Thursday, 11 February 2021
Volume 749
Sitting date: 11 February 2021
THURSDAY, 11 FEBRUARY 2021
THURSDAY, 11 FEBRUARY 2021
The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.
Prayers.
Business Statement
Business Statement
Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Deputy Leader of the House): The legislation that the House will consider next week will include the second readings of the Secondary Legislation Bill, the Regulatory Systems (Transport) Amendment Bill, the Financial Market Infrastructures Bill, and the Fair Trading Amendment Bill; the committee stage of the Food (Continuation of Dietary Supplements Regulations) Amendment Bill; and the remaining stages of the Local Electoral (Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill. Five National Party members will make their maiden statements. Wednesday, 17 February will be the first members’ day of 2021, and will feature the first general debate of the 53rd Parliament.
CHRIS BISHOP (National): Thank you to the Deputy Leader of the House for that update. Can I ask him whether or not the Government has any intention of introducing bills under urgency for first reading that have not lain on the Order Paper for three days, and referring them to a committee for a very shortened report-back time in the upcoming sitting period.
Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Deputy Leader of the House): I note that we’re not considering those things, and that in respect of the report-back period, it’s considerably more—in fact, five days more than when that party took away voting rights in local government in Canterbury.
Petitions, Papers, Select Committee Reports, and Introduction of Bills
Petitions, Papers, Select Committee Reports, and Introduction of Bills
SPEAKER: No petitions or papers have been presented. No bills have been introduced. A select committee report has been delivered for presentation.
CLERK: Report of the Governance and Administration Committee on the petition of Andrew Cameron.
Oral Questions
Questions to Ministers
Question No. 1—Prime Minister
1. Dr SHANE RETI (Deputy Leader—National) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all of her Government’s statements and actions related to the COVID-19 response?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes, in the context in which they were made and undertaken.
Dr Shane Reti: Does she agree with the Deputy Auditor-General, who said, in relation to the Government’s spending on COVID-19, we only have a partial picture?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On behalf of the Prime Minister, I, broadly speaking, agree with the Auditor-General that we should do as much as possible to be able to show what the spending under the COVID response and recovery fund is and how the progress is tracking on it. What the Auditor-General has acknowledged in their report is that the systems that this Parliament uses to track spending may not be fully appropriate when we have a crisis situation like COVID-19 and a very large response delivered very quickly. The Minister of Finance is working through with Treasury how best to respond to the Auditor-General’s report.
Dr Shane Reti: Will her Government, then, produce quarterly reports on COVID-19 response spending, as recommended by the Office of the Auditor-General, and, if so, will that start this quarter?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On behalf of the Prime Minister, I’m informed by the Minister of Finance that he is discussing exactly that with Treasury at the moment, as to what is possible in that regard. But in terms of the overall report by the Auditor-General, we certainly accept that when we have a crisis situation that requires such a large response, Parliament’s normal financial processes, which are being followed with respect to COVID-19 expenditure, may not be enough.
Dr Shane Reti: Will those discussions also include a commitment to publishing a detailed account of all COVID-19 spending, similar to the UK, which has a dedicated online COVID-19 cost tracker website?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: We are prepared to look at all options to ensure that New Zealanders can have confidence that the very large amount of money that has been put aside to respond to COVID-19 is being well spent and to be able to track that. New Zealand does have a very robust system of public accounting, but it does rely on the financial review process, which members will be very familiar with because they’re going through it now. We will look to see what we can do to further provide information on this. I would note that throughout the period of the COVID-19 expenditure, we went through a number of processes here in the House where we identified what that expenditure was, and you will be seeing reports about that from various agencies over the coming months.
Dr Shane Reti: Does she agree, then, with the Auditor-General that future generations will likely inherit significantly more public debt as a result of the current spending on the COVID-19 response, and that current and future generations will want to know where the money has gone?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I certainly accept the fact that in responding to a one-in-100-year economic shock, the Government was required to take on more debt. At the time, that was certainly supported by the Opposition. We have in our mind a situation where we were unsure and uncertain, as the rest of the world was, as to the full impact. We moved decisively and swiftly to ensure that New Zealanders’ lives and livelihoods were protected, and I’m proud of that response.
Dr Shane Reti: Will she commit to releasing a detailed breakdown of the spending and jobs created from the 1.2 billion Jobs for Nature programme, which is part of the COVID-19 response?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Absolutely, and in fact yesterday in the House I heard the Hon Kiri Allan begin to give exactly what the Minister was asking for; unfortunately, she went outside of the Speaker’s tolerance for that.
Dr Shane Reti: Why did her Government wait until 18 December last year, well after the House rose for the year, to release the Roche-Simpson report into the COVID-19 response, when her Government received a draft in September and the final version on 27 November?
Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On behalf of the Prime Minister, the member is better off directing that question to the Minister concerned, but it was released. It has been very strongly publicly debated.
SPEAKER: Question No.—
Hon Member: Ha, ha! That’s hilarious.
SPEAKER: Order! The member doesn’t interrupt me when I’m calling another member.
Question No. 2—Energy and Resources
2. TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North) to the Minister of Energy and Resources: What recent announcements has she made about the Low Emission Vehicles Contestable Fund?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Energy and Resources): Yesterday, I was at the Johnsonville Waitohi community centre to announce the projects the Government is supporting through the ninth round of the Low Emission Vehicles Contestable Fund. The fund will contribute $3.7 million to projects, with the 22 recipients contributing a total of $9.4 million. Projects include a community electric bike and car-share scheme, additional electric vehicle (EV) charging stations, as well as five hydrogen trucks and a demonstration electric truck. We are getting on with the work needed to electrify our vehicle fleet, and this fund will continue to support innovative projects that help clean up our transport system.
Tangi Utikere: How has the Low Emission Vehicles Contestable Fund supported low-emissions vehicles to date?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: We recognise that innovative solutions and investments in our charging infrastructure are of utmost importance if we are to scale up the electrification of our transport fleet. For example, in this round, the Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust has received funding to secure e-bike storage for a community bike share for its tenants and two second-hand Nissan LEAFs for a community car-share scheme. Hyundai will receive almost $500,000 of funding in this round for demonstrating and proving the potential of hydrogen-powered trucks. Through the life of the fund, we have co-funded 600 public EV chargers through the Low Emission Vehicles Contestable Fund across the country, which has helped meet our goal of having EV charging stations for 95 percent of every 75 kilometres of State highway.
Tangi Utikere: How do these projects support New Zealand meeting our climate change goals?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The Climate Change Commission’s recently released draft report rightly points out that reducing transport emissions is integral to meeting our climate change goals. In particular, demonstrating and providing potential for electric and hydrogen heavy vehicles is important, as heavy freight has an outside impact on transport emissions. The spread of projects, as announced yesterday, shows the numbers of opportunities present within the transport sector to reduce emissions, and we are committed to investing in our transition to a transport fleet to run on renewable electricity.
Barbara Kuriger: Does the Minister expect the fund to do better than the Government’s progress, given that just 108 electric vehicles for its own fleet out of 15,000 meant by 2025 have been delivered?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The purpose of this fund is to make sure that we have the infrastructure for the electrification of our fleet. One of the things that I can point the member to is the fact that we do now have in 95 percent of our State highway network a charge infrastructure every 75 kilometres. We need to continue to make progress on the electrification of the fleet, and that does include the Government.
Question No. 3—Local Government
3. Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National) to the Minister of Local Government: Does she still agree with the statement, “Labour will ensure that major decisions about local democracy involve full participation of the local population from the outset”; if so, is she satisfied that the public consultation process on the Local Electoral (Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill is consistent with that statement?
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Local Government): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Yes, I do, and can I reiterate to the member that the reason for the truncated process is that this is a short-term fix so changes can be made in time for the 2022 local body elections. Locally elected representatives will be able to make the decision.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: What is her response to the statements in the New Zealand Herald today on her bill that it is the worst way to make law and that “It reeks of arrogance.”?
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: I disagree with that particular statement, but I see what the member is doing with his dog whistle. This issue has been around for a very long time, and in fact—
SPEAKER: Order! Order! I’ll ask the member to resume her seat. I just want to think very carefully about the use of the term “dog whistle” within the House. I think there are implications that flow from that which are not parliamentary. It’s something that I want to consider carefully, and in the interim I’ll ask her not to use that term until I’ve thought about it and taken advice.
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: I disagree with that particular statement. This issue has been around for a very long time. Many communities have had very thorough conversations about the merits of having Māori wards within their council. The principle of democracy in terms of one person, one vote will still apply. The way in which Māori wards will be determined in so far as the formula will still remain the same. What we’re trying to achieve is the ability to remove the discriminatory barrier—through a truncated process, albeit—in time for the 2022 local body elections.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does calling for submissions one day and requiring they be submitted by 5 p.m. the next meet the legal consultation requirements of the Local Government Act applying to councils?
SPEAKER: Order! Order! The timing of the select committee submissions is not the Minister’s responsibility.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Speaking to that point of order.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Speaking to the point of order.
SPEAKER: Which one? Dr Nick Smith.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: My question was not specifically to the issue of the timetable that the Māori Affairs Committee has set; it was a question quite specifically—because what we have is the Government putting a requirement on councils—
SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member will resume his seat. The timing the member used was exactly that of the select committee. It was not a general consultation question that is before the House; it is a bill. Michael Woodhouse.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: Point of order.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: So, speaking to that point—
SPEAKER: Oh, sorry—
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Away you go—away you go, Gerry.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: It’s an interesting ruling, but it is the Minister who sets the report-back date for the bill, effectively setting the timetable.
SPEAKER: Well, the member has been here for a very long time. He knows that when the House votes, it’s not the Minister; it’s the House.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Speaking to that point of order, Mr Speaker—which was going to be my original one—that is true, and this Parliament decides, ultimately, on the report-back date. But the request and the motion was put by the very Minister who is now being questioned, so surely that makes Dr Smith’s question in order.
SPEAKER: Well, I can understand exactly what the member means, but it is, in the end, because this House has passed a motion, no longer a matter for which the Minister has responsibility.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Speaking to that point—I think this is an important point, Mr Speaker.
SPEAKER: It’s the House’s responsibility.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Absolutely it is. Dr Smith’s question was not about the House’s decision; it was about the Minister’s request to the House by virtue of her motion.
SPEAKER: I don’t think it was. The member will just repeat the last bit of his question.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: The last part of my question was whether such an action—calling submissions one day and requiring they be lodged the next—meets the legal consultation requirements of the Local Government Act. It’s a question about the Act for which the Minister’s responsible.
SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member will resume his seat. Having listened to that, I’m even more certain about my ruling. Are there further supplementaries?
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Why has she repeatedly stated, and I quote her, “It is unfair that 5 percent of people can overturn a decision of the council.”, when the true position is that the 5 percent of people simply triggers a referendum, and the decision rests with 50 percent of the people?
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Because that provision does not apply to general wards or constituencies. It is inconsistent, it is discriminatory, and many councils, as well as the Race Relations Commissioner, have identified that.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does she agree with the advice of her departmental officials, endorsed by the Ministry of Justice, that with electoral law changes there is an additional obligation on Government to publicly consult?
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: As I have explained previously, this is a short-term fix. Policy development for an enduring solution will be undertaken later in 2021. This is the second stage. This work will consider possible consultation requirements and/or review and appeal processes, and any role for the Local Government Commission in the process for establishing Māori wards and constituencies. What we are trying to achieve with the bill before the Māori Affairs Committee is a short-term fix to enable those councils who choose to make the decision to have Māori wards to be able to do so in time for the 2022 election.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was very specific about the advice of officials as to whether there was an extra obligation to consult on electoral law changes. That was not addressed by the Minister.
SPEAKER: Well, I think the Minister can answer that question, probably with one word.
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Sorry, no, I don’t do one-words.
SPEAKER: It’s really a yes/no question. I know you’re not meant to say that.
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Yeah, I know. I get that. But this is a serious issue—this is a serious issue, and many people are very interested in how the Parliament will progress where the view of New Zealand is moving towards, which is to try and find a way to ensure that our councils can include Māori participation, based on the principle of democracy and the foundation of the Treaty of Waitangi. The fix that we are trying to achieve will remove a discriminatory barrier that does not apply to a general ward or constituency and will even the playing field. And I believe that it’s important to highlight that as we work through to the second piece of work, which I have already referred to and is in the legislative statement, to ensure there is broad consultation on the long-term fix.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister has still not addressed my question, and that was whether she agreed or not with the departmental advice, supported by the Minister of Justice, that there was an extra obligation—
SPEAKER: OK, OK. We’ve had that twice now, and I do agree with the member. There was a very full explanation, or a very full discussion from the Minister, but there was a very narrow supplementary question. I mean it was far too long, but it was very narrow in its essence. And I think the Minister should just address the very beginning.
Hon Grant Robertson: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Obviously I respect your ruling, but to be clear that there have been many Speakers’ rulings over many years that a yes or no answer is not required to be given in these circumstances in the House. I’m just confirming that is still the rule?
SPEAKER: Yeah, that is my—I’m not going to overrule that, but I think it’s pretty hard to address such a narrow question without a bit of a hint one way or the other as to that question. Before I sit down, I just want to say to the Hon Kris Faafoi that, as with the dog whistle comment, suggesting that members opposite are scratching itches is likely to lead to disorder, and I’d ask him to refrain from doing that. I think there are some implications which flow from that which are certainly not parliamentary.
