to take a very short call on this bill which is a very simple bill. It sends a clear message to drivers: if you flee from police you will lose your ride. That's all it does. Very little to do with speeding and drug testing like we've heard on that side of the House. They can't find a reason to oppose it so they've found the broader picture. But this is a good bill and that's why I commend it.DEPUTY SPEAKER: The time has come for me to leave the Chair. The House stands suspended until 9 a.m. in the morning.Debate interrupted.Sitting suspended from 9.57 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Wednesday)
SpeechVANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour): Thank you Mr Speaker. Responding to Mr Goldsmith's objection to the point-to-point cameras at the second reading—thank you to the Hansard team—he said I live in Auckland … I of course stick to the speed limit. I'm very careful to do that but I'm the only person in the place who does." Now Mr Goldsmith that's a bit of an unfair indictment on the good people of Epsom for a start but then he continued to be very concerned about the 30 kilometre speed limits and was repeatedly told by the Minister that the cameras would be inserted on the areas of high risk—clear answer.But he may want to talk to his colleague in ACT who it appears would want the cameras everywhere to monitor congestion. So they may want to have a little bit of a conversation about the consistency. I can understand how listeners would be very perplexed about the Opposition's view: are they objecting to point-to-point speed cameras—Simon Court: Yes.VANUSHI WALTERS: —being put in in the highest-risk areas where there is death where there is serious injury—say that one more time Mr Court. Are they objecting to police monitoring compliance with the law? Or are they objecting to the use of modern technology to free our front-line police up to free their capacity to address more serious offending?It is very confusing on the other side of the House tonight. I would suggest they get out their Magic 8 Ball of decision making give it a little shake and try again for the second half of their responses this evening. I commend this bill to the House."
SpeechGLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth): I move That the question be now put.
Brown Simeon; Parker DavidSIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): In new sections 139AAA to 139AAC inserted by clause 26 there are new powers which the Minister of Transport will have to approve an automated infringement system. Can I ask the Minister in relation to the system is that relating to each individual area where these average speed checks will be used or is that a particular type of technology which may or may not be approved?If it is in relation to either of those can the Minister give any assurances to the committee as to whether or not officials have already started the process to effectively put together any proposals around these types of systems and what advice has the Minister received regarding this?Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Transport): In fact neither. New section 139AAA is about the ticketing system—the automated infringement system—not about the speed camera system.
Court Simon; Parker DavidSIMON COURT (ACT): Minister just coming back to the Minister's Supplementary Order Paper 421 in new section (2)(1)(a)(iii) inserted by clause 4 any offence against regulations … under this Act or the Transport (Vehicle and Driver Registration and Licensing) Act … that is declared by regulations under this Act to be a moving vehicle offence". Minister it appears to Dr McDowall and I and no doubt to anybody else who had the opportunity to scrutinise this legislation which is being pushed through the House under urgency that this appears to allow speed cameras—average speed cameras; camera detection equipment—to issue offence notices and tickets to people because their registration or their warrant of fitness or some other matter associated with their vehicle condition is out of order.Minister would you please confirm to the committee and to those listening or watching at home that the Government proposes tonight under urgency in a Supplementary Order Paper amending a bill which has been tabled months ago to include ticketing Kiwis if they haven't kept their warrant and registration up to date whether it's a car or a trailer that if they pass a camera that's going to be authorised by this legislation that they'll get a ticket if their warrant and registration is out of date. Minister please confirm that.Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Transport): No; in fact I said the opposite. They can't get a ticket for that. The only change that is made by that Supplementary Order Paper to the definition of a moving vehicle offence is the addition of paragraph (b) which is a speeding offence detected by the point-to-point average speed system."
