edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Goldsmith Paul; Parker DavidHon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Again just for clarity I want to hear the Minister explain: clause 6 inserting new section 18A is around the notice and right to be heard. The practice prior to the court case was that a prisoner arrived primarily from Australia and was immediately designated a returning prisoner and served with notice. The court judgment said Well that's not good enough; there needs to be the right to be heard and a process." which this legislation today negates and asserts "No that's not the case" that the person can be given notice straight away or a determination made straight away.So I just wanted to get an explanation from the Government as to why that is important in terms of practicality. I'm assuming the absence of it would mean that there would be weeks potentially months of that returning prisoner being in the public and being a public risk while that consideration went on. The view of the Government is that that is not an acceptable risk but I'd like to get a little bit of background to that just so that we're clear about these additional powers that have been granted.Hon DAVID PARKER (Attorney-General): The view of the Government—successive Governments until the decision of the High Court—was that there was no natural justice right to a hearing before the imposition of these conditions. The High Court decided otherwise and from the point of view of the Government we think that there is an adequate way to provide protection to the person who is returning to New Zealand; that their position might be abused other than a hearing in advance of the order.We're not in control of the process in the overseas country before deportation. And although we do now get some notice in the case of Australia we may not always get notice in the future and we might not get notice in respect of people returning from other countries. So as a matter of practice the view of the Government is that it would be impractical to always grant a right of hearing in advance.We acknowledge that that means that of course the person hasn't had a right to be heard and say "This is wrong." But we do view this through the framing of what would happen to someone in New Zealand in similar circumstances being released from our prison system—and they would generally be on parole for a period. There are protections built into the existing Act that require that if someone complains then an application can be made by the person who's subject to the order pursuant to section 22(2) of the Act—I'm sure officials will advise me if I've got that section wrong.In addition to that new section 18A inserted by clause 6 makes it clear that notwithstanding that there's no right to a hearing in advance and in addition to the right to apply for a review of the order that's made under section 22 section 18A(3) makes it clear that as I've said the section 22 review remains and in addition to judicial review of the commission this determination remains available."
McKee Nicole; Parker DavidNICOLE McKEE (ACT): Thank you Madam Chair. Minister new section 3A(1)(a) in clause 4 reads that—when I spoke earlier about section 3A(1)—A provision of this Act applies to a person … if all or any of the following occurred" and paragraph (a) is "the person's conduct overseas that constitutes an imprisonable offence in New Zealand:" and I'm thinking here of an example of say a visa issue where a person may have had their visa cancelled perhaps after spending a year incarcerated. They may not have been convicted; they may have just been deported after a year not having stood trial or even having been found guilty of an accusation but they have been deported anyway. So if a person who has had their visa revoked and is therefore removed from a country for an unproven accusation turns up here and it's determined that the accusation made against them is punishable by imprisonment here—and it means that even when they're not found guilty or even charged—am I right in thinking that their conduct alone could mean restrictions are placed upon them and if I am right how is this an acceptable way to treat our own citizens? Would we not be stepping too far when we start to look at every returnee under this regime as a potential criminal? Hon DAVID PARKER (Attorney-General): Thank you for the question. The answer to that is found in section 7 of the primary Act. That section is not being amended by this bill and it says that a returning offender is "a person who has been convicted in an overseas jurisdiction". So no that would not be within this legislation."
McKee Nicole; Parker DavidNICOLE McKEE (ACT): Thank you Madam Chair. Minister could you please explain what happens to a person who is deported to New Zealand after serving a one-year sentence overseas for a crime that may not be a crime in New Zealand or one that does not usually require parole conditions in New Zealand?Hon DAVID PARKER (Attorney-General): Thank you Madam Chair. The orders are not available for convictions that are not a crime in New Zealand.