Chris Bishop: Point of order.
SPEAKER: Well, hang on; I’ve ruled on this. I’ve asked the Minister to reply. We’ll have that, and if the member has another one, we’ll deal with it afterwards.
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Yes, I agree that electoral law matters require thorough consultation, which is why I referred to the second-stage process, which is looking for the longer-term fix for Māori wards and constituencies, where there will be a thorough consultation period.
Chris Bishop: Point of order. Just in the exchange just then, I think you made a reference to the Hon Nick Smith’s supplementary being too long, and I just want to query that and what you thought was too long about that supplementary, because Dr Smith was speaking deliberately and slowly, but the supplementary was no longer than any other supplementary for the last 10 years.
SPEAKER: Well, that may be a fair point, but I think it’s fair to say that the relative length of it and the time that it took tended to be a factor in the lack of focus on the very core thing, which was in about the first three words.
Hon Marama Davidson: Can the Minister confirm that the purpose of the requested select committee report-back date and the shortened legislative time frame is to uphold Te Tiriti o Waitangi by allowing territorial authorities to decide on Māori wards for the 2022 local elections in the exact same—
SPEAKER: Order! Now this member has asked a supplementary that was far too long.
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: Yes, and can I thank the Green Party for their continued advocacy on te Tiriti o Waitangi and inclusive participation in local government.
Question No. 4—Health
4. Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour—Banks Peninsula) to the Minister of Health: What recent announcements has he made on the progress of He Ara Oranga: Report of the Government Inquiry into Mental Health and Addiction?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): Earlier this week I announced that the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission has officially got to work on contributing to better and equitable mental health and wellbeing outcomes for all people in New Zealand. On Tuesday, the inaugural Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission and its board, as the commission, marked its first day as an independent Crown entity. The next step in our commitment to honour He Ara Oranga: Report of the Government Inquiry into Mental Health and Addiction and to transform the mental health addiction system is now under way.
Dr Tracey McLellan: What function will the permanent commission perform within the system?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The commission is responsible for providing system-level oversight of mental health and wellbeing, advocacy for the system and its consumers, and holding the Government of the day and other decision makers to account for the mental health and wellbeing of all the people of Aotearoa New Zealand. The commission is tasked with building on the roles of existing organisations that contribute to mental health and wellbeing by looking across the whole system.
Dr Tracey McLellan: What role will the permanent commission play within the health system?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: As a system leader, the commission’s focus is on the contributors of mental health and wellbeing, including health and disability, social welfare, housing, education, and justice. The commission will also focus on the social determinants of health, such as housing, employment, and poverty. This work will make a tangible difference to our health and social systems in years to come.
Chlöe Swarbrick: What progress has been made on He Ara Oranga’s report recommendation that, and I quote, “Criminal sanctions for the possession for personal use of controlled drugs should be replaced with civil responses, such as fines or treatment programmes.”?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Some of the work on that particular recommendation pre-dated the report with the changes to the Misuse of Drugs Act made in 2019, and, of course, broader, you might say, legalisation and decriminalisation at least of cannabis was the subject of a referendum question in last year’s general election, but the collective answer from the electorate on that question was no.
Chlöe Swarbrick: So beyond the issue of cannabis, will the Minister repeal and replace the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 to ensure drugs are treated as a health issue not a criminal issue, as recommended under He Ara Oranga, the mental health and addiction inquiry?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I think it is fair to say that the need for attention to the Misuse of Drugs Act is an ongoing issue. I know that in relation to the changes that were made in 2019 and their application in practice—it has been the subject of conversation between myself and the Minister of Police, and we are keen to establish a review just to see how the discretion that’s provided for in those changes to that legislation are being applied in practice, with a view to ensuring that what was intended then—which was a shift from drug law enforcement, from a punishment, to a health response—is actually being manifest in practice.
Matt Doocey: Why does he believe his Government has been criticised by the retiring Mental Health Commissioner and also the chief executive of the Mental Health Foundation for having no transparent plan for the implementation of the inquiry recommendations?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The outgoing Mental Health Commissioner did a report as at the end of June last year that drew attention to the fact that there was no concluded comprehensive plan following He Ara Oranga. He was correct in that. Work is continuing. Work is continuing on that, but I think the reality is both the outgoing Mental Health Commissioner and the head of the Mental Health Foundation understand that after nine years of poor investment in mental health and running down our mental health systems, it is going to take some time to fix up the mess.
Matt Doocey: Can the Minister confirm the recommendations for He Ara Oranga, the mental health inquiry, were under his Government last term?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: What I can confirm is that because of the parlous state of mental health and wellbeing services in New Zealand, this Government, in its first term, was forced to commission a comprehensive review that led to He Ara Oranga, and we are in the process of fulfilling its recommendation.
Question No. 5—Economic and Regional Development
5. WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour—Northland) to the Minister for Economic and Regional Development: What recent reports has he heard regarding the impact of regional economic development investments in Northland?
Hon STUART NASH (Minister for Economic and Regional Development): Last week, I spent five days in Northland as part of Waitangi commemorations and also to hear firsthand the impact of our direct investment in partnership in the region. Investment in the regions through the Provincial Development Unit (PDU) is a central part of our COVID recovery plan to support infrastructure, jobs, and businesses. I visited six projects and spoke to dozens of people representing local councils, iwi, manufacturers, tourism businesses, primary producers, education providers, cultural institutions, community groups, volunteers, and innovators, who all responded enthusiastically to the partnership approach we are taking to the region. I would like to personally thank the Northland PDU team of Vibeke Wright, Tania Anderson, Petra Witana, and Jade Morunga, who are doing a fantastic job representing their local communities.
Willow-Jean Prime: Did he receive specific feedback from Northland councils or businesses about particular projects?
Hon STUART NASH: Six projects I visited are spread throughout Northland, from the Ōhaeāwai battle site enhancement to the Ngāwhā Innovation and Enterprise Park in Kaikohe; the Waiariki Ngāwhā Springs, Kaikohe; Waima Topu B farm; the Manea Footprints of Kupe centre in Ōpōnoni; and the Waitangi Mountain Bike Park. I won’t pick favourites but it’s clear that each and every project is making a quantifiable difference to jobs, businesses, and economic development in the regions. For example, the Far North Holdings Ltd received a grant of $19.5 million to develop 165 hectares into the Ngāwhā Innovation and Enterprise Park. It will enable the processing of high-value primary products like berry fruit and avocados to be scaled up. Importantly, it will create a circular economy where waste from the berries and avocados will be converted on site into biogas. This project would not have proceeded without Government investment.
Willow-Jean Prime: What impact are these projects having for Māori economic development?
Hon STUART NASH: The investment is about much more than economic development. It’s also having a significant bearing on intergenerational legacies around the management of iwi land and enables the retelling of histories of local hapū and iwi. For example, the Waima Topu B Ahu Whenua Trust received a reasonably modest investment of just under $1 million from the Whenua Māori Fund. The land had been neglected by the former leaseholder but is being transformed into a high-performing beef farm with excellent pasture management. The Government’s investment supports the owners to be active managers of their land and increases productivity and, more importantly, restores the whānau’s pride in their land. The owners are now supported to clear scrub and redevelop the pasture, and once poor-quality land will become productive and a commercial success for the hapū and iwi. It’s likely to result in a $321,000 increased profit per annum.
Question No. 6—Housing
6. Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green) to the Minister of Housing: Does she agree with the Prime Minister that whether people rent or own, “it is considered unaffordable to have someone paying more than 30 percent of their income on the cost of their housing”?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): In answer to the first part of the question, yes. In answer to the second part of the question, 30 percent is an international benchmark that is used to indicate whether housing costs are affordable or not. For public housing, we have set the rent at 25 percent of income. The proportion of people spending more than 30 percent of their income on housing costs is higher for renters than homeowners. The biggest increase in the proportion of renters paying more than 30 percent of their income happened in the 1990s, and that proportion has been relatively stable in recent years.
Hon Julie Anne Genter: Does she think that it’s unacceptable that the most recent statistics show that nearly one-third of households are paying 30 percent or more of their income on housing costs?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I agree that we need to be doing more to ensure that housing remains affordable, which is exactly why our Government is looking at a range of measures to both boost supply and address demand pressures. We’ve already undertaken a number of reforms to help renters, such as only allowing one annual rent increase. We’re also doing work on the largest public house build in a generation, and we are rolling out a progressive homeownership scheme to help more people into their own homes. We are also progressing work around further developing the build-to-rent sector. These reforms will make a difference, but we know that there is much work to be done.
Hon Julie Anne Genter: Will the Government respond to address the fact that because of significant rent increases, the annual inflation faced by beneficiaries in 2020 was almost three times higher than for other households?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: That’s not a matter that I have direct ministerial responsibility for, but I do know that our Government is committed to ensuring that those on the lowest incomes are able to afford a decent living, and we are continually looking at what more we can do to support them.
Hon Julie Anne Genter: Does the Government have a target for the maximum percentage of income that people, particularly those on low fixed incomes—like beneficiaries—are spending on housing costs?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: As I indicated in the answer to my primary question, when it comes to public housing—those houses that are covered off by the Income Related Rent Subsidy—that is set at 25 percent. More broadly: no, we do not have a target around the proportion of income. But I think what is important is that we are committed to ensuring housing is affordable, and that is why we are rolling out a number of initiatives that will address both supply and demand.
Hon Julie Anne Genter: How will the Government test the success of those policies that she’s just referred to, to make sure particularly those on low fixed incomes—like beneficiaries—are able to have affordable housing?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: One way in which we will test it is by continually increasing the number of public houses we have. As I have indicated to the member, we are building the most public houses that have been built in a generation, and we’ll have built 18,000 of those houses by 2024. That is where people will be paying 25 percent of their income on an Income Related Rent Subsidy. More broadly, we will know that we have been successful when all New Zealanders live in a warm, dry, affordable home, whether they are renting or owning.
Question No. 7—Education
7. ANGELA ROBERTS (Labour) to the Associate Minister of Education: What is the Government doing to better support clearer and more relevant learning in schools?
Hon JAN TINETTI (Associate Minister of Education): Today, I announced, alongside Minister Davis, the next steps on the Government’s plans to refresh the New Zealand national Curriculum. We know significant change is needed to deliver a new Curriculum that will support students’ progress and achievement through quality learning, teaching, and leadership. We are working towards a bilingual national Curriculum that is fit for purpose, reflects our bicultural context, and ensures that learning is not left to chance.
Angela Roberts: How will the refreshed Curriculum make a difference for teachers and students?
Hon JAN TINETTI: As a former teacher, I know firsthand the challenges our teachers face. These changes seek to reduce teacher workload by providing greater clarity and guidance on what to teach and when. For students, we will prepare them for successful futures by developing critical skills and capabilities and provide a strong grounding in their own identity, culture, and language.
Angela Roberts: How does the Government intend to work with teachers on the development and refresh of the Curriculum?
Hon JAN TINETTI: The refresh will be an iterative and collaborative process over the next four years, taking on board the insights from teachers at all stages. It’s an ambitious programme, starting with the New Zealand histories curriculum, followed by the English, maths, and science rewrite. I have made it clear that I want teachers, learners, parents, iwi, and communities to be consulted in a meaningful way throughout the process.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Regarding her statement today that the Curriculum would focus on wellbeing, identities, language, and culture, what happened to the focus on maths?
Hon Grant Robertson: Ha, ha! Wow!
SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The Deputy Prime Minister will stand, withdraw, and apologise.
Hon Grant Robertson: I withdraw and apologise.
SPEAKER: Now, I’m going to ask the Hon Jan Tinetti to answer the question, but I think people do know that they are meant to be quiet, notwithstanding the provocation, while questions are being asked.
Hon JAN TINETTI: I’m not sure that that member actually listened fully to my answers to the second question, when I said that we are starting with the histories curriculum, followed by the English, maths, and science rewrite.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: So why did she say in her press release today that the Curriculum would focus on wellbeing, identities, language, and culture?
Hon JAN TINETTI: As that member will know, all of those areas are most important when developing a new Curriculum, but listening to—I will reiterate—my second answer today, it’s an ambitious programme, starting with the New Zealand histories curriculum, followed by the English, maths, and science rewrite.
Chris Bishop: Point of order. Mr Speaker, just before, you referred to a provocation by what can only have been the question from this side of the House. What did you mean by that?
SPEAKER: Do you really want me to detail it?
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Yes.
SPEAKER: Well, I’m happy to. What I regarded was a question about the importance of maths from the former finance spokesperson for the National Party.
Hon Louise Upston: Unbelievable.
SPEAKER: Order! That was the reason for the excessive noise which I required the Deputy Prime Minister to withdraw and apologise for—both for that and for interrupting me when I was on my feet.
Chris Bishop: Point of order. So are you saying that because you found it personally funny, you call it a provocation, which we regard as offensive on this side of the House?
SPEAKER: No. I did not find it funny; I found it ironic.
Hon Michael Wood: Will the biography of the Hon John Banks be part of a new English curriculum?
Hon JAN TINETTI: Of course, during all of this rewrite and refresh of our Curriculum, we’ll be looking at the quality of resources that sit beside that. I’m not sure that that’s of a high enough quality.