Robertson GrantURGENCYHon GRANT ROBERTSON (Leader of the House): Oh jeepers—knocking the water over. I move That urgency be accorded for the committee stage and third reading of the Land Transport (Road Safety) Amendment Bill and the first readings and referral to a select committee of the Hauraki Gulf / Tīkapa Moana Marine Protection Bill the Residential Property Managers Bill the Victims of Family Violence—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): No. Read that one again.Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: —the Victims of Family Violence—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): No. Order! That's not what I have here.Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Sorry that's what's on my notes Madam Speaker. Just one moment—the Victims of Sexual Violence (Strengthening Legal Protections) Legislation Bill and the victims of family violence strengthening legislation protection bill—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): No. Do the victims of family violence one again.Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Should I begin it again Madam Speaker?ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Just the victims of family violence.Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: —Victims of Family Violence (Strengthening Legal Protections) Legislation Bill—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Thank you.Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: —and the Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill.The reasons for moving this urgency motion are partly technical. Urgency allows the Land Transport (Road Safety) Amendment Bill to conclude its committee stage and then move straight to third reading. This motion also overcomes an anomaly in Standing Orders so as to allow the Residential Property Managers Bill to be considered today. Though the bill was introduced before three other bills before the House today it would not otherwise be eligible for debate. Urgency will give the House extra time to refer bills on important issues such as the protection of the Hauraki Gulf the strengthening of legal protections for the victims of violence and the future of news media in the digital age to be referred to select committees and for submissions to be called so that those bills are ready to be considered without delay by select committees in the new Parliament. Urgency will be completed by 1 p.m. tomorrow so question time and a member's bill day will be able to proceed as normal. I thank the House for the consideration of the motion.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The question is that the motion be agreed to.
SpeechANNA LORCK (Labour—Tukituki): In listening to the debates tonight I believe we've got a whole younger generation growing up with no relationship to police outside of seeing them in a car or when they're in trouble. We've heard from the National Party about all the things that are wrong and yet no acknowledgment that the National Government froze police numbers closed our community police stations and continued to close down and stop community policing.I actually think that that has had a huge huge repercussion on why we are seeing a whole generation grow up with no relationship. I listened about the seven-year-old involved in a ram raid; you have to wonder has there ever been anything worse than taking our community cops off the beat? I think that is an acknowledgment that the National Party should really think about.
SpeechANGELA ROBERTS (Labour): Thank you Madam Speaker. I just want to pick up one particular aspect of this bill. I don't know maybe being an educator and working with young people I'm always looking for opportunities to be optimistic. There are parts of this bill that I want to talk about with regards to making restorative practices (RP) more accessible to young people.RP for those of us in the education sector doesn't mean that accountability and consequences are not there; it just has a different way of addressing it. It invites everyone present into positions of responsibility. I'd like to think that the next stage of this bill when this goes to select committee that everybody—victims the perpetrators and the entire community—take the opportunity to step up to positions of responsibility.I'd like to reflect on the fact that we have talked about making it 16" and this is an opportunity—every young person can make a contribution to the select committee regardless of their age. We need to hear your voice if we are going to fix this. So please stand up and be heard. Thank you Madam Speaker."
Williams ArenaARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you for the opportunity to take a call on the Ram Raid Offending and Related Measures Amendment Bill. It's a bill which amends the Crimes Act 1961 by creating a new offence of ram raiding with a maximum penalty of 10 years. When I've been reflecting on the contributions in this House I have been thinking about the shop owners in my electorate of Manurewa. Their experiences very much inform the way I've approached this bill. Quite simply I believe that they deserve to go to work every day feeling safe in their work and the workers who work in their shops who are often family members deserve to know that they will be able to go home at night unharmed.This bill goes alongside a suite of Government work in this area. These are legislative measures which sit alongside those programmes which keep young people from offending in this way in the first place—things like the Better Pathways Package the fast-track programmes and the enhanced fast track which I've seen for myself. It's a group of agencies sitting around the table dealing with each young person's case as it comes through the night before working out what is the best way to wrap around support and get these kids back engaged in school or in work or in something positive in their lives.We're talking about a really small group of young people and when I think of the experience of one of the local shop owners in my area—he's just around the corner from me Kharag Singh—he said to me that nobody who runs their shop thinks that the only answer to this is that there has to be harsher consequences. That is a big part of it for him and the people that he talks to but he wants to make sure that these things don't happen in the first place. That is what the Better Pathways Package does. That's what Kotahi te Whakaaro which reengages these kids into something positive does. It's why we need to do all of these things together and that's why I'm happy to commend this bill to the House.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Simon O'Connor—a five-minute call.
SpeechGLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth): It saddens me to hear the playing of politics that I just heard for the last 10 minutes. My history in work has been in places like restorative justice and working with young victims and offenders of crime so I know it firsthand—I've seen it and experienced it. We've been fortunate but sadly many communities around Aotearoa New Zealand haven't. We haven't had ram raids or the issues of it in New Plymouth but we did have one drive-by smash-and-grab several months ago at one of our jewellery stores and it was tragic. I went and met with the victims of that and I understand what they were going through but I looked into and followed up in terms of who these people were who perpetrated these offences and in conversations around where they came from in terms of their offending we could see a decade earlier—a decade earlier—that these young people had been let through the gaps had been dropped and ignored by Government policy. Yes they offended and what they did is wrong and they should not have done it but the system failed them.This kind of legislation isn't the silver bullet to fix it all but it is something that's going to go some way to ensure that we make sure there are stopgap measures in place. Yes we need to be tough on crime. We also need to be relentless in finding solutions to the causes of crime ensuring we work with young people and their whānau to ensure that victims don't have to go through this. That's why this is a step forward. I commend it to the House.
SpeechVANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour): Thank you Madam Speaker. Can I begin my contribution just by acknowledging all the businesses who have been affected by ram raids. I know there are a number in north-west Auckland including in Westgate Unsworth Heights and Greenhithe. It's not acceptable. It's never acceptable which is why our Government has implemented a suite of measures to break that cycle of offending including the Better Pathways Package including fast-tracking local teams to address youth offending and including the circuit-breaker" programme which has demonstrated some real success but also in targeting organised crime.But the Minister is correct that one ram raid is one too many which is why we are introducing this bill. There's one aspect of this bill which a number of big and small retailers have spoken to me about that this bill addresses. This bill introduces measures to penalise people who commission or reward children and young people to offend or who post offending online and creates a new aggregating factor in the Sentencing Act which will apply when an adult encourages or incites a person under 18 to carry out an offence.This is an issue that's been raised with me by a number of people. This is part of a suite of changes the Government has introduced. We are focused on community safety. I commend this bill to the House."
SpeechELECTORAL (LOWERING VOTING AGE FOR LOCAL ELECTIONS AND POLLS) LEGISLATION BILLFirst ReadingDebate resumed.NAISI CHEN (Labour): Thank you Madam Speaker. It gives me immense pride to be able to take a call on this bill. Here we are finally at the first reading of making it 16 for local government elections. There is a wealth of knowledge that has been dispersed onto the internet about why we should be making it 16. I think the Make It 16 campaign should have the final say on this first reading.The first reason why we need to make it 16: the current voting age of 18 is in breach of 16- and 17-year-olds' fundamental human right to vote. Number two: lowering the voting age is a catalyst for better civics education. Number three: 16- and 17-year-olds already hold big responsibilities and make big life decisions. Number four: 16- and 17-year-olds paid $92 million in income tax in 2022. Number five: lowering the voting age has improved voter turnout in other countries. Number six: there's already a growing list of countries that have lowered the voting age to 16. Number seven: the earlier you vote the more likely you are to vote for the rest of your life. And finally number eight: lowering the voting age will allow more young people to vote and more voices to be heard.I think there is plenty of reason why we should make it 16 and a special shout-out to Young Labour who've been advocating for this since the early 2000s. I commend this bill to the House.
Voting — Correction—Declaration of Inconsistency Voting Age
SpeechVOTINGCorrection—Declaration of Inconsistency Voting AgeASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members the result of the vote on the question that the House take note of the Declaration of inconsistency: Voting age in the Electoral Act 1993 and the Local Electoral Act 2001 was incorrectly recorded as Ayes 96 Noes 10. The correct result is Ayes 106 Noes 10.
Electoral (Lowering Voting Age for Local Elections and Polls) Legislation Bill — First Reading
Boyack RachelRACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you Madam Speaker. It's a pleasure to take a call on the Electoral (Lowering Voting Age for Local Elections and Polls) Legislation Bill. This bill has come about partly because of the declaration of inconsistency in the courts that was found regarding the voting age with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.Inconsistency" is one of those things we've heard from the Opposition in the House today. I want to point out a few things that young people 16- and 17-year-olds care about. As Mr O'Connor mentioned there are many things that New Zealanders care about. Well 16- and 17-year-olds care about the cost of living 16- and 17-year-olds care about crime 16- and 17-year-olds care about climate change and our environment. All of those important things that matter to New Zealanders—that many of us out on the doorsteps today are hearing from New Zealanders—16- and 17-year-olds care about those things too.I particularly want to point out some comments from Simon Court who said he wasn't sure why this bill came about. Well it came about because there was a declaration in the court. I just want to note that the ACT Party thinks it's OK to give semi-automatic weapons to 16-year-olds but they don't want to let 16-year-olds vote. Now that's the definition of "inconsistency" in this House tonight. This is an excellent bill and I commend it to the House."