McKee Nicole; Parker DavidNICOLE McKEE (ACT): Thank you Madam Chair. Minister I wonder please if we could have just a bit of clarification around new section 3A in clause 4 which states that the provisions listed apply to a person even if all or any of the following had occurred." and specifically I'm looking at paragraphs (h) and (i) which reference a conviction being overturned or pardoned from an overseas offence. Can the Minister please explain why there is an opportunity to place conditions on people who have effectively been cleared by and from the countries where an alleged crime has taken place? If a person's conviction was overturned or even pardoned who are we to continue a punishment deemed no longer necessary in the jurisdiction where it was given?Hon DAVID PARKER (Attorney-General): Can I thank Nicole McKee for that question. I'll respond to the individual point and then just make a couple of comments arising from another question last night that I discussed with the Minister of Justice afterwards. I'm advised that the legislation enables these supervisory orders that are imposed on someone to be reversed if their conviction in the country from which they were deported is subsequently overturned and that this provision is necessary to ensure that that ability can also be applied retrospectively in respect of convictions that were in place earlier than the date of the passage of this legislation. In respect of some of the other questions that the member raised yesterday and were also raised by the members of the National Party a suggestion was made that some of those finer details be discussed at the Justice Committee. The Minister of Justice—and I can say this because there's been a determination of the Business Committee to allow people to vote whilst they're dealing with events from Cyclone Gabrielle and the like and that's why the Minister of Justice isn't in the chair today. But she would be open to the idea that the Justice Committee open a small inquiry into those issues but would not want the breadth of the inquiry to be looking at the overall need for the legislation because there would be no doubt some grandstanding around that particular issue. And from the point of view of this Parliament and from the look of the votes it is pretty well settled that we do need some form of intervention for people who've been deported and would otherwise be in parole in the country that they've come from particularly Australia where most of the deportees come from. But if members of the Justice Committee are interested in just looking at some of those finer issues then we're not proposing to amend them through this process but we'd be amenable to looking at those and just working them through."
SpeechWEDNESDAY 22 FEBRUARY 2023(continued on Thursday 23 February 2023)RETURNING OFFENDERS (MANAGEMENT AND INFORMATION) AMENDMENT BILLIn CommitteeDebate resumed.Parts 1 and 2 the Schedule and clauses 1 to 3 (continued)CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members morning. The committee is resumed on the Returning Offenders (Management and Information) Amendment Bill. So when we suspended last night we were considering the debate on all provisions of the bill as one question. Once again the question is that Parts 1 and 2 the Schedule and clauses 1 to 3 stand part.
Wednesday 22 February 2023 - Volume 765
Returning Offenders (Management and Information) Amendment Bill — Second Reading (Resumed)
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Returning Offenders (Management and Information) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.Ayes 108New Zealand Labour 64; New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.Noes 12Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Motion agreed to.Bill read a second time.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): That bill is set down for committee stage immediately. I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Returning Offenders (Management and Information) Amendment Bill.
Returning Offenders (Management and Information) Amendment Bill — First Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Returning Offenders (Management and Information) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 108New Zealand Labour 64; New Zealand National 34; ACT New Zealand 10.Noes 12Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Motion agreed to.Bill read a first time.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The Returning Offenders (Management and Information) Amendment Bill is set down for second reading immediately.
Road User Charges (Temporary RUC Reduction Scheme) Amendment Bill (No 2) — Third Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Road User Charges (Temporary RUC Reduction Scheme) Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time.Ayes 100New Zealand Labour 64; New Zealand National 34; Te Paati Māori 2Noes 20Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; ACT New Zealand 10.Motion agreed to.Bill read a third time.The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 98 Noes 22.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the question be now put.Ayes 98New Zealand Labour 64; New Zealand National 34.Noes 20Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; ACT New Zealand 10.Motion agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That Parts 1 and 2 and clauses 1 to 3 be agreed to.Ayes 100New Zealand Labour 64; New Zealand National 34; Te Paati Māori 2.Noes 20Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; ACT New Zealand 10.Parts 1 and 2 and clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.Bill to be reported without amendment.House resumed.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Madam Speaker the committee has considered the Road User Charges (Temporary RUC Reduction Scheme) Amendment Bill (No 2) and reports it without amendment. Madam Speaker I move That the report be adopted.Motion agreed to.Report adopted.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The Road User Charges (Temporary RUC Reduction Scheme) Amendment Bill (No 2) is set down for third reading immediately.
Road User Charges (Temporary RUC Reduction Scheme) Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Road User Charges (Temporary RUC Reduction Scheme) Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a second time.Ayes 98New Zealand Labour 64; New Zealand National 34.Noes 20Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; ACT New Zealand 10.Motion agreed to.Bill read a second time.
Road User Charges (Temporary RUC Reduction Scheme) Amendment Bill (No 2) — Second Reading
Road User Charges (Temporary RUC Reduction Scheme) Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Road User Charges (Temporary RUC Reduction Scheme) Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a first time.Ayes 98New Zealand Labour 64; New Zealand National 34.Noes 20Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; ACT New Zealand 10.Motion agreed to.Bill read a first time.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The Road User Charges (Temporary RUC Reduction Scheme) Amendment Bill (No 2) is set down for second reading immediately.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That urgency be accorded.Ayes 98New Zealand Labour 64; New Zealand National 34.Noes 22Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.Motion agreed to.
