Thursday, 22 August 2024

THURSDAY, 22 AUGUST 2024

THURSDAY, 22 AUGUST 2024

The Deputy Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Karakia/Prayers

Karakia/Prayers

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Almighty God, we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed on us. Laying aside all personal interests, we acknowledge the King and pray for guidance in our deliberations, that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom, justice, mercy, and humility for the welfare and peace of New Zealand. Amen.

Business Statement

Business Statement

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Leader of the House): Next week, the House will consider the first reading of the Social Workers Registration Amendment Bill, continue the committee stage of the Corrections Amendment Bill, and consider the third readings of the Local Government (Water Services Preliminary Arrangements) Bill and the Resource Management (Extended Duration of Coastal Permits for Marine Farms) Amendment Bill. On Tuesday, we start the Estimates debate with the debates on finance and the children’s portfolio.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): I wonder if the Leader of the House could let us know what he proposes doing with the Treaty principles bill when introduced. In particular, will it be referred to a select committee, and, if so, for how long?

Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Leader of the House): It’s difficult to comment on a bill that is not on the Order Paper.

Petitions, Papers, Select Committee Reports, and Introduction of Bills

Petitions, Papers, Select Committee Reports, and Introduction of Bills

DEPUTY SPEAKER: A petition has been delivered to the Clerk for presentation.

CLERK: Petition of Denis Orme requesting that the House urge St John Ambulance to keep the current ambulance and Lifepak defibrillator at Rawene.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That petition stands referred to the Petitions Committee. No papers have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation. Select committee reports have been delivered for presentation.

CLERK: Reports of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee on the:

International treaty examination of the agreement on the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework for Prosperity, the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework for Prosperity Agreement Relating to Supply Chain Resilience, the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework for Prosperity Agreement Relating to a Clean Economy, and the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework for Prosperity Agreement Relating to a Fair Economy

International treaty examination of the Second Protocol to Amend the Agreement Establishing the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area, and of the Exchange of Letters reaffirming the Agreement between the Government of New Zealand and the Government of Australia on the Application of the Agreement Establishing the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Those reports are set down for consideration. No bills have been introduced.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Finance

1. GREG FLEMING (National—Maungakiekie) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has she seen about the cost of living?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Last week, the Reserve Bank’s Monetary Policy Committee published its Monetary Policy Statement where it discussed recent economic and financial developments and their implications. The Reserve Bank is confident that after three long years, inflation is now expected to fall back within the 1 to 3 percent target band in the September quarter. In other words, the era of extreme price increases is over.

Greg Fleming: What does this mean for Kiwi households?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, getting inflation under control for the first time in three years has a number of benefits for New Zealand households. With wages growing faster than prices for the first nine months of this year, real incomes are finally increasing again after three years of going backwards. With the cost of living no longer rising at such a frightening pace, including annual food prices actually falling for the first time in six years, Kiwi budgets will stretch just a little bit further. With the inflation genie finally back in the bottle, the Reserve Bank last week cut the official cash rate for the first time in four years with more cuts projected, meaning lower mortgage costs for thousands of Kiwi homeowners.

Greg Fleming: How has the Government helped bring down the cost of living?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, the sky-high inflation we’ve seen over the last few years was caused by too much money chasing too few goods. That was a result of the Reserve Bank cutting interest rates to stimulate the economy during COVID and—despite the Opposition’s denials—of the previous Government increasing spending from around $80 billion in the 2017-18 financial year to $138 billion in 2023-24. Since coming into office, the Government has taken many steps. We’ve refocused the Reserve Bank on a single objective of fighting inflation. We stopped adding unnecessary costs on businesses, like the ute tax, the regional fuel tax, and tenant taxes. We’ve reduced economic bottlenecks and cut red tape by restoring 90-day trials, abolishing fair pay agreements, and fixing the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act. More importantly, we are putting financial discipline back at the heart of Government spending. With our recent Budget being the tightest in the past five years, with an operating allowance of $3.2 billion and savings worth $24 billion over the forecast period, we are doing our bit to bring an end to Labour’s cost of living crisis.

Greg Fleming: What other support has the Government provided to Kiwi families dealing with this cost of living crisis?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: In addition to playing our part in bringing down inflation, we were also able to deliver tax relief to hard-working Kiwi households, including the first reduction in personal income tax in 14 years, and 83 percent of New Zealanders will benefit from this Government’s tax relief package. For more than 100,000 low and middle income families who have childcare costs, we delivered FamilyBoost, which means those families can claim back up to 25 percent of their early childhood fees to a maximum of $150 a fortnight. An end to the era of extreme price increases, mortgage costs coming down, food prices stabilising, income tax relief, and more support for families with children—these are the things that can be achieved when a Government stops treating taxpayers like a bottomless ATM, reins in the wasteful spending, puts a stop to the fantasy projects and white elephants, and starts spending taxpayers’ money as carefully as households do.

Question No. 2—Energy

2. Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram) to the Minister for Energy: Has he received advice on the cost of purchasing liquefied natural gas from overseas markets; if so, what is the estimated price range provided in that advice?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Before I call the Minister, I have been advised that the answer to this question is likely to be a longer response than usual.

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister for Energy): Thank you, Madam Speaker. New Zealand needs more energy, and this Government is currently receiving a range of advice on how to stabilise energy prices and achieve affordable, secure energy. Importing liquefied natural gas (LNG) is one of the options currently being explored to support the electricity market during times when peaking, or firming, is needed. Advice I have received is that the estimated price range for importing LNG to New Zealand using the spot market is between $17 a gigajoule and $24 a gigajoule. The price range is well below the New Zealand gas spot price, which traded at an average of $55.27 a gigajoule on Wednesday, 14 August 2024—an all-time high. If we use a potential price of $25 a gigajoule for importing LNG, this equates to an electricity wholesale price of about $260 a megawatt hour, which is well below the $808 a megawatt hour average wholesale electricity spot price for the week ending 11 August, and the $457 a megawatt hour average wholesale spot price for the week ending 18 August. One of the advantages of importing LNG is that it puts a cap on peak prices. LNG prices are currently cheaper than current natural gas prices, which adds competition in the fuel supply for electricity peaking, ensuring that New Zealand can have more competitive electricity prices and critical supply of generation when the wind isn’t blowing, the sun isn’t shining, and we’re facing a dry hydrological year. The Government’s role is to reduce barriers to the supply of secure and affordable energy so that New Zealand can have competitive electricity prices, and this is important, particularly in the situation we have right now, which is facing the driest hydrological year since 1992, with less wind generation than forecast, and a 25.8 percent downgrade in gas production this year, following a 12 percent downgrade last year. We need more energy, and the Government is focused on ensuring the security of supply in New Zealand.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: What advice has he received on the cost of building the infrastructure required for New Zealand to be able to import LNG?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, there’s been a range of estimates. Ultimately, this Government is focused on what the barriers are to this issue. We are seeking advice around what those potential barriers are. Ultimately, the market is responsible for ensuring the security, alongside the Electricity Authority, and we want to ensure that the Government is removing barriers so we can have the energy that is critically important, so that we can have competitive prices for electricity in New Zealand to keep our businesses and our households avoiding the significant prices that are currently flowing through the spot market.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: What other solutions or technologies other than LNG has he sought advice on to plug the current energy shortage?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, there is a range of different options. Some of the things that are already taking place are playing a role. For example, Transpower this morning announced they are bringing forward contingent supply of water in the lakes, which is going to play a role. There is potentially more that needs to be done around some of those rules.