Question No. 8—Housing
8. NICOLA WILLIS (National) to the Minister of Housing: Does the National Policy Statement on Urban Development 2020 require tier 1 and tier 2 local authorities to make more space available for housing development this year; if not, by what date are tier 1 and tier 2 local authorities required to make any such changes?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): In answer to the first part of the question, no. Councils are required to publicly notify their plan changes that give effect to these policies by August 2022. This will kick off the public process in Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act involving public submissions and hearings. Decisions on these plan changes must be made within two years of the public notification—that is, if the National Policy Statement on Urban Development (NPSUD) plan changes are publicly notified by August 2022, they must be decided on by August 2024. Shorter deadlines risk lengthy legal challenges to the plan changes and could undermine delivering the intensification outcomes sought, although I would like to point out to the member that we are already seeing the impact of the NPSUD on planning decisions. Hearing panels, the Environment Court, and other decision makers already need to take it into account, and there is evidence they are using it to enable more houses to be built. I would also point the member to the fact that while we enact this long-term substantial change that is needed in our country, we do have short-term tools available such as the COVID fast-track tool.
Nicola Willis: Why is the Government waiting until 2024 to increase the space available for new housing in urban areas facing major housing shortages?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I outlined in the answer to my primary question that this is long-term substantial change, that we do need to go through the process to ensure that it is done correctly, and that we do not want to risk lengthy legal challenges that would ultimately undermine the intent that I think both sides of the House would like to see, which is more land available for development and for housing. But I would like to remind that member that while we go through this longer-term substantive change that is occurring, we have put in place shorter-term mechanisms that can be used, such as the COVID fast-track consenting process that is under way.
Nicola Willis: Why won’t the Minister simply legislate to increase the space available for new housing in urban areas facing major housing shortages?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: We are continually looking at what options are available, but what we do want to do is to ensure that we are also progressing the long-term substantive change that that member’s party failed to achieve when they were in Government. What we do need to ensure is that we have all the components right, and we are looking at shorter-term tools that range over a number of areas. I’d like to point the member to some comments from Dave Kelly from the Master Builders Association yesterday, when he said, “Our focus will be on ensuring we use the opportunity of the RMA reform to address these underlying issues rather than short-term fixes that fail to address the ongoing issue.” We as a Government are determined to make substantial and lasting change.
Nicola Willis: Well, what are the emergency measures that the Prime Minister claimed were already under way to increase land supply for housing?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I have already, in the series of answers that I’ve given to the member during this questioning session, pointed to the fact that we have the fast-track COVID tool that is under way. We already have, I think it is, off the top of my head, five housing developments that are going through that process. We also already have the ability for councils to use tools that sit within the regulatory tool box. As I have said to that member, we are a Government that is committed to making sure we are doing all we can to address the housing crisis, and we are currently looking at a range of measures.
Hon Grant Robertson: Does the Minister think it is helpful for members of Parliament to bring petitions before the House to stop the development of housing on land simply because they don’t like it in their community?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: What I would like us to see, as a Parliament, is to find some common consensus and not be part of the nimbyism that can grow around some of these issues. It is not helpful when local members try and stop the fast tracking of land opening up for the building of badly needed housing in areas such as Hamilton.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Point of order. I seek leave of the House to table the many letters I received from Labour MPs objecting to the fast tracking of housing developments when National was Government.
SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that? There appears to be none.
Documents not tabled.
Nicola Willis: Is the Minister considering strengthening or accelerating the requirements of the National Policy Statement on Urban Development 2020, and, if not, why not?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I am currently considering a range of options. Some of those are to do with the national policy statement (NPS).
Nicola Willis: Will the Minister bring forward the requirements of the National Policy Statement on Urban Development 2020, and, if so, when?
Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: As I have answered in both the primary and one of the supplementary questions to the member, I do not want to put us at risk of shorter deadlines in what is needed around substantial and lasting change in the NPS process. We do not want to bring the risk of legal action, further delaying plan changes and slowing down the intensification and opening up of land. But that is not to say that we are not looking at short-term interim options while we make this long-term substantial change that is required.
Question No. 9—Transport
9. SHANAN HALBERT (Labour—Northcote) to the Minister of Transport: What recent announcements has he made about helping reduce emissions across the transport sector?
Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): Along with the Prime Minister and the Minister of Climate Change, I recently announced three initiatives to reduce transport emissions. Firstly, we’ve agreed in principle to mandate a lower-emitting biofuel blend across the transport sector; secondly, we’re going to work to help councils to fully decarbonise the public transport bus fleet by 2035; and, thirdly, we are moving quickly to introduce a clean car import standard to reduce emissions and Kiwis’ fuel costs, noting that currently New Zealand is one of only three countries in the world, alongside Russia and Australia, to lack such a standard. Action is overdue, and we are taking action.
Shanan Halbert: How much could these reduce our emissions by?
Hon MICHAEL WOOD: Given that transport makes up 47 percent of carbon dioxide emissions, it’s important that the sector does its bit to get us to net zero by 2050. The import standard will result in average fuel savings for families of nearly $7,000 over the lifetime of their vehicles and stop over 3 million tonnes of climate pollution going into our atmosphere. The impact of decarbonising the bus fleet by 2035 is estimated to prevent up to 4.5 million tonnes of carbon dioxide by 2050, and biofuels over time will prevent millions of tonnes of emissions from cars, trucks, trains, ships, and planes. On this note, I note that an estimated 6.3 million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions would have been avoided had the Clark Government’s biofuel mandate not been abolished by the incoming National Government in 2008.
Shanan Halbert: What reactions has he seen to these announcements?
Hon MICHAEL WOOD: The reaction from a range of stakeholders has been extremely positive. The AA, Air New Zealand, Neste, and Z Energy have all welcomed the Government working on the biofuels mandate. Local Government New Zealand, Auckland Transport, Mayor Goff, Environment Canterbury, Greater Wellington, and many others have all welcomed our work on supporting local government to decarbonise public buses. While there is some discussion about the target date, I note that Drive Electric, Toyota, and the AA have all recognised and welcomed the need for a fuel efficiency standard on imported cars.
Question No. 10—Health
10. MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri) to the Minister of Health: How many full-time equivalent staff are employed by the Government’s $455 million front-line mental health service, and how many people have been seen by this front-line mental health service to date?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): The $455 million that the member refers to is an allocation over four years solely to expand access to, and choice of, mental health and addiction services in primary health care and community settings. I’m advised that currently 351 full-time equivalents are engaged to deliver access and choice in front-line mental health services across 18 DHBs. That’s a significant improvement from where things were at four years ago. To the second part of the member’s question, not all service providers can report consistently against people’s National Health Index numbers. This is a symptom of how fragmented the health system is, and is another reason why the Labour Government’s committed to the broad direction laid out in the Health and Disability System Review. What I can tell the House is that the funding has so far resulted in 73,444 sessions to December, and 6,578 people were seen in the month of December alone.
Matt Doocey: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The second leg of that question asked how many people had been seen by the service to date.
SPEAKER: The member explained—if the member had listened—right at the beginning of the answer for the second part of it that the fragmented information that he is able to collect couldn’t give the exact answer.
Hon Member: Yet he gave it one month.
SPEAKER: Then he gave, I thought, more information than was asked for, but I thought he was trying to be helpful rather than smart.
Matt Doocey: Given the amount of money allocated towards establishing the service, does the Minister agree that it would have made sense to keep track of the number of people accessing it to know that he will reach his expected target of 325,000 people per year?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I don’t disagree with the member, but, unfortunately, over many years, going right back to when that member’s party was in Government, they allowed the IT systems across the network of DHBs and hospitals to run down to such a point where there is now quite a degree of variability of how data is collected on services that are provided to patients. That is why I cannot give that member an accurate figure, or a precise number, of those who have been using those services. I can give him a figure on what happens each month, but I can’t distinguish from one month to the next whether somebody has had treatment over multiple months or not. That is the state of the IT systems in our health sector, which is why it urgently needs to be remediated.
Matt Doocey: How can the Minister be confident the service will see the expected 325,000 people annually by 2023-24, when nearly two years after it was announced, the service has only been rolled out to 11 percent of GP practices?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: What the member’s figure does is it doesn’t distinguish between size of practice. So 11 percent of practices doesn’t actually equate to the percentage or proportion of the population covered. What I can say is, knowing that of the $455 million appropriated, and a rising profile over four years, $145 million is expected to have been spent by 30 June this year, and so far $99 million has been committed to the end of December—another six months to go. I’m confident that we are on track to fulfil our expectations of the use of that $455 million.
Matt Doocey: If the Minister is confident of being on track, what is his target for this year of the amount of people to be seen by this new service?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Well, I don’t want to reprise the answers I’ve been giving about just the data that we can collect and therefore how we can measure it. What I can talk about, however, is the money going out the door. That is going when people get the front-line mental health services that that appropriation was for, and we are on track to spend that money, as expected, when that appropriation was made in 2019.
Question No. 11—
Research, Science and Innovation
11. Dr LIZ CRAIG (Labour) to the Associate Minister of Research, Science and Innovation: What recent announcements has she made about supporting early-career researchers in response to the COVID-19 pandemic?
Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Associate Minister of Research, Science and Innovation): New Zealand’s education system turns out world-class scientists and researchers. After completing their PhD, researchers—or post-docs, as they’re called—often travel overseas to gain experience, but in the past year, many have been unable to due to travel restrictions. In recognition of this, last month I announced the MBIE Science Whitinga Fellowship, which will fund 30 of our best and brightest early career researchers with a one-off fellowship worth $320,000 each over two years.
Dr Liz Craig: So what will the fellowship funding be used for?
Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: This initiative is about attracting and retaining talented researchers and giving them the opportunity to develop their skills here in Aotearoa New Zealand. The fellowship is open to researchers at an eligible New Zealand research institution in all fields, including science, the humanities, mātauranga, and social science.
Dr Liz Craig: So what reaction has she had to the announcement of the fellowship?
Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL: The response from the research community has been very positive, which I believe reflects the real need to support our up-and-coming researchers. The deputy director of the Robinson Research Institute at Victoria University of Wellington praised the initiative, saying that “We have been training these PhDs and this was one of the missing links in order for these young researchers to develop their careers.” He added that “With this, we can retain significant talent here in New Zealand.”
Question No. 3 to Minister
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Local Government): Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to table a selection of letters from territorial authorities and regional councils, dated the period between February 2018 and December 2020, supporting the change to legislation removing a discriminatory provision to enable Māori wards and constituencies to be established.
SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that occurring? There appears to be none.
Documents, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Local Government): Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to table a statement from the Public Service Association representing approximately 72,000 members, 9,000 of which work in councils across the country, in support of legislative change to establish “Māori wards to make our councils more genuinely representative.”
SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that letter being tabled? It appears no.
Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Point of order. When the first leave was being sought, you looked rather disparagingly at some grumblings about the length of the leave request. The Standing Orders are very clear that when somebody seeks leave to table a document, the date and source of the document and the title of it is sufficient. It should not be then described in the level of detail it is, and what we’re seeing is a creeping of that, and I just want to draw that to your attention.
SPEAKER: The member is absolutely right. There was, on this occasion, as there was earlier in the day, some creep as far as the—well, the lack of description of documents, and extra material occurred, and that will not. But what occurred on this particular occasion was a clear interjection which was out of order while a point of order was being taken. All right?
Bills
Films, Videos, and Publications Classification (Urgent Interim Classification of Publications and Prevention of Online Harm) Amendment Bill
First Reading
Debate resumed from 10 February.
SPEAKER: Todd Muller—a five-minute call.
TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and—[Interruption]
SPEAKER: Order! Can people leave quietly, please.
TODD MULLER: Yes. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’d like to take a short call on the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification (Urgent Interim Classification of Publications and Prevention of Online Harm) Amendment Bill. I do hope that the Labour Government was taking note of the conversation that occurred last night, because, in a very thorough and very comprehensive debate, what we saw was that for the first time in this Parliament, the National Party, the ACT Party, and the Green Party all hold the same view that this is extremely poor legislation that has been rushed, that hasn’t had good thinking, and that will end up, if it is adopted as it sits in front of us today, having a fundamentally chilling effect on free speech.
There wasn’t a person in this House last night that did not reflect the horror of their shock and experience on March 15th, not only in terms of the tragedy in Christchurch for those families and the wider country, but also that it was live streamed from Christchurch to the rest of the world. All of us reflected on that natural human reaction that when they see something and hear of something that is so shocking, they say there must be a way for this to be prevented. But, as we heard in very good contributions from us—the National Party, ACT, and the Green Party—last night, actually, within 30 minutes of it being online, the major service providers had already voluntarily taken it offline.
So the attempt, as this legislation is seeking to do, to try and legislate a framework with significant pecuniary costs won’t work. It technically won’t work, and, as was very effectively traversed last night, it has been so poorly written that it will give the Crown, through the establishment of a web filter, the sole discretion to decide what is objectionable and what is not. When it is truly horrific, it classifies itself, but when you have a framework—as this Government is proposing—that is subjective, it lends itself in time to political influence, to poor judgment, and a view that someone else’s expression is objectionable and, therefore, should be stopped.