11. Question No. 11—Small BusinessARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) to the Minister for Small BusinessQuestion No. 11—Small Business11. ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) to the Minister for Small Business: How is the Government supporting small businesses affected by recent extreme weather events?Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Minister for Small Business): Thank you Mr Speaker. Well firstly I'd like to give my condolences to those people in New Zealand who lost loved ones in the recent extreme weather events that New Zealand has gone through. It's just two months into the year and small businesses have faced unprecedented challenges. The Government has moved quickly to support those small businesses in two different ways. Auckland small businesses have been provided with a resilience package of $5 million and just this week we have announced an additional $50 million package in the wake of Cyclone Gabrielle to deliver interim emergency business support to both small businesses and the primary sector. Arena Williams: How will these emergency packages support small businesses?Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: It is my priority as the Minister for Small Businesses that those areas get the support that they need. They are the hardest hit during this time and it's important that we provide that support. The Auckland package provides not only mental health support but also business continuity to those businesses that need it. The $50 million Cyclone Gabrielle package announced this week will assist businesses and workers by providing a wide range of supports. We are working closely on the ground with local business associations iwi and local government to ensure this package is focused where the greatest need lies. Arena Williams: When will small businesses start to receive this support?Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: As quickly as possible. Already we have small businesses who have received funding in Auckland. Funding as part of the Auckland package has been released and we are working on the ground up to make sure we tailor the response to those and how they need it. Arena Williams: What feedback has she had from small businesses who have been affected by these extreme weather events?Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: I've visited small businesses who have been directly impacted by the floods in Auckland. Since then I've been in regular contact with chambers of commerce right across those regions that have been impacted by Cyclone Gabrielle. The message they gave me loud and clear in person is they want a Government that will walk alongside of them to recover rebuild and be resilient. That's exactly what we will continue to provide throughout this recovery.
5. Question No. 5—Prime MinisterDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT) to the Prime MinisterQuestion No. 5—Prime Minister5. DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT) to the Prime Minister: Thank you Mr Speaker and may I acknowledge the people of the Canterbury region on this 12th anniversary of a terrible tragedy. My question is to the Prime Minister and reads: does he stand by all his Government's statements and actions?Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Prime Minister): Yes.David Seymour: How much tax is his Government forecast to collect this year and how much more tax is that compared with the $86 billion collected in the last year pre-COVID?Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: If the member wants that specific information he'll find that in the Budget documents.David Seymour: Does the Prime Minister not know?Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I haven't memorised the entire Budget no.David Seymour: Wouldn't it be important to understand that his Government is taxing $118 billion off New Zealanders—$32 billion more per year than just four years ago?Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I welcome the opportunity to set out for the member that our Government is actually taking less tax out of the economy as a proportion of the economy than when we became the Government.David Seymour: Which option does the Prime Minister prefer most for funding the recovery from the cyclones: tax people more now borrow now and tax later or reprioritise current spending?Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I think those kinds of debates are premature given we don't yet know what the true extent of the damage is or the true cost of the damage is. Responsible Governments make sure that they consider all of the options around how to pay for a natural disaster such as this as the previous Government did after the Canterbury earthquakes. They canvassed a range of options before deciding how to pay for it. That is what responsible Governments do.David Seymour: Is the Prime Minister aware that when his Government came into office Government expenditure was 27 percent of GDP? It's now 35 percent and if tax as a percentage of GDP has reduced then the Government must have increased the deficit by more than 8 percent of GDP. How does any of that add up?Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: It got up to about 34 percent under National and it's currently lower than it was under the peak of spending during National's time in Government after the global financial crisis.David Seymour: Does the Prime Minister accept that Government spending especially deficit Government spending puts pressure on interest rates meaning people's mortgages cost more than they otherwise would?Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: One of the reasons I'm really proud of the financial track record of this Government is that prior to this most recent series of events which of course will change things we were on track to get back into surplus faster than the last Government did after the global financial crisis. I note that the member and his party voted for every single Budget during their term in Government.
Halbert ShananIn CommitteeParts 1 and 2 the Schedule and clauses 1 to 3CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members the House is in committee on the Returning Offenders (Management and Information) Amendment Bill. SHANAN HALBERT (Junior Whip—Labour): I seek leave for all parts to be taken as one question.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. Members we come first to Part 1. The question is that—oh I see. There we go thank you. The question is that Parts 1 and 2 the Schedule and clauses 1 to 3 stand part.