Hon Shane Jones: Coal—coal.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Coal is playing a role in terms of the coal-fired power station at Genesis, but I would make the point: up until Methanex shutting down last week, we had 450 megawatts of gas-powered generation which was available but not able to operate because there was not enough gas in the system. We need enough fuel to be able to supply the energy system so we can have the security of supply that New Zealand businesses and households need.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Has he sought advice on how the cost and time line of building LNG facilities compares with the rapid deployment of solar batteries and flexibility products to plug our current energy shortage?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, we’re receiving a range of advice on a number of things that can be done. Ultimately, what we need is enough energy to be able to support our economy with competitively priced electricity for our business and our households, and this Government is agnostic around what the fuel is, whether it’s sun, wind, geothermal, hydro—

Hon Shane Jones: Coal.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: —gas, and, if it needs to be, coal. We would prefer gas because it has half the emissions, but if we don’t have enough gas it will be coal, and that’s the legacy that we’ve had left behind by the last Government. So on this side of the House, we want to ensure the security of supply and are getting rid of the roadblocks which are currently in the place of building the generation capacity New Zealand needs.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Point of order, Madam Speaker. I am asking very straight and specific questions. The Minister gave a long answer, but what I’d specifically asked was had he sought advice on the rapid deployment of solar batteries and flexibility products, and he did not answer whether that was the case.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I believe the Minister said that he was looking at a range of products across the board, so we would hope that those would be included in that. If the Minister wants to clarify that, yes, those things are included in the range of things he’s looking at—

Hon SIMEON BROWN: No, I didn’t.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No? OK.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Has he sought advice on the flow-on industrial impacts of the estimate that at current international prices, buying gas from overseas to make up the domestic supply shortfall would cost $11 billion to $14 billion by 2035?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, as I said in my primary question, if we use a potential price of $25 a gigajoule for imported LNG, this equates to an electricity wholesale price of about $260 a megawatt hour, which is well below the $808 megawatt hour average wholesale price for spot price for the week ending 11 August and $457 a megawatt average wholesale spot price for the week ending 18 August. So the point is that New Zealand needs security of supply, and if we don’t have enough gas, well, we’re going to be burning coal. Gas has half the emissions. It’s a cleaner fuel. It can be used to peak and firm electricity supply from renewable sources. It is critically important, and we are going to ensure the security of supply for New Zealand.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister, given the multifaceted issue and energy crisis that he’s dealing with: does the failure to stop the closing of Marsden Point in any way help or otherwise look anything but irresponsible?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: What New Zealand needs is a flexible supply of energy into the New Zealand market and we need to also make sure that we’ve got the domestic production of fuel, as well, and that’s why the work that the Hon Shane Jones is working around in actually making sure we can explore for fuels here in New Zealand is critically important to security of supply in New Zealand.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Does the Minister agree with Andrew Eagles, who said, “New gas discoveries will not plug the shortfall. The existing fields are producing less than expected despite billions of dollars in investment. Offshore exploration prior to the ban was drying up due to lack of finds. If new exploration is undertaken and if new discoveries are made, it will be at least a decade until they are producing at scale, which likely still wouldn’t be enough. Importing fossil gas would require billions in investment in infrastructure, increase emissions, and expose New Zealand to international price shocks.”?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order, Madam Speaker. This is question time. That is a long diatribe from somebody else, that’s meant to be posing as a question. Surely, that member could have truncated or abbreviated that question to keep the process of the House operating much more efficiently.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr Peters.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker, it was a direct quote. I wasn’t going to truncate or rework someone else’s words, and given the very long answer we had to the primary question from the Minister—much of which was not necessary to answer the question—I think that was actually quite a short question.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, and, look, when a member is quoting, it is important that the context of the quote is in scope. So that question is OK, in my ruling.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, that was quite a confused question, because on one hand it was saying that it’s going to take a long time to get the gas that we need from indigenous sources, and yet, on the other side, we shouldn’t be importing it from offshore. Well, I would just like to say that I agree with the Climate Change Commission, which has a demonstration path which says that 0.9 terawatt hours of electricity generation coming from gas will be required in 2050. So we need the supply of natural gas. We’d prefer it came from indigenous sources, and that’s why we’re going to be repealing the oil and gas exploration ban, but because of what the last Government’s policies did, we’re in a position where we are actively having to explore the option of importing LNG for the security of supply of energy and electricity in New Zealand.

Hon Shane Jones: Given the Minister is now exploring the importation of liquefied natural gas, what lessons are to be learnt through the period of time over the last five years, where the domestic gas industry was vilified and destroyed by the member who is asking questions?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I don’t want this to turn into an attack on the Opposition. So if the Minister has a constructive way of answering it, the question about the last five years needs to be answered in a constructive way and not in an attack.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, the answer to that question—[Interruption]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I can’t hear the Minister.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: The answer to that question is that we need a secure energy system in New Zealand and we need a bipartisan approach from the Opposition to support the exploration of natural gas so we can have a secure energy and electricity system in New Zealand, and I encourage them to support this Government and that ambition.

Hon Shane Jones: How does the importation of LNG, or the option being pursued, rhyme with the Just Transition?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, as I said, the Climate Change Commission has made it clear that 0.9 terawatt hours of electricity generation in 2050 will be needed from gas. So we need the gas supply to ensure that we can firm our electricity sector. When the wind’s not blowing, the sun’s not shining, and we face a dry hydrological year, we need the gas peaking and firming capacity to be able to do that. That last Government’s approach was simply to have a lake built in a mountain. We have got far more practical solutions.

Hon Shane Jones: In the exploration of this option, what reports has he seen about the decrease of our sovereign reputation as a consequence of foolish decisions of the past?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: The number one issue which is raised is the fact that since those decisions were made, sovereign risk has increased, and that has made it harder to attract the investment needed in the security of supply in New Zealand. So, once again, I invite the Opposition to join with this Government so that we can ensure secure and affordable energy prices for New Zealand households and businesses.

Question No. 3—Children

3. Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (ACT) to the Minister for Children: What feedback, if any, has she received about Oranga Tamariki’s work to ensure taxpayer money is being directed to where it can achieve the best outcomes for children and young people?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children): I received the following email from someone who works in the sector: “I know from my own experience as a family criminal youth lawyer that the media often get things wrong. However, I feel the negative spin that is being put on these proposals completely lacks merit and comes from a place of ignorance. Clearly those complaining don’t know what is happening in agencies such as Oranga Tamariki, or they are agencies who have been milking the system for years and now that’s being brought to an end. A significant portion of work I do involves OT and the care of children, and I have been appalled over the past few years at how much taxpayer money has been wasted on agencies that make big plans yet deliver nothing but sometimes a glorified babysitting service. It was your proposal that gave us a bit of hope.” This is the reason that Oranga Tamariki needs to focus on outcomes where the money makes the most difference so we can assure taxpayers and workers within the sector that the money is going towards the best outcomes for children and young people.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: What other feedback has she received from people working in the sector?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: Another piece of correspondence I have received from the sector reads as follows: “The more those agencies and the other side of the House complain, the more confident Karen and her team should feel that they are on the right track. I believe it should be a condition of all OT funding contracts that agencies are required to identify up front their targets for outputs and outcomes achievement under funding contracts. I further believe that they should be required to report back to OT annually on what they have actually achieved. As someone who has worked in the sector, I have seen gross inefficiency and ineffectiveness in many of these organisations.”