We shall walk down this path of State censorship very, very slowly and with our eyes wide open, and the Minister said it herself when she introduced this bill. She said, “I expect significant changes to occur.” It was as if it was an admission of defeat that, actually, we had not done the thinking. We had put together a rushed bill that won’t achieve its purpose, and, indeed, it is likely to have a chilling effect. When the Government Minister herself acknowledges that there are many holes and she hopes that the select committee will do the heavy lifting for the Government, I think it’s clear to say that you’ve missed the boat.
It’s very, very easy for a Government to say in response to a shocked community, “We must do something. We need to be showing New Zealand that we’re doing something.”, and so they have the ability to stand up in front of New Zealand and say, “We’ve got this restriction of online live streaming.” But the thinking isn’t clear, the legislation is loose, and what it talks to is a lack of focus and a lack of doing the heavy lifting. As National, ACT, and the Green Party have all in a single voice said, this is poor legislation and it has real risks in terms of eroding freedom of speech, and the Labour Government has to listen. They can’t simply wash their hands of it and say, “Well, you know, it was a good enough effort, and let’s see what the next six months provides from a select committee perspective.”
You’re the Government—you have nowhere to hide. Own issues that are difficult, do the thinking, and put good legislation in front of us and we’ll consider it, but not this lightweight effort that we’re reflecting on today. Thank you.
Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Mr Speaker, it appears Te Paati Māori does not seek the call, and so I would like to have that call to speak briefly on this bill.
Clearly, Mr Muller hasn’t been following what’s been going on, because this is a very important piece of legislation, and is desperately needed to cover events that, tragically, I saw unfold in my own electorate. The fact of the matter is that it is not at all clear that the tools that the chief censor currently has are adequate and speedy enough to respond to the kind of live streaming that we saw. We need absolute clarity. Free speech is very important—I absolutely endorse that sentiment—but we need clarity to ensure that the officials, that the Government, can respond with speed.
Now, it is true that the ability for internet service providers to examine and filter content is a significant step. It already exists in respect of child pornography for very, very good reason. But we need to enable providers to be able to respond and cut off any of this kind of content with the utmost speed, because we know the real contagion effect that this can have—that in moments, people all around the world can be watching that content. If it’s coming from New Zealand, we want to be able to stop it: stop it because it’s objectionable and it’s horrific, and stop it because we really want to make sure that we protect people from the consequences of perhaps sometimes unwittingly seeing that content.
So this is an excellent piece of legislation. It’s timely, and it’s one that is well drafted, with an excellent Minister behind it. I commend it to the House.
Hon SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga): I want to start by just acknowledging what happened in Christchurch a couple of years ago, on March 15th, and acknowledge what heinous atrocities and terrorism that was on our soil and to our people. I’ve been in meetings with the ministers recently, public meetings with the Muslim community and interfaith community—and I acknowledge and I appreciate that other members of Parliament outside of the Government have been invited to those—and to hear from people whose families have been caught up in this has been very humbling and sobering.
I’m sure all of the House, irrespective of views on this bill, would share the view that the live streaming of terrorism around the world was appalling and that we simply do not want the terrorist and others who may share his hate to succeed and to see this, and we’d all want to stop that happening again. But this bill is fundamentally flawed, and it really is something, and I’m quite taken by it, when you have a bill in this House and parties as diverse as the National Party, the ACT Party, the Māori Party, and the Green Party—not at third reading, not on the first reading, but before it’s really even got out of the blocks—oppose it. That tells us, I think, quite clearly that the Government got this law wrong.
Jan Tinetti, a new Minister, has taken it over, and so in a sense it may not be her fault, but, actually, it’s her bill. She has carriage of it, and—yep, I heard Todd Muller—she’s talked about real change at committee, and the issue, bluntly, is: can a select committee turn a silk purse out of a sow’s ear? I have my doubts, having read the bill earlier today.
A short point on this is this: this morning in select committee, we were looking at members’ bills, and it’s permissible when members’ bills—because it’s one MP, without the resources of Government departments and thousands of officials—can get bills wrong. They’re sometimes not as tidy as they should be. But for a Government to be putting in a shoddy law in this House that every single party other than the Labour Party opposes at first reading on something that, frankly, should at a level be uncontroversial, it’s not good. It’s wrong, and they should take a look at themselves in relation to all of that.
But, worse than that, this bill unnecessarily and arbitrarily reduces the fundamental freedoms of New Zealanders. I’ve been a little bit jumpy about this lately in issues of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and where we’re seeing erosion of freedoms. But, in a sense, I’d suggest I’ve got every reason to be, because we are seeing laws come into this House where the instinct of the Government seems to be “Actually, we’ll control. We’ll take over. We’ll cancel.”
We heard some excellent points. I was reading through the transcript from the other members who’ve spoken in opposition to this bill: Chlöe Swarbrick, David Seymour, and Melissa Lee. Melissa Lee made the excellent point that the chief censor already has the powers—I think it’s a “he” at the moment—he needs at this time in relation to live streaming. David Seymour, I thought, made the excellent point that this bill won’t even achieve anything that’s logically connected to the March 15 terrorist attacks. It’s all sizzle; no sausage—it doesn’t have a logical connection with the atrocities that were committed on March 15th.
The multinationals—in this case, the social media giants; the biggest companies the world has ever seen—did what they could as urgently as they could, and that’s because of course their reputation is such that they have every incentive. I’m sure they wanted to do the right thing as well, to be fair, to get this material—this evil material—down as fast as they could. Our Government, frankly, with a GDP smaller than these companies, didn’t have a hope of doing it in the sort of time that they did. Yet this bill, under the guise of all of that, reduces our freedoms, even though it’s not related to March 15th, or not logically, at least, in reality.
The Government’s taking the opportunity to go with their instincts to take power to themselves, to take control for themselves, and to be able to cancel. I’m not suggesting necessarily that’s a bad motive. They may think this is the right thing to do, but every other party in this House doesn’t, and we see it for what it is.
It’s an easy option, and—I use this word advisedly, because I wouldn’t use it overly—it’s quite authoritarian, what we’ve seen from the Government here with this bill. It’s not 1950s Eastern Europe, but it is quite authoritarian, and talking with Rawiri Waititi—actually, it’s a very good point. I think Melissa Lee made a similar one. What would be the situation in relation to a George Floyd—is that objectionable? Sure, I think you’d make quite a strong case that it was. It was certainly distressing, hugely distressing, and yet that video, which, through laws like this, the Government wants the power to filter—I’m not saying what they would or wouldn’t have done with that one, but I’m simply making the point they could have the power to do something on that. What would happen in New Zealand? Would it be taken down and actually stop a movement that’s very powerful about justice for black people in the United States of America and, indeed, around the world?
I mean, your closer-to-home example is in relation to Oranga Tamariki, and I appreciate there’d be a wide variety of views on that—the taking of babies. Again, is that objectionable? Regardless of anyone’s view, I would doubt there would be a member—I’d hope there isn’t—who’d say that that sort of thing shouldn’t be allowed on the internet and the power of it for people to see. Yet what we’ve got here is a law ultimately about internet filters and the control that I’m talking about, and that’s wrong. It’s overreach. It’s something that shows us the instinct of this Government, and I for one—but I’m not alone—don’t like it.
I don’t think this is isolated. Actually, we’re already seeing in a very clear sense—the Minister in charge of the March 15th royal commission, Kris Faafoi, I think, is the one to shepherd it—a desire to go down the path of hate speech. Actually, we know it’s a situation where, in that regard, they already had a work programme. So, again, like this law, it’s a sense of taking the opportunity to do what the Government wanted anyway, even though in my view it has no clear connection logically to March 15th. It’s an easy option. Dare I say it, it’s a cancel culture, and it’s not a path we should go down. I don’t see this law as isolated. I think we see more of it coming, and the effect on society overall is quite insidious.
Whatever people think about Sean Plunket, the reality is that in the last week or so, he’s been taken off his radio show by large corporates who, in a sense, seem, in my view, and I appreciate they’re free to do it—scared. They’re scared of what’s happening, of identity politics and the cancel culture, and the easy thing to do is to get rid of him. That’s insidious to our culture of freedom of expression.
All that this sort of thing is doing—this bill and what I’ve just talked about—is forcing material underground, where we can’t see it. That’s not the New Zealand way. Actually, we want a culture where we are tolerant of different views, and sometimes offensive views, actually, and so the National Party—and I, certainly, with relish—oppose this bill. But I say to the Labour Party that we’re not alone. Every single party opposes it. If you can’t do a good enough job at select committee, think very carefully about potentially pulling this objectionable bill.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: I understand this will be a split call. I call Sarah Pallett—five minutes.
SARAH PALLETT (Labour—Ilam): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m delighted to stand here to talk to the bill. The objective, which I think we probably could return to, is to update the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act 1993 to allow for urgent prevention and mitigation of harm caused by objectionable publications. What we’re trying to do here, which seems to be a point that might be being lost in rhetoric, is we’re trying to address limitations such as live streaming, which doesn’t currently fall within the scope of the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act 1993. In addition, the chief censor’s decision on objectionable content risks being delayed because of the statutory requirement to provide written rationale within five working days. Now, you’ll all understand that we didn’t have five working days when that material started to be live streamed.
In addition, the Government cannot require the removal of objectionable content from online platforms, which I, again, think that across the House we would all agree that the content from that shooting that day should not be available on online platforms. Additionally, the responsibilities of internet service providers and online content hosts are unclear, and clarification is needed for their benefit as well as for ours. Also, current instances of internet blocking are operating without a clear regulatory framework to guide their use.
Now, the important thing to look at here is that the bill makes live streaming of objectionable content a criminal offence. Objectionable content is something that I think we are not confused about. “Objectionable” is deemed “likely to be injurious to the public good.”—i.e., torture, sexual violence, terrorism, and child sexual abuse. The slippery slope argument is not one that I find powerful. I think that we are all clear that incidents such as the acts of terror that we witnessed on that day are objectionable, and I would really like to challenge anybody who feels that streaming information like that and images like that across the country without restriction or the ability to prevent them being spread, as they do, like wildfire is something we really need to have the capacity to do. We can’t wait for five days.
Now, I’m going to take you back to 1993. In 1993, I was 26. Waco happened in 1993. Jurassic Park also happened in 1993. Nirvana had some pretty good songs going out in ‘93. But you can understand why the Act that we’ve got, when you learn that the World Wide Web itself was born publicly—that software was, basically, put out in 1993 in the public domain. So you can understand why the Act as it stands is not fit for purpose. The world has changed a great deal since 1993.
Most of us MPs are pretty familiar with social media and how it works. We use it extensively, some of us use it more than others, and the internet, as we know, can be an enormous power for good. Search engines are extraordinarily helpful things—for example, where would we all be without Bing?—and the internet can bring us together.
Now, I’m from Christchurch and my electorate sits very close to the Al Noor Mosque. That the shooter could commit these hideous acts of terror was absolutely horrendous enough, but what we knew when we were in lockdown on that awful day was we were receiving messages from our children who were in school under lockdown, who were having this live streaming being pushed to their phones on auto play, and they had no capacity to stop it. They were in lockdown—if you can imagine—terrified, watching these images, and powerless to stop them.
Now, I thank Mr Seymour for his actions in the University of Canterbury that day. My understanding is that he was supporting the students. I do hope that he wasn’t sharing the video, but I have no understanding—[Interruption]—of that. My understanding was that he was supportive. I am grateful to him for that—genuinely, I mean that.
Simon Court: Well, you didn’t need to say the last bit then, did you? That is just ridiculous.
SARAH PALLETT: Thank you. But what I would like to do is return back to the benefits and—
Simon Court: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I’d like that member to withdraw and apologise for that comment.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: No. Carry on.
SARAH PALLETT: Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Nicole McKee: Point of order, Mr Speaker. The member made an accusation against our leader, and I think it would be relevant that she withdraw and apologise.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: No. I was in the House when that debate—I was presiding. I know what was said, and the member accurately said what was—it was not out of order, and that’s my ruling.
Sarah Pallet’s time has ended. Rawiri Waititi—five minutes.
RAWIRI WAITITI (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori): Thank you very much. Unfortunately, Willie Jackson had taken most of my time and I missed the call, and I was supposed to go before Simon Bridges, and he’s taken my thunder. But I’ve been in a storm over the last couple of days, so I can allow him to have that.
It’s nice to make a contribution to this particular kōrero, the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification (Urgent Interim Classification of Publications and Prevention of Online Harm) Amendment Bill. We too have problems with this particular bill. There’s a lot missing in regards to the liberties of the public and the freedoms of the public to be able to post different things. It’s not that we support the very videos that you were just talking about, and in no way do we support the atrocious videos shown in the mosque shootings. But I too agree with the member Simon Bridges around the ability for the public to bring to the fore issues like the George Floyd killing by the police in America and the Black Lives Matter movement that came out of that.
Also, the uplift of tamariki mokopuna by Oranga Tamariki in Hastings also would be affected by this particular bill if we do not look at tightening these particular issues. Also, the ability to show discrimination and all those types of issues that on every day, people who are of marginalised communities, those who are discriminated against—and, quite often, the indigenous peoples of this country do not have the ability to capture any of that type of information.
So we are not very supportive of the bill as it lies, and we would like an opportunity to get to the point where we can tighten up what is in this bill to allow us to have these particular issues addressed in this particular bill. So, in saying that, the Māori Party votes against this particular bill and, obviously, looks forward to the discussions where we’re able to implement public freedoms and also give the voice to the marginalised and disenfranchised, and that they are not lost on this bill.