Voting — Correction—Road User Charges (Temporary RUC Reduction Scheme) Amendment Bill (No 2) (Continued)
Shaw JamesVOTINGCorrection—Road User Charges (Temporary RUC Reduction Scheme) Amendment Bill (No 2)Hon JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green): Point of order?ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The Hon David Parker.Hon JAMES SHAW: Point of order?ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Oh I'm sorry. Apologies to the Minister. I missed the point of order.Hon JAMES SHAW: I beg your pardon Madam Speaker. I actually compounded the error before when I said that they had voted in favour and should have voted against; it's the other way around and I compounded it again once you sought my clarification. So I wonder if I may seek the leave of the House again to actually get it right this time.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? I might object! There appears to be none.Hon JAMES SHAW: Thank you. So on the third and final reading of the Road User Charges (Temporary RUC Reduction Scheme) Amendment Bill (No 2) Te Paati Māori's vote was recorded as against when it should have been recorded in favour.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Thank you for that.Hon JAMES SHAW: I'm pretty sure about that.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): We will correct—in fact what I'm going to do is hand it back to the Clerk who will change the—yep and I will read it out; I don't do maths. So the Road User Charges (Temporary RUC Reduction Scheme) Amendment Bill (No 2) third reading: the Ayes are 100 the Noes are 20. The motion is agreed to.
Returning Offenders (Management and Information) Amendment Bill — Second Reading (Continued)
SpeechSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): I'm still a bit miffed but I'm learning. I'm learning.Golriz Ghahraman: Stop it!SIMON O'CONNOR: And I've just been told to stop it from the Green Party which means I can't. I have to carry on. I have to carry on. Don't encourage me; you know I'm a contrarian.Actually I do want to acknowledge the honourable member Ingrid Leary who did point out that there is some constitutional good developing in this. There is some sort of engagement as I understood it. You know Parliament's passed a law and a court has made a decision and now the Parliament's responding to that. I accept that point but I probably lean more towards what the Hon—sorry; well soon to be hopefully the Hon—Chris Penk noted. There could have been more constructive ways. There could have been more constructive ways to have dealt with this.I think at the heart of the question is not simply how we deal with Australia's decision to deport what they call 501s and how we appropriately deal with that for the interests of public safety and you know—to stress particularly the Green Party's objections—how to look after those New Zealanders returning here. Well I think actually that care if you will—if that's the right word to use—of those 501s of which these orders are required—the Attorney-General's report actually indicates often parole if not always parole is used as more a rehabilitative than a punitive measure. So I think that's relatively important to state.But again my fundamental point—being probably far too serious—is that the Parliament thought it had made things clear enough in the original piece of law and I think we are rightly here tonight to address a court decision and to try and make it as abundantly clear as possible what this Parliament intends.And so I'm looking forward to the committee stage. I think that will be useful to tease out some various ideas. Minister Allan's actually very very good at addressing the questions. But I'm also hoping—coming back to my original thought of being a bit miffed it will be fantastic if the Attorney-General will help my miffed-ness and get up and indicate and articulate a bit further around his report. Because actually without being silly there's really good thoughts and insights that he brings. Thank you Madam Speaker.Debate interrupted.
SpeechRETURNING OFFENDERS (MANAGEMENT AND INFORMATION) AMENDMENT BILLSecond ReadingDebate resumed.VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour): Thank you Madam Speaker. Australia's deportation policy is unquestionably corrosive. But as members have said we do need a response and there is no disagreement about that. I believe the Greens when they abstained on the 2015 bill were abstaining as a matter of process as opposed to substance.The real question is the scope of the application of the bill. Reviewing the Hansard of the first second and third reading speeches on the 2015 bill it's very clear that the intention of members was for the bill to apply to those coming through the system. You can see that by the suggestion that actually the bill should have been introduced before it was in 2015 because members made the point that we knew the numbers of people coming through the pipeline.But I do agree with the principle of clarity of law. Therefore I commend this bill to the House.