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: What is Oranga Tamariki (OT) trying to achieve by taking a more rigorous approach to investing taxpayer money?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I want to assure New Zealanders that Oranga Tamariki is not closing down providers. Some providers have funding from multiple services and multiple agencies. Oranga Tamariki has identified services that are either underdelivered, duplicated, or could have been delivered by other providers or agencies. Providers will still be funded for the other services that they provide. I’ve asked Oranga Tamariki to take a more rigorous approach to contracting to ensure the $500 million worth of services that it funds each year gets to where it will have the greatest impact. Under the last Government, OT was allowing providers who were underdelivering on contracts to keep unused funding, they were funding services that weren’t core business, and they were duplicating services in various parts of New Zealand. Some people seem to believe that we should keep giving money to organisations for services that haven’t been delivered. That will only put more children at risk.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That was a long answer. I just will say that if I’m having a little trouble hearing the Minister, I’m sure that the Opposition members are having trouble hearing her answers as well. The Hon Willow-Jean Prime

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Thank you, Madam Speaker. My question—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Questions will be heard in silence, please.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: What feedback has she received about Oranga Tamariki’s funding decisions for children and young people from the Chief Children’s Commissioner; the Independent Children’s Monitor; Social Service Providers Aotearoa, representing 200 members; the New Zealand Council of Christian Social Services, representing 250 organisations; E Tipu E Rea; Tai Poutini Whanau Po Kite Ata Trust; Family Start Nelson; Franklin Family Support Services; Women’s Support Motueka; North Shore Women’s Centre; Manukau Friendship House—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a very long question.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: —Homebuilders West Coast Trust—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think we’ve had enough examples.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: —Presbyterian Support Canterbury; and the many, many other valued community services across the country?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I think that is a question that should be put in writing so it can get a substantive answer.

Question No. 4—Finance

4. Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) to the Minister of Finance: Mālō e lelei, Madam Speaker. Does she agree with the Prime Minister’s statement, “we have delivered lower inflation”; if so, what specifically can she point to in the August Monetary Policy Statement that supports the claim that her Government has caused lower inflation?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Yes, and I can point the member specifically to page 51 of the Monetary Policy Statement, which shows annual Consumers Price Index (CPI) inflation of 6.9 percent in March 2022, 7.3 percent in June 2022, 7.2 percent in September 2022, 7.2 percent in December 2022. Gosh! Those are high numbers. The table then shows inflation dropping to a much lower level with annual CPI inflation being 3.3 percent in the last quarter and forecast to be 2.3 percent in the current quarter, which is within the target band.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Does she agree with the Reserve Bank statement that “Spending reductions in the public sector will reduce inflationary pressure, and income tax threshold changes will increase inflationary pressure. The net impact for monetary policy is expected to be small and highly uncertain.”?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I agree that fiscal restraint and spending reductions in the public sector are reducing inflationary pressure, and I agree that these were not things that were in place under the last Government.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Is the real reason why the Reserve Bank had to unexpectedly cut rates because, as the BNZ chief economist Mike Jones has said, the updated forecast reflected “extraordinary weakness” being seen in the economy?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: It’s a little bit hard for New Zealanders to get a break with this lot, isn’t it? You’ve got inflation coming under control, you’ve got interest rates coming down, and somehow they’ve still got reason to complain about it.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: What is her plan, if any, to mitigate the impacts of the forecasted recession—given unemployment is now forecast to be even higher at 5.4 percent, economic activity has weakened materially—and weaker output gap that has been assumed in the August Monetary Policy Statement?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: On this side of the House, we take economic management extremely seriously. We have viewed it as our job to get inflation under control, and we are delivering ahead of schedule. We have taken it as our role to reduce inflationary pressure so that interest rates can come down and restore confidence in households and businesses, and we’re delivering that ahead of schedule, too. And we are then taking steps to make sure that fiscal restraint and value for money are ongoing. We’ve already delivered $23 billion worth of reprioritisation over the next four years, and there will be more to come. And then I would say this: every single Minister along this row, behind me, and over there thinks every day about how we drive economic growth in this country, how we get the barriers out of the way, and how we enable people to have the confidence to invest, to hire, to innovate, and to export. We believe in growth; you believe in red tape.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Is the real reason why inflation is lower because she is tanking the economy, as described by the Reserve Bank as a “weakening in domestic economic activity observed in the July Monetary Policy Review has become more pronounced and broad-based.”?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, the member needs to decide what her line of argument is. Is it that the Government cannot take any credit whatsoever for lower inflation and lower interest rates or is it the latter supplementary, in which we have driven it down to levels that it shouldn’t be? The member can’t have it both ways. Choose a line of attack and stick to it.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Just to recap for the media and doubting Thomas’s, is it a fact that with the implosion of expenditure and hope and borrowing by the previous administration, inflation more than doubled, but it’s come down dramatically under the coalition—yes or no?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: These are the facts. And if the Deputy Prime Minister will indulge me, it is absolutely more than a yes or no answer, because there are these facts: there were three years of out-of-control inflation, of rising interest rates, of wasteful spending, of debt accumulation. Then a new, three-party coalition is elected, fiscal restraint comes on board, inflation comes down, interest rates come down, and soon growth will revive—there’s your story.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Why is the Minister taking credit for the lower cost of living achieved by a drop in the official cash rate, when public transport subsidies for under-25s have gone up, rates have gone up, rents have gone up, insurance premiums have gone up, and her Government have done nothing to mitigate these?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, again, here’s the table—this is inflation coming down. Now, what inflation did for the past three years was prices across the economy rose dramatically. For example, when people went to the supermarket, they faced higher and higher prices every time they went. Well, in the past year, food prices have actually fallen. And when I look at the Government’s track record on delivering for the cost of living, it’s not just inflation, it’s not just reducing interest rates, which free up incomes for mortgage holders; it’s also that we have reduced costs. The regional fuel tax, the ute tax, tenant taxes, personal income tax—we are a Government on the side of those who care about the cost of living.

Hon David Parker: Point of order. It seems to be apparent in all of the answers today that the only thing that is inflating around this place is the length of answers. You’ve allowed extremely long answers from a number of Ministers today.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, thank you for the point of order. And, yes, some of the answers have been longer than usual, but we’ve actually been on some fairly tense topics as well, so thank you for the suggestion.

Question No. 5—Public Service

5. FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ (Green) to the Minister for the Public Service: Does she agree with the comments made by the Prime Minister yesterday that “central government focuses on must-haves, not nice-to-haves”; if so, were the more than 6,500, and counting, public servants whose jobs have been cut simply “nice-to-haves”?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister for the Public Service): I agree with the Prime Minister’s full quote from his speech to Local Government New Zealand, which was “For ratepayers, it’s simple. The central government focuses on must-haves, not nice-to-haves, and we expect local government to do the same.” To the second part of the member’s question, I would dispute the member’s number and I would not use that characterisation, nor would the Prime Minister. In fact, I find the inference that any member of this House would refer to a human being as “nice to have” as objectionable. [Interruption]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question will be heard in quiet.

Francisco Hernandez: Is staffing the Ministry for Regulation a must-have, but staffing the Police, the Environmental Protection Authority, and Oranga Tamariki nice-to-haves?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Again, I reject the characterisations in the question. For one thing, this is a Government that is increasing the front-line police officers by 500 and, for another, I would put to the member that while his party may be of the view that there’s never a piece of red tape that the Government shouldn’t say yes to, we on this side of the House are pro-growth, pro-development, and anti - red tape and that’s the approach we’re taking to regulation.

Francisco Hernandez: Is the fact that she only found out about the average salaries of the Ministry for Regulation yesterday a sign that she’s happy to justify cutting thousands of jobs while being ignorant of what happens in her coalition partners’ pet ministries?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, if the member is asking me to assess average salaries by cohort, I could share with him that I’ve had some work done in my office, and, apparently, the average salary of a Green MP is a little over $180,000, although I would note that that number excludes the salary of Darleen Tana.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Point of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I know what the point of order is going to be. I would make note that the last comment that the Minister used was unnecessary in the context of the question that that—

Ricardo Menéndez March: Excluding the final comment, the Minister did not even get close to addressing the question and launched on a political attack. I think the bare minimum we should expect is at least addressing the question before she launches on political attacks.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: OK. Well, I’ve expressed my ruling about the member’s comment. In terms of answering the question, there is a difference of opinion between the two groups, and the members might not like the Minister’s answer but the Minister did give an answer. Rt Hon Winston Peters—is this a point of order or a supplementary question?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, it’s a supplementary question. By the way, finance Minister, is it a fact that those $180,000 salaries are the highest salaries they have ever earned in their lives or will ever earn in their lives?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No. The Minister does not need to answer that question. That question will create chaos.