Dr EMILY HENDERSON (Labour—Whangārei): I rise to commend this bill to the House, and I note my colleague’s comments that Jurassic Park also came out in 1993, with the previous Act. As what my children would describe as a dinosaur, I need to remind the House that in those days, it was unusual to have an email account. We are dealing with a very different world. It is absolutely vital that we address those issues. This is a first reading of a bill that is going to be going through a long process, and I am delighted that we are going to be having this debate, because it’s really, really important.
I remember the Ides of March—I remember the 15th of March. I remember as a mother with children who have cellphones and access to the internet how concerned I was that they would inadvertently or—teenagers being what they are—recklessly stumble upon something. I think that we have all heard, over the weeks and years and months since, just how traumatising it was for people to stumble across that material. There is also the point that for victims of that violence—just as victims, for example, of sexual offences are protected from people learning of their victimisation by suppression orders for their names unless they seek to remove them—it is not helpful to have the details of their abuse and their personal lives known. It is re-traumatising, and I suggest to this House that there is a real parallel there with the victims of the Christchurch massacre knowing that fellows in their community were able to see that material. It is so deeply traumatising.
I am glad to see that we are all in agreement that something has to be done in relation to those points. But what confuses me about this bill is the reaction to it from the other side of the House, because I feel that when you do what a lawyer would do and sit down and actually read the provisions—and I’m afraid I am a lawyer, so I’ve reverted to type—a lot of the concerns that are being raised disappear.
In particular, I hear the concern of my friends across the House regarding the possibility that there might be the banning of important whistleblowing information, such as the uplift of the pepe from the hospital that we saw, and that was an important prod to us all—to use very understated language—as to the extent of the issue that those of us working in the system knew about, and now the rest of the country does, too. So, you know, whistle-blowing and slices of real life like that are absolutely vital to our society, and so of course we must protect them.
Similarly, I heard reference from the other side of the House last night to the case of George Floyd, and, of course, that is something that the member has averted to this afternoon. There, again, is an instance of real life, live streamed footage that has brought about a very welcome and very timely and, in fact, long overdue focus upon social justice issues. We cannot allow a piece of legislation to go forward that would curtail that sort of whistle-blowing, if I may call it that. But this piece of legislation doesn’t.
Again, we had concerns raised on the other side of the House about the possibility that an innocent broadcaster—so we’ve got innocent bystanders, and now we also have innocent broadcasters—who is someone who is filming something innocuous that becomes appalling, and they are still broadcasting. Would that be then considered somehow a criminal act under section 124—and additional letters? Would that be a criminal act?
So these are the issues that I think have been raised, and I think that if you actually look back at what it says in the legislation, a lot of those concerns disappear. So, Mr Speaker, with your leave, I’m going to do what a lawyer does and I’m going to look at the Act. So what I want to direct everyone’s attention back to is actually section 3 of the “Jurassic” Act 1993, because section 3 defines the meaning of “objectionable”, and it is one of three sections doing so. It’s really, really important to look back at, because if we do look back at it, I don’t think there’s any way the baby uplift, the George Floyd whistleblower broadcaster, or the innocent bystander would ever be caught, and that provision—that definition of “objectionable”—has not changed in this new bill. That’s really crucial.
So I want to just take you, if I may, to that section. If you look at section 3, section 3(1) states, “For the purposes of this Act,”—this is the 1993 one—“a publication is ‘objectionable’ ” if it depicts material that is “likely to be injurious to the public good.” Now, if you flip at that point, down to subsection (4)—lawyers love this stuff, but my friend on the other side of the House is disappearing—
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member should not refer to—
Dr EMILY HENDERSON: Oh, my apologies, sir. My apologies—withdrawn. “In determining for the purposes of this Act”, says subsection (4), “whether or not any publication … is objectionable … the following matters should be considered:”, and I draw the House’s attention to “(a) the dominant effect of the publication as a whole: … (c) the character of the publication, including … in relation to … social [matters and] other matters:”, and also “(e) the purpose for which the publication is intended to be used:” and “(f) any other relevant circumstances”. Now, what I would strongly say to this House is that that precludes from the definition material of obvious social and political value such as the George Floyd video, and it precludes the baby uplift videos. Those are matters where it is about political speech, they are matters of social importance, and that in itself should be cover.
You see, the thing about this bill is it’s not actually changing anything except the method of delivery. It is addressing the new method of delivery of this material. The fundamental ideas about what is objectionable and what is not have been with us since 1993, and I think that is really important to consider.
The next point I would just like to bring the House’s attention to is the point about the innocent broadcasting bystander. So that is section 124AB, and this is the criminal offence of live streaming and the possible criminal culpability of that. But, you see, in order to be prosecuted or convicted of such an offence, one has to know or have reasonable cause to believe that the material one is live streaming is objectionable. Now, in that case, it seems to me quite clear that no one is going to define our poor innocent broadcasting bystander as a criminal. I commend this bill to the House.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification (Urgent Interim Classification of Publications and Prevention of Online Harm) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.
Ayes 65
New Zealand Labour 65.
Noes 55
New Zealand National 33; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 10; ACT New Zealand 10; Te Paati Māori 2.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a first time.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is, That the Films, Videos, and Publications Classification (Urgent Interim Classification of Publications and Prevention of Online Harm) Amendment Bill be considered by the Governance and Administration Committee.
Motion agreed to.
Bill referred to the Governance and Administration Committee.
Bills
Sexual Violence Legislation Bill
Second Reading
Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Justice): I present a legislative statement on the Sexual Violence Legislation Bill.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.
Hon KRIS FAAFOI: I move, That the Sexual Violence Legislation Bill be now read a second time.
The Sexual Violence Legislation Bill will reduce the trauma that sexual violence complainants experience in court, while maintaining a defendant’s fundamental rights and making sure that the trial process remains fair. This bill is part of the Government’s commitment to reduce and ultimately eliminate family violence and sexual violence in Aotearoa. [Interruption]
Hon Simon Bridges: Sort yourself out, guys.
Hon KRIS FAAFOI: Thank you, you’ll get your turn. Just calm—just calm.
At this stage, can I also acknowledge my ministerial colleague the Minister for the Prevention of Family and Sexual Violence, Marama Davidson, and along with the work that I will do with her over the next three years, that will help to lessen the unacceptable secondary harm that victims and survivors of sexual violence may experience within the justice system. We need to ensure that when victims and survivors do reach out and when they do appear before a court, our justice system does respond and does no harm.
The second reading of this piece of legislation is timely because earlier today I had the pleasure of meeting the Chief Victims Advisor, Kim McGregor, and going through a number of issues that she wants to prioritise over the next three years and the way that we would like to work together to make sure that her mission in making sure that victims have more rights within the process is executed by this Government, which has made a great start.
Can I acknowledge the Justice Committee for their work at the select committee process and those who submitted, because these changes are critical to reducing the trauma that contributes to our low prosecution and conviction rates for sexual violence.
During my reading and the discussions around this bill, I was a little bit shocked about some of the stats that came out a couple of years ago from the New Zealand Crime and Victims Survey that indicated that 23 percent of adults here in New Zealand have experienced sexual violence in their lifetimes. Then when you narrow that down to women, that increases to 34 percent of adults. So if we can put that into context, if we know 10 people, roughly at least a couple of them will have experienced sexual violence in some way. And if you narrow that down to 10 women in our lives, a third of them, in some way, shape, or form, would have experienced sexual violence. In a country like New Zealand, I think those statistics are not great, which is why this Government, and the previous Government—and I want to acknowledge my colleague Jan Logie as well—has made a priority of making sure that we can prevent much family violence and sexual violence.
Now, when you piece that together with what we do know in stats, and also the numbers that we don’t know—the women that don’t come forward, who are scared about their victimisation and the re-traumatisation through a process, whether it be speaking up first or whether you speak up and then go through the court process, and who decide that that calculation is not one that they want to make—these changes are even more important. That’s why I’m happy to be speaking on this second reading.
The key changes within the bill do tighten the rules around evidence regarding the complainant’s sex life to ensure that they are protected from irrelevant and unduly invasive questioning. Now, I think I’ve had a discussion with the Hon Simon Bridges that that is a sticking point for the National Party, and I also understand it’s a sticking point for quite a large number of the legal fraternity. But I would argue that if we have a system where the adversarial nature that is set up prevents victims of sexual violence making that simple calculation that they should come forward or acknowledge that they should go to a trial and give evidence against a potential offender, it prevents them from doing that. Our system is not right, and we need to make sure that the measures, the processes within a court, while maintaining a fair trial, do not revictimise those victims of sexual and family violence. One of the things that certainly came through in the submission to this bill from Kim McGregor is that that is exactly what has been happening, not just recently but for decades.
If it’s OK, Mr Speaker, I do want to read from the Chief Victims Advisor’s submission to this piece of legislation to the select committee, because she said that—and this is directly from the submission—“Currently, the experience of giving evidence at trial is traumatic, often described by complainants as being akin to a second assault. One complainant … said that while she thought she was going to be killed when she was raped at least she would have been spared … [the trial process], as it was worse than the rape itself. When we compare that to current cases, we see little has improved for the complainants.”, the Chief Victims Advisor said. And a quotation from that person: “[the court system] … absolutely broke her, and she has never recovered.”
So to allow that situation to continue in our court process, to this side of the House and to other parties in the House, is not on. We now have the ability to change this law, and I am totally aware that other legal fraternity or others may have a disposition to parts of this law for pure legal reasons. But the law cannot continue like this if it is preventing victims of crime coming forward and having a fair day in court and to face an offender. Now, we’re not making any judgment about whether the offenders are guilty or innocent within that process, but to make sure that we have, through the whole process, comfort post a sexual violence event for people who are victims to come forward, have their day in court, and leave knowing that justice has been served—has not been something that’s been available to them for some time. I think it’s high time that for those people who have been in those positions, who haven’t had their day in court because of their unwillingness to put them through that situation and be revictimised, that day has come.
So, again, I don’t want to take up too much time of the House, but I thank the select committee for this piece of legislation. The changes within it will, I think, make sure that a fair day in court can be had, and those who are brave enough to have a day in court who are victims of sexual violence can do that in a way that allows them to have their say against a potential offender but doesn’t make them feel like they’re being victimised again. Again, this is a piece of legislation that has been a promise and something certainly in Labour Party manifestos for some time. I’m proud to make sure that it is progressed, and I hope it progresses through this House with the unanimous support of the Parliament in order to make sure the victims of sexual violence can go through the court process without feeling that they’re revictimised.
Hon SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga): I want to say, first off, that I don’t get up to speak on this politically, and I don’t say that lightly. If this was about politics, actually, National would just sign up to this, because the intentions are good, it all sounds great, and I’m sure Kris Faafoi’s genuine in what he’s saying. I also want to say with, I hope, humility—I can’t say this about really much else in this Parliament—this is one area where I’m more experienced than any other MP. I was a senior Crown prosecutor who did jury trials and specialised in sexual abuse cases. I’ve done a lot of them, and I am still haunted to this day by some of the cases I did. It’s a deeply distressing area, it’s an awful area, and I acknowledge the statistics that Kris Faafoi’s put here.
But I want to speak directly to Kris Faafoi, the Minister in this area, and his officials, because I do hope—I fervently hope—they will make changes at select committee. And I say to Kris Faafoi, look, actually, most of this bill is fantastic. We sign up to it, we agree with it. It’s about helping complainants and victims. And I’m going to go through some of the things I think are really good in this bill and we support wholeheartedly, but there are two clauses in this bill where they are a mixture of unworkable and unjust. And, as a law, they will see innocent young men—and I say mostly young men—convicted in our courts, and that’s not right; that’s unjust. And I’ve said, much of it’s good.
The provisions in this bill around better methods of giving evidence for family violence complainants, child witnesses—that’s wonderful. I say, regarding the directions that judges will be instructed to give—and they’re already doing a lot of this—around the myths, the misconceptions; for example, that it’s only strangers that commit sexual violence—clearly nonsense. And juries do need to hear those directions—it’s good that it’s there—enshrined formally in a statute, and this law’s going to do that.
The added flexibility around victim impact statements and the greater optionality and choice, if you like, that victims will have to give their statement by video recording out of court, where the judge has the power to clear the court in certain cases—I think that is all great, and does go to what this bill’s meant to be about, which is preventing the re-traumatisation of complainants and victims in the court.
But there are two clauses that, as I’ve said, are unjust and unworkable—they’re just plain wrong. And the reality is nearly all the lawyers: the prosecutors, the defence lawyers, agree with what I’m saying. The judges think these clauses are wrong. And they mean, as I’ve said, that the accused—as he or she is in a serious criminal jury trial, rather than a defendant; mainly young men—won’t get a fair trial in some sexual violence cases where these clauses apply. And that means, actually, I haven’t done the maths—I could go away, but my estimate would be many hundreds of, basically, men a year won’t get a fair trial. Jonathan Eaton QC, an eminent criminal silk in the South Island says, “We believe that the bill could lead to significant injustice, particularly for the more vulnerable members of our society, such as youths, members of minority populations, and those with diminished capacity. We already have too many young men and women in our prisons who should not be there.”