Voting — Correction—Road User Charges (Temporary RUC Reduction Scheme) Amendment Bill (No 2)
Shaw JamesVOTINGCorrection—Road User Charges (Temporary RUC Reduction Scheme) Amendment Bill (No 2)Hon JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green): Point of order. Thank you Madam Speaker. I wish to seek the leave of the House to correct a vote on the previous bill Road User Charges (Temporary RUC Reduction Scheme) Amendment Bill (No 2) third reading.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is none.Hon JAMES SHAW: On the third and final reading of the Road User Charges (Temporary RUC Reduction Scheme) Amendment Bill (No 2) Te Paati Māori's vote was recorded as in favour" of the bill but should have been recorded as "against" the bill.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Thank you for that so—just a moment the cavalry has just arrived. Can the member just repeat what he believes happened in the vote and I'll just check it against the sheet.Hon JAMES SHAW: I believe that it was recorded as being "in favour" of the bill when it should have been recorded "against".ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): OK thank you. So the record I have of the vote in the Road User Charges (Temporary RUC Reduction Scheme) Amendment Bill (No 2) at its third reading has Te Paati Māori 2 votes against. That leaves the total the Ayes 98 the Noes 22. The Noes comprise of the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand ACT New Zealand and Te Paati Māori. The question is that that motion be agreed to."
Returning Offenders (Management and Information) Amendment Bill — Second Reading
SpeechSecond ReadingHon KIRITAPU ALLAN (Minister of Justice): Look I just want to acknowledge the tone of the House this evening and particularly some of the contributions made by the honourable member Michael Woodhouse just to give the context by which this law came into being. It was in 2014—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order! The member—sorry I didn't pick it up in time but the member needs to move the second reading.Hon KIRITAPU ALLAN: I move That the Returning Offenders (Management and Information) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. Just understanding the context by which the original bill came into force in New Zealand it was on the back of a decision and whether it was political or otherwise it was a decision made in a completely different jurisdiction based on that Government's policy decisions of the day. What that meant though is that New Zealand had to respond and had to respond swiftly. This was the bill that was produced—the Returning Offenders (Management and Information) Amendment Bill. I won't get too much into the details of what all speakers in this House have said—we've got time to do that in the committee of the whole House—but there are a couple of things I just want to pick up: why are we doing this? Look there were varying views from the contributions made by the National Party as to whether or not we should be doing this. Why are we doing this? It is public safety. Now I know that the Green Party will respond and say Oh well they're just trying to look tough on crime." No we're not. We've got 40 offenders that are currently managed under that regime that in absence of the stay that was granted by the court under urgency at the end of the year would be in our communities in absence of any oversight by any agencies. These are serious offenders and I won't go through the nature and the context of each of them but if they had been people that had undergone a sentence in a New Zealand context there would be a right expectation by New Zealanders that there would be some kind of oversight of those individuals as they come out into society by dint of the offences that they had committed; 40 people that would have to be released into New Zealand—that was at that time. Since then we've had more and more people return to New Zealand. Now this is not a statement about whether or not a different jurisdiction's political decisions to release people with New Zealand DNA into our communities in absence of any support infrastructure otherwise is the right thing. But it is something that we as good governors have to respond to and have to respond to with public safety and actually their safety at the forefront of our minds. People need some kind of support when they come in to New Zealand and this is the regime that was established to provide that. So I won't delve too much more into the details—there's time to do that later—but I want to acknowledge the overarching tone of the House tonight and I commend this bill to the House."
Leary IngridINGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): I can understand why the member opposite—Simon O'Connor—is miffed. But from a constitutional law perspective I think actually this is a great case of the constitution working and separation of powers. There are overwhelming reasons why we need to legislate. One as the Minister of Justice has rightly said is around public safety; the second one is that the intention was always to have this law be retrospective; and thirdly actually what's been really heartening is to see that this bill takes into account commentary made by the High Court. So it is actually a fantastic example of democracy in action. It's been a bit messy. But that's what happens when you have good tension between the different powers that make up a democracy. So I commend it to the House.
SpeechSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): I'm a little bit miffed. Not because of the last speaker and the fact that there's agreement by and large across the House. I'm not miffed that the Green Party thinks that this is an agreement" between Australia and New Zealand—this was a decision by Australia we have to live with. No what I'm miffed about is that for some in our courts the original intention written in black and white debated put in Hansard was not clear enough for them. But because I am miffed and I suspect many in the House are miffed—I don't know why this word now is like 17 times in Hansard—we're having to come in and write another bill.I just hope for our courts respecting comity and for those judges that this will be clear enough for them to understand what was exactly intentioned in 2015. Thank you Madam Speaker."