Francisco Hernandez: Supplementary?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Francisco Hernandez—[Interruption] Quiet please. We have a question.

Francisco Hernandez: How can she justify finding out about the eye-wateringly high average salaries at the Ministry for Regulation yesterday when her Government has justified cutting thousands of jobs as wasteful spending?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, as I have said in answer to other questions in question time today, our Government has been on a mission to drive more value from Government spending, and as part of that we have delivered $23 billion worth of reprioritisation over the next four years in our Budget. That included a significant exercise to reduce the baseline costs of Government agencies. We view it as our responsibility to do that so that we can deliver better outcomes and more responsible economic management.

Francisco Hernandez: Does she agree with ACT Party leader David Seymour that “Ministers can be so focused on their pet projects that they lose sight of whether they will improve New Zealanders’ lives.”, and, if so, how will she, as Minister for the Public Service, ensure that hard-working public servants are not sacrificed in the name of pet projects like the Ministry for Regulation?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, I think that David Seymour makes a good point and we have only to think about the energy crisis we are now experiencing to understand what can happen when Ministers have pet projects at the expense of good decision-making.

Question No. 6—Local Government

6. RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini) to the Minister of Local Government: What recent announcements has he made about getting local government back to basics?

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Local Government): Yesterday, the Prime Minister and I announced measures to ensure councils get back to basics to reduce the pressure on rates, deliver core services and infrastructure, and improve the efficiency of decision making. These proposals include refocusing the purpose provisions of the Local Government Act, investigating performance benchmarks for local councils, investigating options to limit council expenditure and nice-to-haves, and reviewing transparency and accountability rules. Council rates are increasing by around 15 percent on average this year, which is more than four times the rate of inflation. This is unacceptable, and councils must ensure they are doing everything they can to reduce pressure on ratepayers.

Rima Nakhle: Why is the Government investigating rate capping for councils?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: The Government is investigating rate capping for councils. This is similar to some Australian states, like New South Wales, where revenue caps are applied to non-core activities to control rate increases. We’re interested in how a similar approach could work here in New Zealand, ensuring the right balance between ratepayers’ interests and councils’ financial positions.

Rima Nakhle: What is the Government doing to investigate options to limit council expenditure on nice-to-haves?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: We are removing references to the previous Government’s four wellbeings in the Local Government Act. These distracted councils from the core activities facing their communities, which we simply cannot afford at a time when Kiwis are doing it tough. The evidence is clear. Following the four wellbeings being introduced in the Local Government Act in 2002, rates averaged an increase of 6.8 percent. Following the wellbeings being removed in 2012, rate increases averaged 4.6 percent. Since they were reinstated in 2019, the average rate increase is back up at 6.5 percent. As the Prime Minister outlined yesterday, central government is leading by example in focusing on the must-haves, not the nice-to-haves. Our expectation is local government does so too.

Rima Nakhle: Why is the Government reviewing transparency and accountability rules?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: It’s unacceptable that the rules as they stand today allow unelected officials, in many cases, to prevent elected members from accessing the information they need to represent their communities. I have been shocked and appalled at situations such as the Wellington City Council recently refusing to provide information on key decisions to elected members, and those members having to use the Official Information Act to access that information. Councillors and mayors are elected on behalf of their communities. They should be empowered to access this information so they can make good decisions and hold officials to account.

Question No 7—Health

7. Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour) to the Associate Minister of Health: Does she stand by her answer to my oral question No. 8 on 23 July, confirming that the vast majority of heated tobacco products sold in 2022 were by Philip Morris, and by the decision to grant a $216 million tax break for heated tobacco products?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Health): Before I respond to the question, I would just like to take a moment to acknowledge the quit-smoking service providers that I met with across the country last week.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Answer the question.

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: They are the contributors—[Interruption] I think it’s appropriate—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Minister is about to answer the question.

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: And I would like to acknowledge their hard work to achieve the smoking rates success we have. It was the first time they’d ever met with a Minister, so I thought it was good to acknowledge their hard work. In regards to the member’s first question about standing by my answer of 23 July, yes.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Does she stand by her view that heated tobacco is “definitely a lot less harmful”, and is it a coincidence that a Philip Morris strategy document includes plans to promote heated tobacco as a harm minimisation tool despite the total lack of evidence that it helps people quit?

Hon Shane Jones: Making it up.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That’s unnecessary, Mr Jones.

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: Yet again the member reads a news story and decides I care one iota about what the tobacco industry feels or believes. Our stance has been unequivocal: this Government wants smokers to quit smoking, to reduce harm from smoking, and to achieve the smoke-free 2025 target. For long-term smokers, that requires access to safer nicotine products and, from the meeting with the quit-smoking providers, there is much opportunity to encourage those who have previously been unable to quit to try again, and alternative products will be a tool to achieve that.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: So does she stand by her statement that she has no relationship to the tobacco industry, and, if so, how does she explain having been chair of an organisation identified as a partner in a Philip Morris strategy document and now implementing the objectives of that document in her role as Minister?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: I think we are conflating so many issues here that it’s almost time to get dizzy. I can understand why the member doesn’t want us associated with that organisation, because they stand for lower taxes, less waste, and more accountability. We are committed to achieving the smoke-free target. We will do so. It is absolutely our duty to meet the smoke-free 2025 target.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: What actions will she take as Minister to address concerns that commitments in the New Zealand First and National Party coalition agreement on tobacco arose from the actions planned in the Philip Morris strategy document?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: The actions I will take will achieve the smoke-free 2025 target.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is she going to have regard to the four-decade-old anti-smoking campaigners ASH and the very esteemed Professor Beaglehole or someone who puts out an incoherent press release, like today, where she can’t even spell the word “in thrall” properly or its meaning, and gets all the mathematics wrong?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: Yes, I will take good notice of the work done by ASH and their true dedication, beyond soundbites and virtue signalling, to achieve a really important target of smoke-free 2025.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: So are New Zealanders expected to believe it’s a mere coincidence that her actions in Government are in lockstep with the objectives of a Philip Morris strategy document?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: The New Zealand public should believe that this Government is committed to achieving smoke-free 2025, and we will deliver on that commitment.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Supplementary question?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I accept the Minister has—just a moment, Rt Hon Winston Peters—answered the question a number of times. There’s a Cabinet Manual, and the Minister has been answering the questions, and it seems to me that the repetitive questions to the Minister about this are starting to become a little bit too much. So, Rt Hon Winston Peters, did you have a question or a point of order?