And so, let me run through those clauses. I’ll try and do it briefly. They’re not simple areas, but the first is clause 8. It renders presumptively unlawful evidence of any sexual experience by a complainant with the accused. And I just simply say to Kris Faafoi, the law’s already strong enough in this area. A defence counsel can’t just come along to court and, on a whim, start asking about the prior sexual experience of the complainant. They need to have the judge’s approval and sanction to do that, and it has to be relevant—and not just relevant, highly probative—to the guilt or the lack of guilt—I won’t say innocence, because that’s not the criminal standard, but the non-guilt of the accused. But here, we’re limiting the evidence, even where it is relevant and probative to whether the accused should be acquitted. In the New Zealand Bar Association’s submission to the select committee, they talk about, in many cases, details of previous consensual sexual activity between a complainant and defendant will be of direct relevance to those allegations before the court. By way of example, a complainant’s consent to sexual—
Angie Warren-Clark: How so?
Hon SIMON BRIDGES: The member’s yelling at me, “How so?” I’ll tell you how so, and they give an example: “By way of further example, a complainant’s previous consent to certain practices similar to the activity complained about, e.g. bondage, may be of particular relevance to the fact-finder.” As the House of Lords in the United Kingdom said, as a matter of common sense, a prior sexual relationship between the complainant and the accused may, depending on the circumstances, be relevant to the issue of consent. [Interruption]
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Sorry to interrupt the member. It’s really difficult, when you’ve got a barrage coming from my right, to hear the member, but he’s got a right to speak.
Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I accept it’s an emotive issue, but it’s an important issue, and I would ask for some respect while I make serious points that I think are incredibly important. Really all I’m saying on this clause is that it will be made artificially harder for the accused—who have rights too, by the way, Louisa Wall—to put their defence and for juries to get at the truth.
The second clause is clause 14, and what that does—and I’m really, really rushed, because there’s more I want to say on this important matter, but what that effectively does is say that, in most of these cases, it has to be pre-recorded evidence some year or more before the case. And I can tell you, as a prosecutor, the Crown has all the resource. There is a complete inequality. And for a defence counsel well over a year before the trial to have to have all the ducks in the row, to put that case, to put the defence fully, is basically impossible.
This is entirely unworkable. What it’s actually going to mean, Louisa Wall, is that judges and defence counsel will informally agree, and the victim will come back to court and give evidence twice. They will be re-traumatised, I believe, by this bill, and the clause in here that is entirely unworkable. If it is workable, frankly, it’s even worse. If it is workable, what it does is do away with the right to silence—a centuries-old right for accused in court cases. Do it once, do it right.
In the three or so minutes I’ve got left, we could be cynical about lawyers, but the reality is here, they nearly without exception have lined up against these two clauses, because they know that they are wrong. And personally, I want to be clear: I came to this Parliament and I was going to read to you from my maiden speech—I won’t in the interest of time. I only spoke on one primary issue of political substance and policy—it was the rights of victims, and the need for redress, because, actually, the cases I’ve done haven’t seen justice in this area.
The statistics are abysmal, and there are things we did change, and we need to go further and do more, but I say to this House that you can’t achieve justice for victims by performing an injustice on the accused—it just is not right. And the fixes here are actually relatively easy and minor—they’re doing away with clearly wrong clauses in this bill. William Blackstone, a jurist—I don’t know; two or three centuries ago—says it’s better for 10 guilty people to escape than one innocent suffer. I don’t know about the ratio, but as I say, you don’t do right by doing wrong to accused in these cases, and I worry greatly about that.
I say to this House, don’t let the apple here rot. Don’t let the little bad bit affect the great good that’s in this bill—cut it out, and we’ve got that opportunity to do that at committee of the whole House. We have the opportunity with the two wrong clauses that will see young men go to jail unnecessarily, wrongfully in this country, to amend those clauses. That would leave a bill that the National Party could wholeheartedly support and that will do some good and will ensure some victims aren’t re-traumatised.
I want to say, because now that I have raced through I have just got a few seconds for a couple of other things. It’s remarkable to me that, on the one hand, the Government’s doing the Criminal Cases Review Commission to try and get those wrongfully convicted, and yet, on the other, they do this. I also say to David Parker, it’s entirely wrong that the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act report here gives a clean vetting. There’s not a lawyer worth their salt in New Zealand who could do that with these clauses in this bill. We support this bill right now. We hope, though, there’ll be sense—some practicality, so that people aren’t wrongfully convicted—through Supplementary Order Papers at the committee stage, so we can support this bill at third reading.
Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Minister for the Prevention of Family and Sexual Violence): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. Huri noa kia ora tātou, ōku hoa kaimahi i roto i tēnei Whare Pāremata.
[Greetings Mr Speaker. Greetings to all of my colleagues in this House.]
I want to put up front that everything we do in this House is important—is important for democracy, is important for communities, and has an impact on the real everyday lives of our families and our people. This piece of legislation—it just came to me as I was sitting here listening to Minister Faafoi, to Mr Bridges. It has hit me how incredibly important, how significant, these changes are, and in particular that I am standing here also for the first time in this House with a direct relationship to my ministerial portfolio as the Minister for the Prevention of Family and Sexual Violence and a vision that we can and must eliminate violence from our beautiful country. That is feeling heavy. That is feeling like a huge responsibility, as it should—as it should. I welcome the robust debate. Upholding a fair justice system for all absolutely is deserved of robust debate about every single word change, about every single clause. So I acknowledge the heavy significance, the important significance, of this work for fair justice.
We all, I think, believe in a justice system that actually delivers justice, that creates healing and restoration for everyone involved, that delivers accountability for all involved, and that, most importantly, again—and I cannot say this enough—upholds the dynamic of a fair trial and natural justice; and that all people, everyone who comes before the justice system, should trust in that system, should have faith, and should be taken seriously, no matter what perspective of harm or an event you are coming from.
So this legislation, therefore, is primarily about improving what has been a flawed system for ever, what has harmed victims for ever. We know, in fact, that when we re-harm and re-traumatise victims in our system, that has no benefits for anybody—not for anyone, including defendants and our families and communities. So this legislation is trying to bring back some balance, some fairness, and some actual justice in the system. I must acknowledge my colleague and former under-secretary Jan Logie, who, for our part in the Green Party, has worked on deeply, has cared about, and has carried the responsibility of the legislation up until I have had the honour of being able to work closely with Minister Kris Faafoi, which I look forward to and am inspired by his values and his vision for not just this legislation but for the broader work of reforming the justice system.
As I’ve said, there is injustice now, and we cannot conflate a dear goal, a goal that is dear and passionate to my heart, which is to turn towards restorative, truly restorative, and alternative justice systems that really do call for accountability and put victims at the heart of all processes—we cannot conflate the changes in this law with the goals which I also hold dear about an overall decarceration of our country to also bring better safety for all. We mustn’t let that conflation happen, as I heard some clues of, as I heard some hints of, in the previous speaker Simon Bridges’ submission just now in the House.
So I acknowledge, as a Māori woman, that sitting alongside our overall reforms we know we must remove the systemic racism from our justice system. I need to acknowledge that so that people are aware, so that my communities are aware, that I hold that through the entire passage of these justice and legislation reforms. System flaw—system flaw—is what we are focusing on here. When we have a system—and why I will quickly pick up on some of the particular clauses of the bill amendments—that further harms victims, it ends up in people not trusting. It builds harm upon harm. It creates an understanding that people should not reach out, should not report, will not be believed. In fact, the real impact of having a justice system which upholds that mistrust is actually the ongoing nature of intergenerational violence. That is actually what the real impact of having a flawed justice system that treats victims terribly is: the impact of ongoing intergenerational violence as well.
So from the submissions—this is the second reading—I too am going to thank and refer to the submission of Chief Victims Advisor to Government, Dr Kim McGregor, who pointed out—and actually referred to my colleague Jan Logie—that “the 1980s was primarily convicting stranger rapes which did not reflect the common occurrence of partner, acquaintance, or intrafamilial rapes experienced by many sexual violence victims/survivors.” Those are myths that we need to be able to correct, and turn our entire nationwide dialogue towards the actual true understandings of what sexual violence actually is, who commits it, and what the actual impacts are.
I’ll go back to the particular clause that relates to that part in Dr Kim McGregor’s submission. Oh, I also wanted to pick up on part of her submission that also highlighted that the research, which we know is unacceptable, points out “approximately 34% of women and 12% of men, and one in two trans people report experiencing sexual violence in their lifetime.” I wanted to make sure that we had an understanding of how far too common and serious this is.
What that means, then, is some of the key changes in the bill—and I wanted to pick up particularly on the key change around requiring judges to direct the jury on any myth or misconception relating to sexual violence that they consider relevant to the case. And we know—we know—it is clear that, unfortunately, those myths have been perpetuated and strengthened in all sections of our community and society, including in the courtrooms. That is absurd and should never have been the case. I welcome that. I welcome all of this legislation and the amendments, but I particularly focus on that and ask and, I think, congratulate that my understanding is that—[Bell rung]—judges have committed to further and ongoing training to make sure that they even have that understanding in the first place so they can correct it in their own courtrooms, because I know that is not necessarily always the case. Gosh, I’m out of practice and this time goes fast.
I’ll pick up on one other particular clause. Oh, by the way, the changes in the select committee strengthened this bill, and I thank the Justice Committee for making it even safer for victims, through this legislation, to appear before our justice system.
One particular clause that I cannot talk about this bill without focusing on is the clause that removes the arbitrary mention of a person’s sexual experience and disposition to protect complainants from unduly invasive questioning. It was absurd that this was ever allowed in the first place. This has contributed—contributed—to ongoing rape culture that we have had for far too long in our country. This was—[Interruption] Absolutely. It was absurd. Yes. Yes. So I really wanted to make my point of particular support for that piece of legislation. Goodness gracious, where have I come to?
So I welcome the bill’s amendments, and they are directly related to my visions to eliminate family violence and sexual violence. This works in cooperation with my vision for transforming, again, the entire flawed sector. I’ll finish on this: this should also be seen as prevention work—that when we can fix the flaw in this justice system, we will prevent further harm. I welcome this bill. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
NICOLA WILLIS (National): In rising to speak on the Sexual Violence Legislation Bill, I want to begin by acknowledging victims and survivors of sexual violence. Unfortunately, there are far too many of us. In New Zealand, we have very high rates of sexual violence victimisation. This affects all people in society, but, in particular, it does affect women. Speaking as a woman, I know that I have friends, I have family members, and I have my own experiences of sexual violence, and I know this makes me just like everybody else, and that should not be the case.
So I stand to say that, yes, as a Parliament, we should do everything we can to reduce these appalling rates of sexual violence, to reduce the shame and traumatisation that comes with these incidents, to ensure that those who perpetrate sexual violence are brought to justice, and to ensure that where people are victims of sexual violence, they face a legitimate and sure way to get justice. We know in this House that right now, that too often isn’t the case. We know that most people who survive sexual violence will never tell a court. In fact, many will never tell the police. Many won’t even tell their best friends, their partners, or their family members. So if we are to bring perpetrators of this criminality to account, we need to do everything we can that is reasonable to remove the barriers to justice.
So that is why National, in Government, made many steps in this area. Sexual violence was an area that, in particular, I want to acknowledge the work of my former colleague Amy Adams, who, as the Minister in this area, progressed a number of sensible initiatives to improve front-line crisis response for victims, to improve harmful sexual behaviour services, and to provide more help to victims. This is the record that National brings to this House.
We also bring an openness to this bill and what it is trying to achieve, because we agree that too often, the court process is traumatising. We know that for every 100 sexual violence incidents that go to the police, only 31 end up in court, only 11 end in conviction, and only six end in imprisonment. We don’t like those numbers, because we believe perpetrators of crime should face full justice, and we know that the court process can be incredibly traumatising.
So I do want to, in this speech, highlight the aspects of this bill that I stand strongly in support of and that mean we will be supporting it to the committee of the whole House, because we do believe that there is enough in this bill to justify strong support for it. They are, in particular, requiring judges to intervene in inappropriate questioning of witnesses, because we know that where that is happening, it is a revictimisation that is not necessary to further the course of justice; it is simply a way of humiliating witnesses, and we believe that that is wrong.
We think it is right to include a witness’s vulnerability as one of the factors a judge may consider in determining whether that questioning is unacceptable. We think that’s right and a proper discretion for judges to have.
We also think it is correct to entitle sexual violence complainants and witnesses to give their evidence in alternative ways. Where we can still have a fair trial, we should make it easier to shield witnesses from some of the stress of appearing in the witness box.
We commend the measures in this bill to require judges to direct the jury on any myth or misconception relating to sexual violence that they consider relevant to the case, because no one is asking for it—no one. Any implication that they are is just wrong, and a judge should say it.
We support measures to allow the court to be cleared of the public when a sexual violence victim impact statement is presented. We think that enhances the dignity of the victim, and we think it is right to further clarify that victim impact statements may be presented to the court in alternative ways.
So, make no mistake, here on this side of the House, we support the rights of the victims of sexual violence and we support reducing the trauma of the court process for those victims.
When we deal with issues in Parliament, it’s not always as easy as saying what we intend to do. We need to look at the detail and the implications and the other effects of the decisions we make here, and we accept that the Minister and his colleagues have presented a bill in very good intention to make progress on these matters we all agree are important. But we are concerned that in doing so, and in seeking to increase the rights of victims here, there are two other critically important principles that are being put at risk by just two measures in this bill. Those principles—I just want to remind the members of this House how important they are to all of us. They are the right to a fair trial and the right to natural justice.