SpeechANGELA ROBERTS (Labour): Thank you Madam Speaker. I rise to take a short call on the Returning Offenders (Management and Information) Amendment Bill. We've heard a lot of people in this House tonight talk about this bill making sense and it is reassuring when we have so many of us in this House in agreement about doing something that respects the original intention of the returning offenders regime and attempts across the House to make everyone's lives a little safer. And if the regime goes according to plan actually these returning offenders may be a little safer themselves. I commend this bill to the House.
SpeechSARAH PALLETT (Labour—Ilam): Thank you Madam Speaker. I rise to speak very briefly this evening on the Returning Offenders (Management and Information) Amendment Bill. I am not a permanent member of the Justice Committee and so when I'm rising to speak on bills like this I like to take a quick look at the bill and what it means for me. What I can see here is that the bill confirms that the returning offender rate continues to apply to offenders who are deported to New Zealand for offending that occurred before November 2015 which means that those returning offenders such as the 501 deportees from Australia will continue to be managed on parole-like conditions when they return to New Zealand after being released from prison. It makes sense to me and I commend this bill to the House.
Bennett GlenGLEN BENNETT (Labour—New Plymouth): Kia ora Madam Speaker. I just want to affirm urgency this evening for this piece of legislation only because the bill itself only affirms Parliament's original intention for this piece of legislation which was around returning offenders having the same general position as they would have had if they'd offended in New Zealand. So I feel comfortable with the fact that we are in urgency to pass this piece of legislation to correct a piece of legislation from 2015. On that I commend this to the House.
SpeechMARJA LUBECK (Labour): Thank you Madam Speaker. It's a pleasure to take a call on this bill. We do seem to be in agreement on the important principles involved here but it was very enjoyable to be taken on that ride and on that journey by Mr Penk just now. So thank you for that.We are all agreeing that we need to ensure that there is no unacceptable risk to public safety and making sure that the legislation works as Parliament originally intended—that is exactly what this bill does. It aims to put returning offenders in the same position as they would have been if they'd offended in New Zealand. For that reason I commend it to the House. Thank you.
Williams ArenaARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe Madam Speaker. Let me start by saying that I agree with much of what the Hon Paul Goldsmith has brought to this debate and his support for passing this legislation under urgency is appreciated. He is also right to say that it is necessary for Parliament to assert itself in this situation and I thank the Minister of Justice the Hon Kiritapu Allan for her very clear explanation of what this bill does and why it's important.Where I disagree with Paul Goldsmith is in his comments around the tortuous nature of—so the logic in the decisions of the court. In the situation we find ourselves in these matters are under active consideration by our superior courts. It's really important for parliamentarians not to weigh in on some of the finer points of what the courts will be considering. To do so would be intemperate but there has also been some reasonably torturous logic in Mr Goldsmith's speech!So let me clarify what is actually quite a simple bill. This bill confirms that the returning offenders Act continues to apply to offenders who are deported to New Zealand for offending that occurred before the Act came into force in November 2015 which is what Parliament intended. It puts returning offenders in roughly the same position that they would have been in had they offended in New Zealand. That is the effect of this bill. It is simple. It's a good one. Let's pass it quickly.
Boyack RachelRACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): It's a pleasure to take another short call on this bill tonight. I wanted to make a particular reference tonight about why it was so important that we are reducing the excise on petrol and the road-user charges as well as reducing the cost of public transport.Much has been made about the need for us to also be investing in public transport and for that to be our focus. But the point I wish to make is that having campaigned in my electorate of Nelson for over 10 years now for improved public transport there are many parts of our country that have had decades of under-investment in public transport. In Nelson for example the buses only come every hour or so. We will be changing that from 1 July; they will be increasing significantly in frequency. But in the meantime until we make those changes we need to ensure that those low-income people—who do have vehicles; many of them do have diesel vehicles—who can't catch a bus in Nelson on a Sunday because they hardly exist are covered by this legislation.So I just want to point out that we are doing those things we are building that infrastructure but we also need to ensure that people actually have the money in their pockets to put bread on the table to pay the rent in the meantime. I commend this bill to the House.
Halbert ShananSHANAN HALBERT (Labour—Northcote): Thank you Madam Speaker. I rise for the third speech on the Road User Charges (Temporary RUC Reduction Scheme) Amendment Bill (No 2) 2023. Tonight we've traversed in this House the challenges that all of our communities face in the cost of living crisis we've called it but the reality is that we need families to be focused on the things that matter: putting food on the table getting to work ensuring that our kids are in the classroom for their learning. This particular piece of legislation enables those families to consider those costs against the access and the opportunity that their young people face. That's what we want to support. Our Government is focused on ensuring that the bread and butter issues to New Zealanders have outcomes and this piece of legislation is attempting to do that in some ways. We've got a work programme that's dedicated to helping New Zealanders and I commend this bill to the House.