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Point of order, Madam Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I’m just checking, because I think the Rt Hon Winston Peters had a point of order.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, no; supplementary question.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Oh, OK, so I’ll take the point of order.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: With the utmost respect, Madam Speaker, the job of the Opposition is to choose their questions, and they shouldn’t be edited by anyone.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I’m not editing the questions; I’m just saying that I think that particular question has been asked a number of times now this afternoon. It’s becoming repetitive.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: And that’s for the member to decide.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, well, the member obviously didn’t give another answer to that because it’s been asked several times.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister whether it’s a chronological fact that, by the looks of this report, Philip Morris put out a document over eight years ago, at which time that was to be followed by a then coalition where Labour was passing the law on this very matter about which she now complains?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I’m not sure that the Minister has any responsibility for what happened back in the coalition with Labour. So—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order—point of order. She’s got responsibility for a present complaint being made by Ayesha Verrall right here in this House, and I’m just putting the record straight.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, I think that’s the record now; the Minister has no responsibility for answering that.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Is acting contrary to official information laws, as the Ombudsman has found; not taking challenging interviews on this topic; and choosing to evade, with repetitive answers, questions in this Parliament the behaviour of a Minister who has nothing to hide?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: The allegation being made there—I completely reject the premise of the question. I have not evaded media interviews. The fact that she has—I have given numerous interviews; I have been on television numerous times. This topic has been traversed to the full extent. It has become distracting from the objective of this Government, which is to deliver smoke-free 2025.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you and, on that basis, if the member has a different question we will take it, but I’m not taking any more questions on that front. The Minister has been very clear in that answer.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Point of order, Madam Speaker. In my view, it is my right as a member of Parliament to be able to choose my own questions, to be able to repeat questions if I wish, because that may at times—and has with this Minister at times—elicit different answers. This is a House where we should be free to investigate whether ministerial powers have been used in a way that promotes the interests of tobacco companies.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member can ask her supplementary questions. All I’m saying is if the same question is going to be asked a number of times, then you can’t expect a new answer from the Minister, if she doesn’t wish to. OK, so ask your question.

Simon Court: Madam Speaker, speaking to the point of order, is it not correct that it’s at the discretion of the Speaker, in terms of Standing Order 397, whether a member is granted a supplementary question?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, the member is entitled to her supplementary questions at the discretion of the Speaker. I have basically said that if the Minister has already felt that she’s given an answer to a question that’s the same as what it was before, then it’s up to the Minister’s discretion whether she answers that question.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Does the Minister feel any obligation to take further steps to show to the people of New Zealand that she has not been influenced by the tobacco industry?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: I have taken further steps in that I have made a genuine commitment and undertaking that I have had no association with the tobacco industry. The fact that the member refuses to believe that is not my problem.

Question No. 8—Transport

8. TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty) to the Minister of Transport: What announcements has he made on investment in road policing?

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Transport): On Sunday, I announced that drunk and drugged drivers will be heavily targeted through our new $1.3 billion Road Policing Investment Programme to improve safety on our roads. The Road Policing Investment Programme shows a significant step up in road policing and reinforces our Government’s commitment to ensure there is strong enforcement on our roads to keep Kiwis travelling around our country safe.

Tom Rutherford: Why is the Government targeting drunk and drugged drivers?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Our Government is focusing road policing on seven key areas over the next three years, targeting investment towards the highest contributing factors in fatal crashes. Alcohol and drugs are the leading contributor to fatal crashes on our roads. During 2019 and 2022, crashes involving drugged drivers tragically claimed the lives of around 105 people each year, and alcohol is a contributing factor to around 13 percent of fatal crashes. We’re cracking down on the most high-risk behaviours rather than forcing Kiwis to drive at a snail’s pace on our roads.

Tom Rutherford: What actions is the Government taking against drunk and drugged drivers?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: We’re taking significant action. Our plan has a clear focus on outcomes and has clear targets to ensure police are focused on the most high-risk times, behaviours, and locations. We’re increasing alcohol breath tests with a target of 3.3 million tests per year, requiring that 65 percent of breath tests are done at high-risk times. And we’re passing legislation to roll out roadside drug testing, with $20 million of funding for the delivery and implementation of these tests, and a target of 50,000 tests per year.

Tom Rutherford: What is the Government doing to ensure there is a consistent number of alcohol breath tests undertaken each year?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Spending more money will not in itself deliver a consistent number of breath tests. Despite increases in spending in past years, New Zealand has had an inconsistent record with breath tests. Over the past 10 years, there are only two in which police have conducted 3 million tests. Some years have delivered less than half of that number and we’re determined to turn this around. That’s why, for the first time, $72 million of this funding will be made available to police once those targets are reached, to ensure we have a consistent number of tests done every year.

Question No. 9—Social Development and Employment

9. RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Does she agree with Lifewise, who say cutting benefits for minor misdemeanors, including a missed appointment, would hurt the most vulnerable; if not, how will the traffic light system not hurt the most vulnerable?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): No, because it is one part of our plan to help people into work. The traffic light system makes it crystal clear when action is required to comply with obligations. If someone fails an obligation, they move to orange and have five days to re-comply or dispute their obligation failure. This is a fair chance to re-comply with an obligation before moving to red, where sanctions are applied. Sanctions for missing appointments are longstanding, including during 2017 to 2020 when the Greens and Labour confidence and supply agreement committed to, “remove excessive sanctions”. Given that sanctions for missing appointments remained during this time, just like this coalition Government has done, presumably the Greens and Labour determined such a sanction was fair and reasonable.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Who’s more likely to be correct on the use of sanctions: beneficiaries and the front-line organisations who support them, or a Minister who has failed to produce any research or evidence that benefit sanctions support people into employment?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: What I can say is that we are really clear that work obligations and steps to provide people with opportunities to step towards a job help, and I’d be surprised if that member disagreed.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Does she yet know what happens to a beneficiary when their income is cut, or is it easier to ignore the hardship that her reforms will inflict?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I’m really pleased to announce to the House that 98 percent of beneficiaries who are in the traffic light system are at green, which shows the system is working.

Ricardo Menéndez March: What does she think works best for parents: finding caregiving arrangements that work best for them and their kids or being forced into a full-time job that may compromise the care of their children because they may lose half of their benefit if they don’t accept it?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: What is clear is it doesn’t work to have large numbers of children in New Zealand growing up in benefit-dependent households. Today, it’s one in five. We want to see more parents, more individuals, in work to improve the chances and the lifelong outcomes of their children.

Kahurangi Carter: Will disabled people on the jobseeker benefit who are waiting for a doctors appointment to move on to the supported living payment be subject to work obligations and sanctions under the traffic light system?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: There are individuals who provide work capacity certificates, and requirements will be for some that they have no work obligations, they have part-time work obligations, or they have full-time obligations as deemed by an independent medical person.

Kahurangi Carter: Does she accept the view of CCS Disability Action, who say that “The barriers to accessing the [supported living payment] are numerous, and until they are adequately addressed, any benefit sanctions imposed on people on the Jobseeker Support will exacerbate the struggles faced by disabled people.”?; and, if not, how will her reforms to increase sanctions and compliance requirements not punish disabled people?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: As I’ve said in this House, and in my answer previously, for some beneficiaries, there are work obligations; for some, there aren’t. What we are proud to say is this side of the House believes in the value of work, and we will focus on what people can do and what they can’t.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Point of order. The question is very specifically about the barriers that disabled people face to enter supported living payment. At no point did the Minister talk about disabled people or the supported living payment, and instead went on a completely different tangent.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think the Minister’s fairly addressed the answers to those questions.

Question No. 10—Justice

10. TĀKUTA FERRIS (Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Tonga) to the Minister of Justice: Tēnā koe e te Pīka. Ko taku pātai i roto i te reo Māori ki te Minita Take Ture. Nō reira, ka whakaae ia, pērā i ētahi atu Minita, kia arohaehaehia tōna whare, arā Te Tāhū o te Ture, hei whakapūmau i te whakatutukitanga o āna whāinga?

[Thank you, Madam Speaker. My question, in the Māori language, is to the Minister of Justice. And so, does he agree, similar to other Ministers, to the review of his house—i.e., the Ministry of Justice—to ensure it is meeting its objectives?]