SpeechHon MEKA WHAITIRI (Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): E te Māngai o te Whare tēnā koe otirā ngā mema katoa otirā tātou katoa.[To the Speaker I greet you and all the members indeed all of us.]I'm pleased to take a call on the Electoral (Lowering Voting Age for Local Elections and Polls) Legislation Bill. Our Māori history tells us that tamariki and rangatahi were always part of wānanga and important conversations that impacted our people—tamariki and rangatahi were taught from a very early age to be critical thinkers. Their presence contribution and freedom to observe was integral to succession planning.Tamariki and rangatahi are indeed the vessel of our tīpuna's wildest dreams and they are activators for our future. It was the imposition of colonisation—the western education system that reframed the way we viewed our rangatahi and instead of seeing them as the bastion of our Aotearoa home we were conditioned by a Pākehā rhetoric that tamariki and rangatahi are to be seen and not heard.The Electoral (Lowering Voting Age for Local Elections and Polls) Legislation Bill before the House today is the first step towards acknowledging the very real value our rangatahi have in building our Aotearoa home. On every kapa haka stage across this country our rangatahi are using their voice to raise awareness about political issues that impact on them. They use that voice to call out political parties and politicians for reckless political decisions. Our Aotearoa hau demands that we believe in our rangatahi and that we empower them to lead and that we have the courage to begin our succession planning.It is not acceptable that we sit here making hugely impactful decisions on people and about people when they aren't even in the room to contribute to what that looks like. We sit here with the audacity to believe that it's that this House and the people in it that are the saviours of our world's problems. E kī rā! [Really!] This Parliament does it to Māori they do it to takatāpui and they do it to whānau hoa and/or minority communities.The argument that our rangatahi do not engage or participate in voting lacks intellect and purposely forgets to highlight the fact that the system has been designed in a way to keep people out. The Electoral (Lowering Voting Age for Local Elections and Polls) Legislation Bill begins to address that. With that said it is all well to lower the voting age but the Government must commit to further wrapping the right systems around our rangatahi so that they can access education and understanding about civics in Aotearoa. Rangatahi will not engage in any system where they don't see themselves. This is why Te Paati Māori is walking its talk by elevating rangatahi on its list. There is a saying in te reo Māori Ko ngā rangatahi ngā rangatira mō āpōpō". ["Our youth are our leaders of tomorrow."]Te Paati Māori says: kāo ko ngā rangatahi ngā rangatira o ināianei [no our youth are our leaders of today].Te Paati Māori and I support this bill with the preface that we need to pack around specific education and civics particularly for our youth. I commend this bill to the House."
SpeechIBRAHIM OMER (Labour): Thank you Madam Speaker. I rise to take a short call on the Electoral (Lowering Voting Age for Local Elections and Polls) Legislation Bill. I also wanted to add my voice to the speaker who just resumed her seat Golriz Ghahraman that this is indeed a significant day. It's a significant day in the sense that these young people have bravely campaigned for this and are here today—and I congratulate all of you for all of your hard work and shame to the Opposition MPs who talk down this bill.Simon Court—no Simon Watts actually—no Paul Goldsmith said that when he went doorknocking in Epsom he couldn't find anyone that could tell him that this is an issue. He doesn't need to look for them in Epsom; they are here. He just needs to notice them. This is a very important bill because the Supreme Court made it clear that preventing these brave young people from having their voting rights is inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. For us on this side of the House we are very proud that we are supporting this. This is a good bill; I commend it to the House.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Simon O'Connor five minutes.