Halbert ShananSHANAN HALBERT (Junior Whip—Labour): I move That the question be now put.
Brown SimeonSIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you Madam Chair. I just want to follow on from questions that my colleague Simon Court was asking in relation to—he was asking what projects should be cut if there isn't the revenue and of course it states here that the Government is topping up effectively the National Land Transport Fund by the amount that is being lost in revenue. But in paragraph 113 in this regulatory impact statement it says Our estimate is that the scheme in total when it ends on 31 January 2022"—which of course it will be longer than that now—"will cost the Crown around $1.3 billion. However the final cost is uncertain and depends on several factors." I'd like the Minister of Transport Michael Wood to articulate what those several factors are because that does have an impact on what that topping-up in terms of the Government effectively filling in for the lost revenue from road-user charges or fuel excise duty—what are those factors and what are those dependencies which could lead to that amount of money potentially being lost or being less than what is actually lost and therefore may mean that the New Zealand Transport Agency does have some limitation on its choices that it has in relation to investing in our road network?Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): In answer to the member's questions in reverse there'll be no limitations on the National Land Transport Fund (NLTF) because the Crown has undertaken to ensure that the NLTF is no worse off as a result of the reduced revenue. So whether there are fluctuations a little above or a little below projections that will be covered by the Crown and there's no impact on the NLTF and its ability to invest in the transport network. The main factors are how much petrol people buy over that period and whether there's any behavioural impact as a result of the reductions."
SpeechHon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): In answer to questions from Mr Brown and Mr Watts—Mr Brown inquired further about clause 6 and I think really I'll just refer back to my previous comments there about the primary purpose of that clause. He's asked a question about how many actual assessments have been issued as a part of Waka Kotahi's enforcement. That is a question I have asked of officials and unfortunately they do not have that information to hand but it's one that I'm happy outside of this forum to get the answer and provide to Mr Brown. My recollection from engagement with Waka Kotahi in late 2022 is it's quite a small number. They have generally taken the approach of contacting people where they might have a concern or might have observed some behaviour that suggested excessive purchasing having a discussion with those people and encouraging them to behave in an appropriate way. I think the actual level of enforcement has been relatively limited once that has been taken into account.Mr Watts asked about whether there has been any evaluation done of the policy. There was indeed a post-implementation regulatory assessment that was completed and received in January of this year. That was something at the time that the policy was put in place about March of last year—there wasn't the time to do some of that normal regulatory work in advance and so Cabinet did agree to do a post-implementation assessment and that piece of work has been completed and provided to Ministers.In terms of the involvement of Waka Kotahi as the collector I can assure the member that Waka Kotahi has continued to engage with both the Ministry of Transport and myself and my office in the development of this piece of legislation and they are very comfortable with the workability of it. Obviously it has effectively now been in place for around about a year and they assure me that because of that and because of the processes that have been put in place they are very comfortable with their ability to implement the legislation should it go through its stages in the House this evening.
Watts SimonSIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Thank you very much Madam Chair. And thank you Minister of Transport for engaging in some creative and positive dialogue in terms of questions. My question relates to Part 1 clause 4 subclause 2A(a) in terms of the date of initiation around this legislation and I wanted to reference also in that regard the departmental disclosure statement section 2.1 which is in the context around other publicly available inquiries reviews and reports. Obviously this is an amendment of a piece of legislation that has already been in place and as would normally be considered—appreciating that I think the wording in here says rapidly changing international situation"—why is it that no inquiries reviews or evaluations have been undertaken in regards to this underlying policy? I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that we would have undertaken some aspect around that. There has been time in order to do that. What are the reasons for that; what is the rationale for that? Actually more importantly is there now the intent in the period of the proceeding few months from where we are today to actually go back and do that piece of assessment work to provide some context in terms of the effectiveness of this policy response?The second aspect I want to question around and get some clarity on is section 3.7 of the departmental disclosure report. Again it notes here that there was a workshop held with Waka Kotahi who is obviously the collector of the road-user charge on 23 March 2022 to assess the workability of the bill but there doesn't seem to have been any follow-up formalised—you know engagement in regards to the main entity that is involved with this legislation. Again it's not clear whether there has been any subsequent sessions with the transport agency and if not why not? So those are my two questions."