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): Like every Minister in every portfolio, I’m constantly reviewing what we’re doing across the justice system to ensure it meets its objectives. There is, of course, a lot of work to do. Too many New Zealanders are victims of crime and too many New Zealanders have to wait too long to receive justice or to have their disputes resolved.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order, Madam Speaker. I ask you to get a transcript of that question, which is set out there as being question No. 10 on the Order Paper today, and you can be certain that’s not what he said, which he’s required to say and follow to the word when he’s in this Parliament. Why is there a separate rule for Te Pāti Māori and the rest have to comply with a longstanding, decades’ old rule that what’s written down there needs to be repeated and only that, and not all the add-ons as he feels like it?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Look, can I just take the member’s word that the question to the Minister was—because I didn’t quite get this up in time—what was directed off the paper?

Tākuta Ferris: Te ritenga? [The corresponding meaning?]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yeah. The Minister obviously understood the question that you were asking—is that correct?

Tākuta Ferris: Well, he uaua te whakamāori i te kupu Pākehā me tōna ritenga kau ki te kupu Pākehā.

[Well, it is difficult to translate into Māori the English words and their corresponding meaning with English words.]

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order, Madam Speaker. Rather than delay the House’s time, I seek you to get a transcript—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I’ll have a look—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, let me finish off. I am the person that raised the point of order because I picked it up—you didn’t. With respect, I want you to compare the transcript and tell us next week what was the answer.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will commit to do that, but with respect also, the Minister answered the question and there was no confusion there. So I call on Tākuta Ferris to ask a supplementary question.

Hūhana Lyndon: Point of order, Madam Speaker. Speaking to the point of order. E tino tautoko ana au i a Tākuta me tāna pātai. [I absolutely support Tākuta and his question.] We should not be putting barriers in place for members to be able to speak te reo Māori in this House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Look, under Speaker’s ruling 42/5, interpretation is not word for word identical to the English version. So I rule that the Minister understood what was being asked and answered the question, and I would like Tākuta Ferris now to ask his supplementary question.

Tākuta Ferris: What actions will he take to eliminate structural racism in the justice system, which continues to see Māori men being stopped, tasered, prosecuted by the State more than any other group, as revealed by the Police yesterday in their Understanding Policing Delivery report?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, I think everybody across the justice system is very focused on achieving equitable outcomes. But I don’t think it’s fair or helpful to suggest that the tens of thousands of New Zealanders, including Māori New Zealanders, who work across the justice system are racist or are part of a system that’s motivated by racism. I think they’re New Zealanders who are doing their very best, and we’re very focused on achieving the best outcomes that we can in the justice sector.

Tākuta Ferris: Is he therefore saying that structural racism does not exist in New Zealand’s justice system?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, what I’m saying is I don’t think it’s a helpful suggestion to imply that the tens of thousands of New Zealanders who work across the justice system are—

Tākuta Ferris: Point of order, Madam Speaker. That’s not what I asked. I didn’t say anything about the people who work in justice. I asked the member if he thought that the justice system was systemically racist.

Mark Cameron: Point of order, Madam Speaker. I think we all wanted to actually hear what the Minister was going to answer by virtue of that, and I think it would help the House and the commentary if we allowed the Minister to answer the question.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: OK. So Tākuta Ferris, please ask your question again and the Minister will answer it. Thank you.

Tākuta Ferris: Is he, therefore, saying that structural racism does not exist in New Zealand’s justice system?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, I’m saying that there are academics and people that would like to use that phrase. I personally don’t think it’s a helpful way of describing a system, because the justice system is created and operated by tens of thousands of New Zealanders in the courts, in the police, in corrections, in the Ministry of Justice, our judges—all New Zealanders; many, of course, are Māori New Zealanders—who are doing their best to deliver justice, and to imply that they’re part of a racist endeavour or a system that is racist, I don’t think is very helpful.

Tākuta Ferris: Point of order, Madam Speaker. Well, that was no answer. But is he saying—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would the member please take a seat. The Minister answered the question. That was the Minister’s answer. There’s no requirement that the member who asked the question likes the Minister’s answer, but the Minister answered the question.

Question No. 11—Police

11. Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) to the Minister of Police: Does he agree with Mike Hosking on Newstalk ZB when he marked crime 2/10, saying, “For all the noise, promises and headlines, I’m pretty sure the stats show it’s going the wrong way”; if not, why not?

Hon MARK MITCHELL (Minister of Police): No, but I can understand why Mike has said that. The incoming Government inherited the worst violent crime this country has seen and it is a big job that will take time to turn around. The good news is that after eight months we are starting to see early signs of positive change. I’ll have more to say on this next week, but I’m happy to share with that member that when comparing the first six months of last year with the first six months of this year, we have seen aggravated robberies reduce by 10 percent, we have seen knife crime drop by 10 percent, there have been 5 percent less serious assaults, Auckland Council reported earlier in the week a 35 percent drop in crime, and Heart of the City also reported that retail thefts and robberies in Auckland had fallen 50 percent. Additionally, advice from police shows that we have slowed the increase in retail crime by half. This is a result of this Government’s focus on back-to-basics policing with increased visibility and presence. We are very realistic that these problems will not be fixed overnight and I’m not saying that the problem is solved, but I’m encouraged by these early signs of progress and improvement.

Hon Ginny Andersen: How are New Zealanders in Waikato safer when there has been a 350 percent increase in non-aggravated robberies and a 53 percent increase in aggravated sexual assaults since he took office?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, the people of Waikato will start to feel safer, I hope, when they see that the police are being extremely proactive in terms of dealing with crime on the street, in terms of visibility. I’d reiterate again to the member that in the first six months of this Government, there’s been a reduction by 10 percent of aggravated robberies, there’s been a reduction by 10 percent of knife crime, and there’s been a reduction of 5 percent of serious assaults.

Hon Ginny Andersen: How are New Zealanders in Canterbury safer when there has been a 164 percent increase in aggravated robberies since he took office?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, the people in Canterbury will be feeling safer because, again, they’ve seen a big increase in visibility and presence of their police officers in the street. They’re feeling safer in their CBD. The police have been extremely proactive and they’ve run big operations to deal with boy racers. They’ve been very proactive in the way that they’re dealing with gangs. Like I said, I’ll have more to say on this next week; there’s some good news on the way. I will bring the member back to the fact that there’s been a 10 percent reduction in aggravated robberies in the first six months of this Government.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Why have police foot patrols in Canterbury decreased by 39 percent since he took office?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: There’s just been additional resource put into Canterbury to increase the number of police on the street, and the feedback that I get from members of the public every day is that they’re seeing their police officers back on the street, highly visible, providing reassurance, and they’re loving it.

Hon Ginny Andersen: How are New Zealanders safer when there has been a 25 percent increase in thefts from retail premises between November 2023 and May 2024 compared to the previous year?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, like I said to the member, we know that we’ve got a lot of work to do. We inherited the worst violence this country has ever seen via the previous Government. But I would bring her attention again back to the fact that police advise that retail crime has slowed down by half in the first eight months since this Government came in.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Can he guarantee to New Zealanders that the 248 job cuts to New Zealand police will not affect the front line and therefore further contribute to these stats going the wrong way?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, this Government takes services to the community that we serve really seriously, and any savings that we’ve taken out of Police National Headquarters are being reinvested back on the front line so that people see police officers highly visible out on the beat, which they’re seeing now and they’re loving, to make sure that we make our country safer.

Question No. 12—Commerce and Consumer Affairs

12. CARL BATES (National—Whanganui) to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: What recent announcements has he made about reforms to corporate governance?

Hon ANDREW BAYLY (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Last Thursday, I announced a package of reforms that will update corporate governance arrangements. One of the key reforms is to amend the Companies Act, a piece of legislation that hasn’t been substantially updated for 30 years. The Companies Act is a foundational piece of legislation for our economy. The reforms include five key components: first, modernise, simplify, and digitise the Companies Act; second, improve director identification while suppressing the public disclosure of home addresses; third, update insolvency arrangements and specifically address the phoenixing of companies; fourth, increase the use, function, and uptake of the New Zealand Business Number; and separately, with the agreement of Minister Goldsmith, request the Law Commission to review company director liabilities and duties.