Williams ArenaARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe Madam Speaker. This is a bill—it's simple—about who our democracy should be for whose voices should be represented on the national and local stage when we make decisions about Aotearoa New Zealand's future—issues like climate change mitigation and adaptation; issues like whether out economy delivers for everyone. And on those decisions I say—and my Labour colleagues say—that 16-year-olds should be in that conversation that they should have their voices heard if they want to participate and that they're ready to be heard in that conversation right now.I want to thank the people who have been involved both in the Justice Committee's consideration of the declaration of inconsistency and in who will be involved in this bill: the Justice Committee under the chairmanship of the Hon Ginny Andersen and Vanushi Walters as well as the Ministry of Justice and Department of Internal Affairs advisers the clerk of the committee Anna Platten and deputy clerk Jonathan Harris but also those campaigners who have made their voices heard who are representing young people at the table: the Make It 16 campaign Caeden Tipler Sanat Singh Thomas Dan Ralph—one of my favourite people in the world—and all of those young people who have written to me as a local MP to say that they want to be involved and that their voices matter. I say to them: your voice does matter and that's why I'm voting in favour of this bill.
SpeechVANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour): Just responding to the previous speaker—God forbid the House of Representatives should be focused on constitutional governance in this country. Very surprising. The member also referred to what else we're doing in the justice space. I hope that member sticks around for the remainder of the week where about half of what we are doing in this week relates to the justice area.It is a pleasure to take a call in relation to this bill. I'm going to use some of my brief time actually just to challenge some of what Michael Woodhouse said in his previous speech on the declaration because it is important. Because for those young people who did raise the issue of Make It 16—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! I'm having a bit of trouble with this because we are now not addressing the previous item of business; we are addressing the Electoral (Lowering Voting Age for Local Elections and Polls) Legislation Bill. So as the member continues with her speech can she be very careful that the comments she makes fall within the scope of bill.VANUSHI WALTERS: Thank you Madam Speaker for that clarification. Yes I believe I will address this issue which is that this bill has arisen because of a declaration of inconsistency that came from the Justice Committee where we made a specific recommendation that the voting age be lowered. There has been comment in this House that if Parliament is supreme and has already considered a section 7 report why should courts be able to send a declaration back to the House? It is because we don't always receive the section 7 report at the end of the process. It comes to select committee. The bill that passes through the House may not be relevant in terms of that report. The other is the passage of time. In terms of the setting of age in 1974 the age of voting was changed for general elections to 18. Nobody is arguing that Parliament is not supreme but there is a point of difference between legality and inconsistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. This is not America where if there is an inconsistency the courts can strike down. The courts have simply said reconsider this" which we have. I would say to the Make It 16 campaigners: the fact of your challenge is equally as important as what's proposed in the bill. I look forward to reading your submissions as they make their way into the next Parliament. Kia ora."
Motions — Amendment to the Definition of Parliamentary Precincts
Andersen Ginny; Rurawhe AdrianMOTIONSParliamentary Precincts—Amendment to the Definition of Parliamentary PrecinctsHon GINNY ANDERSEN (Minister of Justice) on behalf of the Leader of the House: I move That under section 25(1) and (2) of the Parliamentary Service Act 2000 and effective on 1 November 2023 this House—replace clause 3(a) of the Parliamentary Service (Parliamentary Precincts) Resolution 2021 with: the land and buildings at 147 Lambton Quay Wellington contained in record title WN53A/210 and leased by the Parliamentary Corporation as at the date of this resolution comprising levels 2-6 of the building being 3354m² more or less and 9 carparks in the basement of the building.SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.Motion agreed to.
Rurawhe AdrianSPEAKER: Mr van de Molen the House has resolved that you be censured for threatening a member on account of their conduct as a presiding officer and impeding them in the discharge of their duties as a member. Your conduct was unacceptable in Parliament which is a place of debate and not threatening behaviour.
Privilege — Consideration of Reports of Privileges Committee—Conduct of Member Tim van de Molen
Privilege — Consideration of Reports of Privileges Committee—Member's Compliance with Appendix B of the Standing Orders Hon Michael Wood
Robertson Grant; Rurawhe AdrianAPPOINTMENTSAssistant SpeakerHon GRANT ROBERTSON (Leader of the House): I seek leave that the House appoint the Hon Poto Williams as an Assistant Speaker until the end of Thursday 31 August 2023 despite Standing Order 29.SPEAKER: Is there objection to that course being followed? There is none. Thank you very much.
Visitors — Malaysia—Special Select Committee for Women Children and Community Development
Rurawhe AdrianVISITORSMalaysia—Special Select Committee for Women Children and Community DevelopmentSPEAKER: I'm sure that members would wish to welcome members from the Malaysian Parliamentary Special Select Committee for Women Children and Community Development led by the Hon Hajah Rodziah binti Ismail.