Just as I spoke passionately of my defence of women and victims of sexual violence and of those who have survived, I am also my brother’s keeper and I am also someone who wishes that anyone accused of a crime may have the right to mount a sure defence. So it is for that reason that National will be putting forward two sincere Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) which we believe will better strike the balance required here of ensuring a right to a fair trial.
The two areas in which we wish to do that, my colleague the Hon Simon Bridges has outlined well and in some detail, and I want to quickly go over them here. The first is around pre-recorded cross-examination. The bill as introduced would make that an option in all sexual violence cases.
Now, the Justice Committee, who heard submissions on this aspect of the bill—and I want to commend both the members of that committee and those who submitted to it—heard that the reason that you should keep that pre-recording of cross-examination rare and exceptional, rather than every time, is that it has the significant potential to deny a defendant their right to a fair trial, as protected in our New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. That is because recording affords no opportunity for the defendant to question a witness based on the evidence that comes to light in the course of the trial. Not only that, but in practical terms, submitters highlighted that pre-recording is inconsistent with the right of a person to be present at the trial and to present a defence.
Finally, as my colleague Mr Bridges outlined, we did hear that there is considerable potential for an adverse and unintended consequence of this, given that the existing right of recall under section 99 of the Evidence Act will remain on the statute book. So it could be that victims of sexual violence—given this right of pre-recording—find themselves hauled back into court anyway. So it doesn’t serve its intended purpose, while also putting the right to a fair trial at risk. It remains possible that a witness will have to be cross-examined again later at the trial, and it will also work against the stated aim to reduce the extent to which that complainant is re-traumatised. So we have concerns about this measure, and we submit to the House that you examine our SOPs here carefully.
Second, we have concerns around the admissibility of evidence in relation to a defendant’s sexual history with their witness. It is the case at the moment that a judge has discretion as to when this sort of evidence is admitted. The Evidence Act already states that no evidence or questions can be put to a witness relating to sexual experience with any person other than the defendant, and the bill changes that so that unless a judge gives permission, no evidence can be given and no question put to a witness that relates to sexual experience with the complainant, and we think that this, potentially, could, again, diminish people’s rights to a fair trial.
So National cares strongly about the rights of victims of sexual violence. We also stand in this House to defend the right of every New Zealander to a fair trial and to natural justice, and we submit to members opposite to hear our call on these SOPs.
GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour—Hutt South): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. First and foremost, I would like to acknowledge the work that has been done to date. When I first joined the Justice Committee, it was Amy Adams who had done work in this space before, and I acknowledge that work that’s happened. I know that Jan Logie has worked tirelessly in this space for an incredibly long time and has been a really useful person as the select committee process went through. I’m proud and pleased to see that Marama is continuing to take on that role in her new ministerial duties. I’d also like to acknowledge my fellow female select committee members, Meka Whaitiri and Clare Curran, who were very diligent in scrutinising some of the detail and ended up, I think, making this bill a better bill and a stronger bill than it was initially, and by taking further consideration to victims.
I will quickly spell out what this bill does in order to make the clear points that I wish to. It aims to tighten the rules around evidence regarding a complainant’s sex life to ensure that they are protected from irrelevant and unduly invasive questioning, which we know does happen. It will also allow complainants in sexual cases to give their evidence in other ways, and this has been a significant factor in the past. Pre-recording of evidence, we know from research, makes it far more likely for complainants to give evidence and for that trial process to be far less traumatising. It also requires judges to intervene if there is inappropriate questioning—so this would go to the sexual history, to what the victim was wearing at the time, whether the victim had had a sexual history with the complainant. I know in some instances judges do do that anyway when questioning becomes unduly forceful, but in this legislation it will require judges to intervene at those points in time. It will also extend the availability of communication assistance to any witness who needs it to understand questions further, so that they’re more familiar with the court process and the cross-examination process that they’re undergoing.
We received 81 written submissions, and 34 of those were delivered in person during the select committee; 57 in general supported and 10 expressly opposed this bill. If I can generalise, the victim statements that we heard were harrowing. We heard firsthand people’s experiences of the court system, and, essentially, what we were told was that being cross-examined by defence lawyers was almost unanimously described as the most traumatic aspect of the justice process, with many saying they were unprepared for how distressing that process actually was. One in particular I remember said that they would not have gone through the process had they known how bad it was.
Some victims said that they wished they had never reported the crime because the outcome for them was not worth the efforts, and some have even complained that they were worse off because they reported the crime. This goes to the heart of the problem that we are getting at right now, that our reporting rates for sexual violence are so incredibly low that we have a justice system that perpetuates that low reporting rate, because people feel further traumatised by the cross-examination process, amongst other parts. They find it dehumanising and demeaning, and so how can we expect our rates of violence reporting to increase while we have a system that does this?
I think, at the same time, as Opposition members have pointed out, we need to balance that out with the right to a fair trial, and we most definitely heard that evidence. We heard that from the legal fraternity during select committee, and many of those submissions came forward and made it incredibly clear that they were concerned about how that would play out. While the New Zealand Law Society supported the efforts to ease the burden of giving evidence on sensitive complainants, it did note that the legal profession is divided with respect to whether proposed reforms strike the right balance. Generally, professional legal organisations and individual lawyers expressed concern that the bill erodes fundamental principles of law and the defendant’s right to a fair trial process, and a lot of that went in around that ability to question somebody in a live situation and not have the pre-recording, which—as members have pointed out—can sometimes happen sometime prior to when the trial is.
I was really heartened by the advice from officials. They were of the view that the system does do further harm to those who are seeking justice, particularly in relation to extremely serious alleged crimes, recognising that sexual violence complainants often are re-traumatised by the court process, and they believed that it was in everybody’s interests, the whole of society’s interests, for the process in sexual offence trials to be fair to ensure that those outcomes are robust, and I think that is critical in this space.
Some of the more interesting submissions we heard were actually from those NGOs or support agencies in terms of the ones that do the wraparound support after a sexual violence offence had occurred, and the underlying theme of all of those submissions was a strong need for societal and systemic change in terms of the way we treat these things. We know that we have an adversarial justice system, and it’s important to hold things up to the light to make sure that they are right, but we need to seriously take a look at how we do that when it’s stopping the system from reporting cases. So this is just one step of reforming a justice system that needs to not just treat victims like they are a piece of evidence, because that is exactly how they are treated in our court system right now. We need a system that enables women, men, and children to have the confidence to know that they will be treated with dignity when they appear in a New Zealand court of law, that they have the right to be treated with respect, and I am concerned that that definitely does not happen adequately now.
I’m looking forward to this bill being enacted, I’m looking forward to getting agreement across the House on something that is so critical, and I look forward to a brighter day in New Zealand’s judicial future, so that we can have a justice system that does do better by victims of sexual violence. This bill does address some incredibly longstanding issues for complainants, but not at the expense of the overarching and fundamental necessity of having a fair trial. I do believe it gets the right balance between both of those views that we heard in submissions. Fair processes for all court participants and robust outcomes are the most important we can hope for, for having a fair, balanced, and human justice system. I commend this bill to the House.
JAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I just want to acknowledge the last speaker, Ginny Andersen, for a really great contribution to this debate. It’s a real pleasure to get the opportunity to speak on this bill, which has been an extraordinarily long time coming. I think back to the Hon Justice EW Thomas in the mid-1990s writing an article slamming our failure to protect rape victims in our court, acknowledging that we were harming them through that process and calling for action.
In my nine years or more in this House, if I’m honest I have never seen a piece of law that has such a strong evidence base as this piece of legislation. We have two Law Commission reports calling for every one of the provisions—every one—in this piece of legislation. We have overseas experience of implementing the provisions that are being contested, as well as the others, that we can find out what the impacts of and know that that will not cause unintended harm. We have an entire tome of legal research called From “Real Rape” to Real Justice. And we have so many surveys and reports telling us in detail of the harm that our laws, that we responsible for in this House, are causing victims, their whānaus, and our communities. They are harming us.
I would be surprised if there are many members in this House who haven’t had a conversation with somebody, even including other members in this House, about times when they advised or made decisions themselves not to report, because we know too much. We are in this House responsible for the knowledge that we hold, and we get to change that reality by the decisions we make here to make that process safer.
The Law Commission in their work—directed initially I think by the Hon Judith Collins and then reinitiated by the Hon Amy Adams, following up on from the work of the Hon Simon Power—led to and acknowledged that our courts were revictimising and lowering reporting rates because of the experience of victims in our court.
I was pleased to hear Simon Bridges say that this is not political. The history of this work is not party political, but it is personally deeply political for many of us in here and in our communities, and it is solidly—solidly—based in evidence.
I do just want to take a couple of the comments from the 2018 Gravitas survey of experience of victims in our court process—sexual violence victims in our court process—and one of them saying, “Overall it just sucks. It really eff’n sucks and you don’t feel like anyone believed you or wants to believe you. It’s too much hassle. It takes too long. It was shit.” That is the experience and what we are currently doing to people who’ve already been deeply harmed.
The other comment that really resonated for me was: “The law totally let me down. The law in New Zealand totally let me down. The police feel the law let me down. The prosecutor felt the law let me down. But their hands were tied because they had to work within the law. The law does not care about victims of sexual violence.”
I do want to take issue with Simon Bridges in the comment that the entire legal fraternity and judges are against this. It is just simply not true. The Law Society said there is a division in opinion. The judges have said to me that they want to see this happening. They describe our current laws as antediluvian. The Law Foundation did the consultation with everyone—those who’d experienced the system and those who are players within it, defence, prosecution, and judges, and they recommended these changes. And to the point that this may be undermining the basic New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, well, I think the Law Commission might have considered that in their two reports. I don’t believe they would have made recommendations that undermined the right to a fair trial—I really do not.
The truth is it got a clean bill of rights vet. Simon Bridges may disagree with that, but that feels disingenuous to say that that’s not valid and that his opinion is more valid than their work, backed up by the Law Commission. The truth is that the law committee heard those—you know, the defendant lawyers are very persuasive, I’ve got to say, in their evidence, and they were disturbed and wanted to make sure that actually there were not bill of rights concerns, and they sent the evidence form the defence lawyers back to get a second check, and it came back clear.
So I want to just reassure everyone in this House that there are no implications, negative implications, to the right for a fair trial in this. In fact, some aspects of this deeply strengthen the right to a fair trial. We are bringing in communications assistance to enable every single person, including the defendant, to be able to make sure that they understand the questions that they are being asked—pretty fundamental to the right to a fair trial, but not a reality at the moment. We, on this, and being driven by the desire to make sure that we’re challenging sexual violence, don’t see the defendant being able to understand the questions and get support to answer them as a threat to the right of those victims.
I think it’s pretty sad that some in the defence community see that victims getting protection is a threat to the rights of the accused. It doesn’t work like that. A fair trial is a fair test of the evidence. It is not giving free licence to bully, to intimidate, to rely on myth, and to confuse a witness, but that is a normative practice in our courts at the moment, and that is what this piece of legislation is starting to change.
And to those that say this is just going too far, I’d say that one of the researchers in this area, the hugely respected Jan Jordan, criminologist, is saying “Much of what is being mooted in this legislation could be viewed as basic rights that should have been recognised years ago.” Actually, I’m sad to say I would love to have been completely transformative, but actually we’re just getting somewhere towards catching up with other countries around the world.
On that point, the prerecording of evidence was trialled in Western Australia in 1992 and then progressively rolled out around the rest of the country after they found that it did not impinge on the right to a fair trial. UK legislation in 1999, Scotland in 2019, and I understand that defence lawyers in some of those countries thought the sky would fall in and that it would undermine the right to a fair trial, but guess what. Now checking in with them, after it’s been implemented, the sky had not fallen, and in fact there were some reports that that process had benefited their clients, because actually some of the evidence when the defendant was being asked inappropriate questions by the prosecution—those questions got edited out so the jury was not unduly influenced the other way. I do not see that as impinging the rights of complainants in our courts. I see that as positive support for the proper rights to fair trial.
In terms of the point around the sexual history, this is just mirroring what’s in the UK. The view that actually there is a threshold and it evens up the threshold for sexual history and history with somebody other than the defendant, it’s just making that consistent across the two. It is a test of relevance. It is not ruling out, as others have suggested, all evidence. This has been implemented in the UK and they found that some evidence still gets through, of that history. It is critical when one of the key reasons, apart from the awful process, that people don’t report it is that they blame themselves—they think that their own experience of drunkenness or whatever meant that it wasn’t rape. We have to send the damn clear message that it is, that consent is every time.
NICOLE McKEE (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I stand before you on behalf of the ACT Party on the Sexual Violence Legislation Bill. It’s important that we do have this bill and we do have the debate because improving the justice response to the victims of sexual violence is very important. And I think, across the House, we hear that and we also see it.
This bill will make amendments to the Evidence Act 2006. It will give or allow different ways for evidence to be given, and it has been shown in the past that we did do something about the way that evidence was given, so that victims felt that they could have a voice and feel secure in delivering it. So allowing a video before trial, or having a person shielded in the courtroom, or even being able to deliver their evidence from outside of the courtroom, is all essential in order for a victim to be able to be heard. Because not only can reporting an incident of sexual violence be traumatic, it’s also about presenting the evidence once you have reported it, and our colleagues across the House have already demonstrated from submissions that they have received, the trauma that some of the victims feel again and again, as they speak to people about what has happened to them. Going face to face, often with the perpetrator or the offender, can be a harrowing, scary, and traumatic experience, but this bill does give some comfort. It helps to relieve some of the anxiety that a victim would feel, and ultimately it should minimise some of that trauma.