Carl Bates: What protections are proposed for creditors and investors?

Hon ANDREW BAYLY: A very good question. I’m sure many Kiwis have heard the stories of companies that go bankrupt, leaving behind debts, only for the owners of those companies to pop up somewhere else under a new name. This is often referred to as “phoenixing” and is clearly neither fair nor right. The Government’s package of reforms includes giving company directors a unique number, which will improve transparency and make it easier for creditors and law enforcement to trace the activities of directors. In addition, we’re proposing to update insolvency arrangements, which will mean better protection for creditors, including employees.

Carl Bates: What protections will be put in place that will encourage people to be directors?

Hon ANDREW BAYLY: One of the key concerns we’ve heard from directors is the disclosure of their private addresses on the Companies Register. We’re proposing to allow an address for service rather than a home address on the publicly accessible elements of the Companies Register, while still ensuring directors are locatable and accountable. The changes are comprehensive, as it deals with both director and shareholder addresses. I do want to acknowledge MP Laura Trask and the Hon Dr Deborah Russell for their work on this issue.

Question No. 13—Housing

13. Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour) to the Associate Minister of Housing: Does the Minister stand by his statement relating to the drop in children living in emergency accommodation, where he said, “I’m not worried that some are now homeless”?

Hon TAMA POTAKA (Associate Minister of Housing): Madam Speaker, mālō e lelei. I am very concerned about homelessness, especially with tamariki. In the context in which the relevant question was asked of me by media and understood by me and in relation to this Government’s very successful priority one programme, I’ll remind the member, who may inadvertently mischaracterise the context in which the question was asked, that I am very proud that the 1,110 children who have come out of emergency housing by way of the priority one programme have now gone into warm, safe, dry homes. Every single tamariki of the 1,110 have now gone into warm, safe, dry homes.

Hon Willie Jackson: Is the Minister also not worried that social services are directly attributing a recent increase in homelessness to his decision to make it harder for people to access emergency housing, as reported this week?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Mālō e lelei, Madam Speaker. I am not advised of any substantiated evidence or reports of increased homelessness. Our officials continue to monitor homelessness very carefully. Let it be known in this House—again, for the fourth time this week—that emergency housing and the capacity of emergency housing in the majority of city centres throughout this country is available for those with a genuine need for short-term stay, for temporary accommodation.

Hon Willie Jackson: Does his indifference to homelessness explain why he ignored official advice that his policy of making it harder to access emergency housing will result in more people living on the streets?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Mālō e lelei, Madam Speaker. Early on in the process of establishing the new way of doing things, we were advised by the Ministry of Social Development that there may be a risk of increased homelessness by the actions that we were taking, but there are no substantiated reports or evidence of increased homelessness. There continues to be capacity in the majority of city centres in Aotearoa New Zealand for those with a genuine need for a short-term stay, for temporary accommodation.

Hon Willie Jackson: Who should New Zealanders trust: social services, who have reported an increase in homelessness because of the Minister’s policies, or the Minister, who isn’t worried about an increase in homelessness?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Madam Speaker, mālō e lelei. Certainly, it’s blue shoots—that this Government has made decisions that have resulted in a decrease of over a thousand whānau in emergency housing from the time we came into Government until the end of June, and 1,110 tamariki who have left emergency housing since April 2024—

Hon Member: Where have they gone?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: —and we do know and my officials do have the information of the locations where those tamariki have gone to.

Hon Willie Jackson: If, as has now been established, the Government has slashed Kāinga Ora funding, significantly reduced funding for community housing providers, cut back on Māori housing and made it harder for whānau to access emergency housing, and the Minister isn’t concerned that some are now homeless, doesn’t this just confirm that he’s actually more focused on ensuring landlords get $2.9 billion in tax breaks than actually housing vulnerable families?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Mālō e lelei, Madam Speaker. The Minister must have turned his ears off earlier on when I described that I am very concerned about homelessness in this country. However, there are a number of aspects of his question that would be better directed to the Minister in charge of various funding for Kāinga Ora.

Hon Willie Jackson: Madam Speaker?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sorry. There’s no more supplementary questions.

Hon Willie Jackson: One more? One more?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No. There’s no more supplementary questions. That concludes oral questions. I’ll stand with tradition and give everyone 30 seconds to quietly move on.

Bills

Firearms Prohibition Orders Legislation Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice): I seek leave to present a legislative statement on the Firearms Prohibition Orders Legislation Amendment Bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave has been sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is none. That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

Hon NICOLE McKEE: I move, That the Firearms Prohibition Orders Legislation Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

This bill was developed earlier in the year as part of the Government’s 100-day plan. It gives police the tools that they need to keep firearms out of the hands of gangs and other high-risk offenders. This bill advances our commitment to reduce violent crime, restore law and order, and keep our community safe. Firearms prohibition orders—or FPOs—are orders made by the court when offenders have committed serious violent offences. They are in force for 10 years and prohibit these offenders from holding a firearms licence and from being around or accessing firearms. Breaching the conditions of an FPO is a criminal offence, and offenders that do can be liable for up to seven years in prison.

The FPO regime has been in place since 2022 but was largely without teeth. This bill makes three key improvements to particularly target gangs and organised criminal groups. It expands the qualifying criteria for the court to make an FPO, it gives police a new search power to monitor compliance with an FPO, and it establishes a process by which an FPO may be modified or removed. This provides police with another practical tool and sends a strong message that we are committed to addressing violent crime and enforcing consequences for gangs.

On 26 July, the Justice Committee reported the bill back to the House. I’d like to thank the Justice Committee for their careful consideration of this bill. I would also like to thank the 40 or so members of the public who took the time to provide submissions on the bill. I hugely appreciate them sharing their views with the committee. Substantial submissions had been received by the committee from the Criminal Bar Association, the New Zealand Law Society, the Privacy Commissioner, the New Zealand Police Association, the New Zealand Council for Civil Liberties, and the Disabled Persons Assembly.

The most common themes raised by submitters were around who is captured by the definition of a gang member or associate; widening the eligible offences for gang members; and concern with the extent of the new search powers. Through their process, the Justice Committee has made several amendments to address the matters most raised by submitters and sharpen the focus of the bill. These refinements specifically relate to the definition of an associate or gang or organised criminal group, the offences for which the FPO may be issued, and the extent of the new search power to ensure compliance with an FPO.

The first change relates to the bill’s original definition of an associate of a gang or organised group, which was defined as “an individual who—(a) associates with a member of a gang or an organised criminal group; and (b) is not a mere acquaintance of the member”. Several submitters raised concerns that this definition could capture a broader range of acquaintances than was intended, possibly including colleagues or relatives. The bill is intended to target those who associate with gangs—that is, those who may not be patched members but are involved in their activities and lifestyle. To reflect this, the bill now defines an associate simply as “an individual who associates with a gang or an organised criminal group”. This means that the association is based on the individual’s connection to a gang or an organised criminal group and its activities, rather than to any particular member of that gang. This would include situations where an individual frequently attends gang events, wears gang insignia, or participates in criminal offending with gang members.

The second change relates to the types of offences for which an FPO can be issued. Submitters raised concerns that some of the offences were fairly minor and not related to gang activities and may capture more people than was intended. To better reflect the policy intent, the bill now targets offences specifically connected with firearms, organised crime, and violent offending. This includes crimes against a person, such as kidnapping or assault, and crimes against property, like money laundering or burglary. These are offences that clearly demonstrate that the offender poses a risk to public safety. This recognises the sudden and significant violence that can result from gang conflict and focuses the FPO regime on gang members and gang offending.