Rurawhe AdrianNAMING AND SUSPENSION OF MEMBERSPEAKER: I consider that in his comments Mr Waititi's conduct was grossly disorderly. Therefore I name Rawiri Waititi and call on the House to judge his conduct. The question is That Rawiri Waititi be suspended from the service of the House.Motion agreed to.
Privilege — Speaker's Ruling Allegation of a Breach of Suppression Order Imposed by a Court
Rurawhe AdrianPRIVILEGESpeaker's Ruling—Allegation of a Breach of Suppression Order Imposed by a CourtSPEAKER: Members I have been considering how to respond to allegations that during oral questions last week Rawiri Waititi may have breached a suppression order imposed by a court. In 2009 the Privileges Committee reported to the House on the exercise of the privilege of freedom of speech by members in the context of court orders. This led to Standing Order 116 being adopted in its current form in 2011. It balances the House's privilege of free speech with the relationship between the House and the judiciary. Standing Order 116 gives the Speaker responsibility for balancing these important interests. To allow the Speaker to exercise discretion it requires a member who intends to refer to a matter that is subject to a suppression order to give written notice to the Speaker. Mr Waititi did not give notice but then referred to a matter that apparently is suppressed by a court. I do not know whether his failure to give notice is because he chose not to or because there is no such order.I do not intend to inquire further into matters that may be suppressed as my doing so may itself be inconsistent with the principle of comity. Standing Order 418(y) is clear that it is a contempt of this House to knowingly make reference to a matter suppressed by an order of a court contrary to the Standing Orders. In this case the difficulty is that investigating whether Mr Waititi has done so risks compounding the harm caused by the original breach by confirming the existence of a suppression order and possibly identifying the subject of it.So I have decided to deal with this matter in two ways. First I will refer a general question of privilege to the Privileges Committee asking to consider how the House should deal with cases such as this where a member may have made reference to a matter in breach of a suppression order but where investigating it could be inconsistent with the order if one exists.Second I intend to deal with Mr Waititi's comments as a matter of order. The words Mr Waititi used in the House indicate that he believed that the matter concerned was subject to a suppression order and yet he raised it without first notifying the Speaker. Parliament's relationship with the courts is of utmost constitutional importance. Reckless use of the freedom of speech enjoyed by the House damages that relationship and undermines the standing of this Parliament and the privileges on which it depends.
Rurawhe AdrianOBITUARIESThomas de Vere (Pat) HuntDavid Graham McGee CNZM KCSPEAKER: Members I regret to inform the House of the death on 24 July 2023 of Thomas de Vere (Pat) Hunt who represented the electorate of Pakuranga from 1978 to 1984. During his membership of the House he was a member of a number of select committees including the Foreign Affairs Committee the Labour and Education Committee and the Public Expenditure Committee.I also regret to inform the House of the death on 27 August 2023 of David Graham McGee CNZM KC who was Clerk of the House of Representatives from 1985 to 2007. He was the author of the first three editions of Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand and was held in high esteem throughout the Commonwealth as an expert on parliamentary procedure.I desire on behalf of the House to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the late former member and Clerk. I now ask members to stand with me and observe a period of silence as a mark of respect to their memories.Members stood as a mark of respect.
Rurawhe AdrianTUESDAY 29 AUGUST 2023The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.KARAKIA/PRAYERSSPEAKER: Members today I've asked Dr James McDowall to say the prayer in the Ukrainian language.Dr JAMES McDOWALL (ACT): Всемогутній Боже ми дякуємо за благословення які були даровані нам. Відкидаючи всі особисті інтереси ми визнаємо Короля і молимося за керівництво у наших обговореннях щоб ми могли вести справи цієї палати з мудрістю справедливістю милосердям та смиренням для благополуччя та миру Нової Зеландії. Слава Україні! Амінь.
Rurawhe AdrianCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members the Government has indicated that they wish to conclude urgency. Therefore I will report progress on this bill.Progress to be reported.House resumed.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Mr Speaker the committee has considered the Land Transport (Road Safety) Amendment Bill and reports progress. I move That the report be adopted. Motion agreed to.Report adopted.SPEAKER: Members following the valedictory statements the House will adjourn until 2 p.m. on Tuesday 29 August. I call on Jan Logie to make her valedictory statement.