When we see the low prosecution and conviction rates, we know that we have offenders out there that are not being held to account for their actions. When we have a third of New Zealand women—and that’s just the women stating that they have experienced sexual violence—but we’re not seeing that transferred into our court or justice system, then we definitely have to do something about it. Victims will come forward if they feel secure enough, and I have a very close family member who has experienced sexual violence and who did not speak out, who did exactly what you have stated and said that it was her fault, and when the perpetrator was caught, after raping other females, she then blamed herself, because she thought that if she had spoken up, maybe others wouldn’t have been raped. The whole idea that we can make this system accessible to our victims is important, and I believe that this bill does start to do that and address it.
The ACT Party want to encourage a system that does look after the victims, the vulnerable, and helps to give them the courage to speak out. It’s often, we find, with sexual offending that we have repeat offences, and it’s not lost on the ACT Party that the three-strikes system is looking to be thrown out by the Government, and that system, for this perpetration, is actually really important to make sure that we also go after the offenders and make sure that they don’t perpetrate their crime over and over and over again. This bill and the three strikes can definitely complement each other going forward.
The importance of this bill is about reducing the secondary victimisation and trauma when we talk about the video evidence. We do have concerns as well about clause 8 and clause 14. It’s not that we don’t want the victims to be able to pre-record, but we do need to make sure that there is that fair trial aspect. Further to that, clause 14, is where a victim may have to give their evidence again. And none of us wants to see that, where a victim ends up being re-traumatised because the bill that we’ve passed in this House didn’t cover that off for them, didn’t make them that extra bit safer. So we do need to look at that in the committee of the whole House and make sure we address that issue.
There are benefits and good health outcomes of this bill. It will help reduce mental illness for those victims who have struggled to understand what has happened to them and what to do about it. Some of them get post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, anxiety, and some even attempt suicide because they don’t know how to deal with this. Victims suffering mental illness as a result of being re-traumatised are more likely to not get employment, to go into their own little shell and to actually move away from the family support and help, because they just don’t know how to deal with the issues themselves. The justice system should be there to support the victims.
There are obvious concerns, as I mentioned, but there are also some very good points in this bill. We see that, having a pre-record, we already have some rules set on how to go about doing the pre-recording, and defendants will still have access to all of the transcripts, and they’ll still have lawyers present when evidence is given. And importantly, they get to choose who the lawyer is that will cross-examine on their behalf. The onus of this bill is also put on those that work within the system to advise the victims of what they can have to assist them. This includes the victim impact statements being delivered by video rather than by being done in person. Now, this is quite important that we have victims actually being told what their options are, being included as part of the process.
We have and need a just and robust system for all, and the victims should not be revictimised. We must never forget the victims. They should be at the forefront of our justice system, but not at the expense of a fair trial. So I’m hoping that, in the committee of the whole House, we can address the concerns that the Opposition have made to clauses 8 and 14. But, in the interim, the ACT Party is happy to support this bill, because we believe the heart of the victim belongs in our justice system and we should be looking after them. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour—Upper Harbour): Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to rise and to take a call on the Sexual Violence Legislation Bill. I want to thank, actually, all the speakers across the House. I think there have been some really thoughtful respectful contributions from across the House and that’s wonderful to see. I want to especially thank Jan Logie for her powerful speech but, in particular, clarifying that there are a spread of views across the legal profession about one of the issues to hand, and as a member of the legal profession I think that’s important to note. I also think the other point she emphasised, which is critical, is that the proposals set out in this bill come from two reports from the Law Commission—that is significant.
There’s data that informs legislative reform that signposts that something needs to change soon. Then there’s data that is horrifying and it highlights that something significant needs to change now. Several people have referred to these statistics, but they are horrific. The victim of crime survey tells us 23 percent of adult New Zealanders will experience partner violence or sexual violence at some stage in their lives; the figure is 34 percent for women. One of the really worrying figures is the low levels of reporting of sexual violence—at 94 percent not reported to police. We know the data, but again, as my colleague pointed out, we know so well what’s happening in this room as well.
The bill stands also as an acknowledgement, in my view, of the Me Too movement, where we saw a cascade of painfully recounted stories of violations of rights, openly shared, some for the first time in decades. We learnt, in my view, about entire generations and new generations, many women who had no faith in systems of reporting, who looked at a system ill-equipped to respond to the raising of a complaint and said no thanks, they would prefer to live in silence instead of have some form of justice.
One of the things the bill addresses is the problematic use of past sexual history as evidence. And to quote from a well-written article by Kez Bhola-Dare and Jamie Fletcher that I’ve been reflecting on, they say, “It is argued that prosecution using a complaint’s past sexual history [as] evidence is both morally and legally wrong. Introduction of such evidence is largely used as a tactic to undermine the credibility of the complainant to the jury. This plays on an old-fashioned myth that the more a woman consents to sexual activity, the less serious one should take their claim of not offering consent to one particular sexual activity. It is analogous to rape myths that paint a woman’s morality based upon their choice of clothes. Morally though a woman should not be found to have given consent solely because she has previously done so. In this sense, every incident of [consent] should be judged upon its own merits and gain no legitimacy from previous grants of consent.” The authors write—and this is something we talked about with young people at YouthLaw getting them to understand what consent was—“The ‘cup of tea’ [analogy] can be used to illustrate this. A person can want to drink one, two, three cups of tea, but if they say ‘no’ to a fourth, that ‘no’ is valid. Legally, juries should be focusing only on whether consent was given for the offence on trial,”. Let me say this one even more slowly: you cannot imply consent.
We have to also remember that in addition to being legally unhelpful to consider past sexual conduct in terms of determining consent to the alleged offence, it is also practically unhelpful, and Minister Faafoi spoke to this. It’s acted to deter complainants from providing evidence, even where a complainant has a very strong case. This bill addresses that problem by tightening rules around evidence regarding a complainant’s sex history to ensure they are protected from irrelevant and unduly invasive questioning. It also requires judges to intervene in inappropriate questioning and to address common myths and misconceptions about sexual violence to ensure juries are not misinformed by commonly held assumptions about how victims and perpetrators act.
Lastly, I want to speak, in particular, to the allowing of pre-recorded evidence. Earlier today, I came across a robust article on this very point written by the esteemed author Dr Emily Henderson when she held the role of Crown prosecutor and honorary research fellow at Auckland University. In the article, she examines the decisions of R v M and R v E both regarding the pre-recording of children’s cross- and re-examination in criminal trials. She notes that the Court of Appeal stated that the sole advantage of permitting pre-recorded statements is to reduce the stress that long delays can cause to witnesses, thereby hastening the complainants recovering. But she notes that the court’s analysis overlooks compelling evidence from Australia, as has been quoted, where some states have used pre-recording successfully for nearly 20 years, and the extensive international academic literature. She notes that Western Australia has pre-recorded child witnesses’ entire evidence in sexual abuse cases, again since the early 1990s. Dr Henderson notes—and I agree—that, yes, it does reduce delays, it also reduces stress, and pre-recorded evidence can also provide for better quality evidence allowing complaints to recall the detail of situations earlier, which is also extremely helpful and a form of justice for the accused. It can also provide for better evidence because the pre-recording allows any prejudicial and inadmissible evidence to be extracted before it’s prevented.
So once again, I’m very pleased to see this legislation before the House. I’ll end where I started, which is on those statistics. Let us never look away from them. I think if we saw 94 percent of under-reporting—and that’s probably not as big as it is—anywhere else across the justice sector, not only would we all be horrified, we’d be walking out into a New Zealand that was in disarray. This is one of the most intimate issues that justice must tackle. When we saw the Me Too movement, I believe what we saw was the tip of an iceberg. There is much that needs to be done to ensure that anyone who needs to raise this sort of complaint is able to do so. I commend the bill to the House.
BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a privilege to be standing here this afternoon speaking about a bill which has the potential to change the way the legal system deals with victims of sexual violence, and it’s something that no one should have to encounter. As Jan Logie said before, and I commend Jan for the long time she’s spent on this work, this has been a long time coming—and it has been a long time coming. I would also note that the Hon Amy Adams and Andrew Little have worked very well together in this space in the past.
We have taken such a long time to get here; it’s really important that we get this right. I haven’t previously been involved in the select committee or working on this bill, and I took a lot out of the speech from Ginny Andersen, because it’s always very good, when people have been on a select committee, to get up and give an account that you have given to us this afternoon in terms of what you went through in the select committee.
So National supports this bill to the committee of the whole House. We support the vast majority of measures in this bill, and we really do want to support it, but we do have issues with two of the measures in the bill, and they’re the issues that the Hon Simon Bridges laid out to you this afternoon. He spoke about legal concerns from the perspective of him being a lawyer in a past life. I’m not a lawyer, but we do have a number of lawyers who sit in this House as members of Parliament, and what I would urge this Parliament to do is have a really sensible discussion when we get to the committee stage of this bill—let’s have that debate. I don’t want to see this as one of those committee stages where there are parties that are opposed to this bill—where, you know, we get into a battle and we disregard these arguments. Let’s actually have the arguments properly, because, you know, the committee received advice about the current law already allowing witnesses to give evidence in an alternative way, and a number of submitters highlighted that a Court of Appeal judgment in 2011 detailed the rare and exceptional circumstances that would make that course of action appropriate. We don’t feel that it’s appropriate that this needs to happen in all cases. There are ways of doing this that might suit various trials in different ways.
But what I’m most concerned at, and you heard it from Simon Bridges—but we also have heard it from others today—is that there’s considerable potential for an adverse unintended consequence in relation to the proposal given that the existing right of recall under section 99 of the Evidence Act will remain on the statute book, and that is the ability to recall a witness. So, in other words, it will remain possible that a witness, including the complainant, will be recalled, to be cross-examined later, at the trial, despite having already been cross-examined. This would actively work against the bill’s stated aim to reduce the extent to which a complainant may be re-traumatised by the process of that cross-examination. Now, as I said, I’m not a lawyer, but if I thought that that had the potential to happen, then that’s one of the things that makes me stand off supporting this bill in the long term.
I would also like to say that, yes, I agree with everything that’s been said about no matter what a woman wears, no matter what’s happened in the past, an incident is an incident and it should be treated alone. However, we believe that evidence about the complainant’s sexual experience with the defendant should not be subject to the same heightened threshold that will apply to every other part of the complainant’s experience. So that’s a concern we have, and that’s something that we would like to discuss in the committee stage.
So I just want to make a plea in my speech this afternoon that we do have a sensible conversation when we get to the committee of the whole House, because we would really enjoy it if we could get unanimous support for this legislation across the House, but National’s not quite there yet and we have some things that we’d just like further discussion on. Thank you.
DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Paati Māori): Kia ora. I would like to acknowledge and stand in support of every sexual violence survivor. I’d like to pay mention to those who have engaged with us during this process, like Gladys Hutton, who as a little girl was sexually violated by someone she should have trusted, and spent 20 years trying to fight for justice; for a 16-year-old who spoke to us, who had her first sexual experience in a way that she’ll never recover; from a young tāne who’s creating self-harm because his boyhood was taken in a place where he should have felt safe. I’d like to make mention to all those, and remember the trauma that later in life when comparing stories with loved ones they realise what they experienced. I’d like to stand and say, “I see you. We see you.” I said, when we were elected, that we would bring your voices and your faces into this place, and I want you to know that you are being seen and you are being heard.
As we debate this bill, I see and pay acknowledgment to all those who have been here in this place before I was and have been pono and tika to their appointments to fight the good fights and to be good lawmakers. We must reduce the trauma. We must reduce what is actually happening to those who are sexual violence survivors. Evidence and data has shown everything that our failed State justice system is doing. We must do all we can to reduce the stigmatisation. We must help reduce the shame. This bill is some of the way to help that healing and to minimise the trauma.
An offence like rape in Te Ao Māori is seen as a transgression of mana. The status and the dignity is then passed on to our survivors. At Parihaka, we experienced sexual violence. It was used as a tool to oppress. And as much as I don’t want to focus on the past all the time, it’s important that we understand the trauma and the intergenerational trauma that the violence of sexual rape has on us—on us as tangata whenua, on us in Aotearoa, and on us as whānau.
Rape was never spoken of, and yet we know that the impact of syphilis on us was around for generations—three-year-olds experienced syphilis. The invisibility of rape is an old tool and it’s an old tool that passes through generations. Records show not only the impact of syphilis but that this had happened by Government officials, by the military. So we must learn from the past and do all we can to bring visibility to sexual violence.
It is a privilege to be here today to stand amongst the other fighters for a kaupapa that we should all be doing together across parties. It is only by changing the justice system, that we can truly transform and help the healing and help those of our victims and those of our survivors to truly transform and become who they need to be. So we stand here and we commend this bill, and we hope that the other parties will join us and make this a better Aotearoa. Kia ora koutou.
ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): This debate is interrupted and is set down for resumption next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 16 February 2021.
Debate interrupted.
The House adjourned at 4.56 p.m.