Brown SimeonSIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you Madam Chair and thank you to the Minister of Transport for answering mostly those questions. I just wanted to clarify a couple of points. Firstly in relation to the five-year period in clause 6 that replaces 12 months after the end of the temporary reduction period" the Minister was articulating the reason for that and I'd like him to clarify for me that that is to ensure that the New Zealand Transport Agency has the ability to undertake that assessment or that review of licences. Is that the intention of that piece for the extension over time or is it so that the Government has a tool to be able to continue temporary reductions over a five-year period? What's the intent of the legislation?Secondly the question there around the assessments: the Minister answered the question in relation to how many they had looked at as being potentially excessive purchases—the number of contacts. The question I had was: how many assessments were issued? And of those were any of those assessments reversed because actually the Government changed its policy approach and extended the temporary road-user charge reduction? That may have been an excessive amount of kilometres if it had been for only the three- or four-month period initially but given the fact the Government has extended and extended it may not have been an excessive amount over a 12-month period which is effectively where we're at now and we're going towards closer to a 15-month period. So the question there is: were assessments made? Were any of those reimbursed due to the fact that actually the policy has been changed and extended effectively a number of times?"
SpeechHon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): Madam Chair if I could thank both members for their questions then I'll make a start on answering them and I might need to then continue after the dinner break. I'll go in reverse order there.Firstly to Mr Court with the questions that he has asked the decision was taken by Cabinet. I can't remember the precise date Mr Court but it was at one of the first Cabinet meetings of this year that being at the very end of January or very early in February. This was after Cabinet had determined at the end of 2022 that Ministers should focus in and consider further steps that could be taken to address cost of living issues—we were invited to reflect on that over the summer period. So early in the course of this year in Cabinet's deliberations that decision was made.Of course in terms of the relative costs and benefits of the policy we do have in this case—although this decision was made relatively quickly and then moved to legislation fairly quickly it's not a new policy. It is one that as has been commented on was first put into place about a year ago and has had a couple of renewals. So there's good information to fall back there on about the relative benefits.The member asked What about the other options for providing cost of living relief for people?" Of course that is something that the Government's done. The Government did make targeted payments to people through the cost of living payment in the latter part of 2022 and has had a range of other policies in place which are designed to provide support particularly to those who might be finding it most challenging—the minimum wage increase for example earlier this year.So there are a range of policies. This is one that fits in with them. The reason we think this policy is particularly beneficial is that it provides—because it's an existing policy and because nearly everyone engages with the transport system be it through filling up their cars and/or using public transport—some direct income relief to pretty much every household. The total cost of this policy this extension—that's fuel excise duty and road-user charge together—will likely be between $700 million and $750 million. It's a lot of money but the way of thinking about that is that is directly $700 million to $750 million that would be coming out of household pockets that is now not having to because it is being covered by the reductions provided for in this policy.So we believe that the relative simplicity of the scheme and that significant benefit across both households and supply chains—and supply chain benefits' lower costs flow on to everyone else of course—make it a useful policy.In the interests of everyone's wellbeing I'll finish my response there to Mr Court's questions and will very happily respond to further questions in a call after the dinner break.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members the time has come for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break. The House will resume at 7 o'clock.Sitting suspended from 6.02 p.m. to 7 p.m."
Court SimonSIMON COURT (ACT): I've got some very quick questions Madam Chair—very quick questions. But I would appreciate if the Minister of Transport would give us the benefit of a response.Firstly Minister when was a decision taken to extend the road-user charge (RUC) discount? When I look at the regulatory impact assessment it says advice needed to be provided quickly." If "Officials did not have [enough] time to investigate the problem thoroughly. … [therefore it's] possible [they] did not fully understand the extent of the problem to be addressed including its scope and desired objectives. More time could have allowed evidence and data to be obtained and analysed … for greater clarity about the problem and desired objectives."So Minister question one when did you decide to extend this discount on road-user charges? Second question why did the Minister decide against the advice of his officials that—if the problem that the Government wanted to solve was to provide a bit of back-pocket relief for people during a cost of living crisis why did the Minister decide to extend the reduction in road-user charges and fuel excise duties in parallel even though officials recommended extra support through the welfare or transfer system? The opportunities for transfers—and through additional payments that are targeted to people in hardship—clearly has merit.Could the Minister just answer those basic questions: when did he make the decision and why did he choose to extend the discount on road-user charges as opposed to providing extra support to people in hardship through the welfare system as recommended by his officials? Thank you Minister."