Penk Chris; O'Connor DamienCHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much Madam Chair. I have some exciting remarks to make on the Land Transport (Road Safety) Amendment Bill and as usual it's traditional to acknowledge the large crowd that gathers for such occasions. But if you will indulge me actually on that note Madam Chair I do want to acknowledge those valedictorians who are about to give their final remarks and they will no doubt have some actually exciting remarks to make. I've enjoyed working with Jan Logie on many occasions in relation to her role as musterer and mine as whip; Eugenie Sage—the Hon Eugenie Sage no less—particularly on the Regulations Review Committee in which she was a very astute member; and the Hon Poto Williams who I remember came up to Warkworth within my electorate in her role as police Minister and gave a very good account of the Government's gratitude to those fine members of our community who do so much for us.In relation to the bill itself I just wonder if the Minister can turn his mind to new section 102A in clause 17A. This is about the Appeal to Police against impoundment of vehicle" under a particular section and I think it's appropriate that the bill allows an appeal mechanism. We've got quite a strict power whereby a vehicle can be impounded quite rapidly and we've talked before about how that's a protective measure in order to get engagement in the process from someone who's likely behaved badly albeit that they haven't necessarily received a criminal conviction. And so there's an appeal right and that seems appropriate but I wonder if the Minister can offer any thoughts on how that relates to a person's ability at the same time to complain to the Independent Police Conduct Authority and/or make an application to the courts. I don't think the bill is trying to stop those things happening as well but they're sort of parallel processes. I appreciate that the Minister's relatively new in maybe turning his mind to the bill so respectfully I'd suggest that if he were able to gain some advice on that that might be helpful just to ensure that once this bill is passed as it soon will be it can be interpreted and applied in a way that reflects the intention of the Government and indeed the Parliament as a whole.Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Associate Minister of Transport): I thank the member for his question and look nothing in the bill here prevents the right of appeal through any part of the process. And I'd just like to acknowledge that he too along with his colleagues is supporting what we're trying to do with this piece of legislation here. As I say it is very unfortunate when some people will choose to run from the police—create very dangerous situations—and so what we're trying to do here is provide some penalties and some clear messages that if they do that then they will lose their vehicle. And that sometimes is the most important asset that they have. So we're making progress here."
Utikere TangiIn Committee CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members the House is in committee on the Land Transport (Road Safety) Amendment Bill. We come to Part 1.TANGI UTIKERE (Chief Whip—Labour): Point of order. I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one question.Parts 1 to 3 Schedule 1 and clauses 1 to 2CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is none. The question is that Parts 1 to 3 Schedule 1 and clauses 1 and 2 stand part.
SpeechTĀMATI COFFEY (Labour): Again I join the rest of the House in thanking the submitters in getting us to this point and the Minister for bringing this bill the Land Transport (Road Safety) Amendment Bill to the House.This is really important. I think back to the region that I come from and I remember just before Christmas in 2017 there was a fleeing driver that hit a police officer that was actually just trying to put out some road spikes to try and stop the fleeing driver in the first place. That police constable was actually hit and hurt and had to be flown to Waikato Hospital because he was just trying to do what the right thing was what the public expected him to do.Earlier this year back in January an innocent woman suffered life-threatening injuries when a fleeing 37-year-old driver crashed into her home as she was eating dinner in Gisborne. Again off to Waikato Hospital for some surgery to her serious injuries.We need to crack down on fleeing drivers. Fleeing drivers need to know that it's not OK. Fleeing drivers need to know that there are serious implications when they run and they hit innocent people whether it's police officers in the line of duty or innocent New Zealanders sitting in their kitchen eating their dinner.It's not acceptable. This bill will create the ability for police to be able to impound cars for longer to be able to utilise the mechanism of disqualification of licences. They are being given a set of tools to be able to turn around this awful awful statistic. The previous member talked about how this is on the rise. It's unacceptable; no matter which side of the House that you sit on in this place we all understand the value of being able to give the police the tools to be able to deal with fleeing drivers.This bill is good for the people that have been affected by fleeing drivers whether it's the police officer in Awakeri that day in 2017 or the lovely lady in Gisborne who was sitting down to eat her dinner and the car came crashing through her house. I commend this bill on their behalf to the House.