The third change relates to the new search power for the police to monitor whether someone who is subject to an FPO is complying with the conditions. This bill allows police to search someone who is subject to an FPO without a warrant, without reason to suspect they are breaching the FPO or that they are committing any other offence. As a result of the Justice Committee’s consideration, three key refinements have been made to the search power.

First, there is a clear statement of the purpose of the search power—that is, for monitoring compliance with an FPO. This makes it absolutely clear that the purpose is to ensure that an offender is complying with the conditions of their FPO and not to search for evidence of other offending.

Second, there is a higher threshold for the exercise of the search power, from “reasonable grounds to suspect that a person is subject to a [FPO]” to “reasonable grounds to believe that a person is subject to a [FPO]”. This allows for situations where police cannot be certain of a person’s identity and, therefore, whether they are subject to an FPO.

Third, there are additional limits on the places that can be searched in connection with a person subject to an FPO—to places where the person subject to an FPO has influence, control, or direct access. This keeps the focus on the subject and ensures the scope for what can be searched is only as wide as it needs to be.

I want to once again thank the Justice Committee for their thorough and careful consideration of the bill. Their work has finetuned it to ensure police can effectively keep firearms out of the hands of gangs and high-risk offenders. This bill forms the first phase of the Government’s broader programme of firearms reform, to modernise our firearms law to ensure public safety and quality regulation.

In closing, this bill addresses the unacceptable levels of gang-related violence, public intimidation, and crimes involving firearms that have so concerned New Zealanders. It will help keep firearms out of the hands of gangs and other high-risk offenders. It is another initiative to advance this Government’s commitment to reducing violent crime and restoring law and order and, ultimately, to make our communities safer. I commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Mālō ‘aupito. The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. This is the first of four tranches of firearms reforms being undertaken by this Government. The first being firearms prohibition orders (FPOs), the second being loosening the safety regulations on pistol and non-pistol ranges, the third being reviewing the firearms registry, and the fourth is rewriting the Arms Act.

The FPO’s regime is somewhat counterintuitive. The first pillar is at contradiction to the second, the third, and the fourth of this range of reforms because it’s with its National Party hand that this Government is claiming it’s making it harder for criminals to get a gun with FPOs. But with its ACT Party hand, it is making it easier by loosening the safety restrictions on guns and ranges and weakening the firearms registry. Nicole McKee is on record saying, regarding the firearms registry, “I think the full A category licensing regime is not going to be effective. It’s going to be too costly. It’s going to make people fearful for their own safety.”

We have the Minister responsible for firearms prohibition orders stating that the gun of choice by criminals, which is the Alfa Carbine rifle—easily cut down—would be excluded from pillar three of this range of reforms, therefore, endangering front-line police and communities. So my point is: what is the purpose of introducing a strengthened firearms prohibition order regime when, in the same tranche of reforms, firearms are able to be more easily accessed by criminals if our firearms registry is undermined and A category weapons such as Alfa Carbines are excluded from them?

The Labour Party opposes the Firearms Prohibition Orders Legislation Amendment Bill for two main reasons. The first one is that we believe that there has been insufficient time for the regime, introduced under the Labour Government that introduced firearms prohibition orders, to sufficiently bed in. The process right through—the select committee process, submissions, the information that we received from officials, nowhere in that information was there an evaluation of the existing scheme in terms of how it was working and whether or not there was any need to strengthen the existing regime. That is a real concern. We have a Government that is introducing warrantless, causeless search powers without even taking the time to evaluate whether the existing firearms prohibition orders scheme is operating well or not.

The truth is, they don’t care whether it’s operating well or not. They’ve made an election promise and they want to deliver on that, irrespective of what is working well or not now, and irrespective of the actual impact it will make. Even more, as I’ve pointed out, they’re undermining the whole purpose of this by weakening the firearms registry and making A category weapons potentially far more able to be accessed by criminals and far harder for our police officers to be able to track them.

The second main reason that we oppose this bill is that we consider the new search powers to be too broad and they could be exercised without cause to suspect a person is in fact breaching their firearms prohibition order. The scenario we worked through is that if you had a friend and unbeknown to you they had a firearm prohibition order on them, if that person came to your house or was in your car, the police would be able to come in and search your whole house if the friend was at dinner. I might not know that person had a firearms prohibition order on them. The police only need to suspect that that person has a firearms prohibition order on them in order for a warrantless search of that entire premises. That is how this law currently runs, and that gives very wide and sweeping powers that are able to now be used in New Zealand once this passes.

The firearms prohibition legislation passed under the last Government strengthened the existing provisions under search and surveillance to be able to enable those to work. In addition to this, new search powers were also introduced under the Criminal Activity Intervention Legislation Act, which enables police to apply for up to 14-day warrant from a judge when there has been inter-gang conflict or heightened tensions. It is this new provision under the CAIL, or Criminal Activity Intervention Legislation Act, that has worked very effectively in a number of situations right across New Zealand where there have been heightened gang tensions, and police have stated that this is a strong tool to have in the kit, to enable that. The benefit of that search power is it’s confined to a 14-day period, not a carte blanche search for any time. It’s when it’s needed, when there’s heightened tensions, those powers are able to be called upon.

Many submitters during the time at select committee raised concerns that this search power was too broad and could be exercised without cause to suspect that a person was breaching the conditions of their FPO. The legislation would also mean, as I’ve already pointed out, that someone who was in the company of someone is able to have their vehicle or complete house searched.

The problem we have with measures like this is it really is window dressing. It’s window dressing to show that an increase of power is going to help police work more effectively, where, in the same day, we see close to 250 jobs being cut from Police. These are people who directly help the front line operate, who will have a direct role in supporting and enabling front-line police to be able to do their job effectively and get back out on the street. To not be tied up with paperwork and filling out warrants and doing all the work you need to prepare to go to court. Those people are being laid off, which means sworn police officers will now have to do much of the paperwork that FPOs will be—the follow up work and the work around preparing for court and going to apply for one of these. That work will now be falling more to front-line police officers due to the fact that we’ve had all of those non-sworn police workers now without a job.

That’s why I feel that mechanisms like this—increasing search powers—are window dressing to show the shop front’s looking great, but if you take a look behind the scenes, it’s not working so well at all. In fact, there’s going to be more and more pressure on our front line to have to do this work, as well as all of the other work required with all of those jobs being cut from within Police.

The other point I would make is that it’s going to be really difficult to identify the person as a gang member, and what is the process for demonstrating they’re affiliated with the gang? There’s a provision now that you’re able to get out of a firearms prohibition order early, and they have to demonstrate good behaviour in order to do that. So this is for someone who’s got an FPO on them. There’s a new provision now, you can have that lifted. That’s an area in the bill we still believe is quite unclear and we’re unsure why they’ve put that into place.

I could go on in lots of areas, but the main point I would like to sum up with is really the stark contradiction in the suite of firearms reforms that we have proclaiming to get tougher on criminals to try and make sure they don’t get their hands on dangerous weapons, but in the same suite we have changes to the regulations and safety requirements on our guns and ranges, which now means there’s no recording of sales and ammunition. That’s a loophole that has been exploited and used by a terrorist to train on a range. There’s now a loophole there where a criminal can get hands on ammunition, and that previously didn’t exist.

Secondly, as I’ve already stated with guns not being included in the firearms registry, the other area which is still a real concern is that the Minister responsible still wants to see military style semi-automatic weapons—have that ban lifted and have them able to be used on ranges and in competitions. What is the point of having an FPO if this Government is going to bring back military style semi-automatic weapons? It’s just ludicrous. This is window dressing that shows this Government wants to look tough, but when we take a look under the hood, there is a big mess going on right here, and it’s New Zealanders’ safety and police officers’ safety that’s at risk.

SCOTT WILLIS (Green): Mālō e lelei, Madam Speaker, and thank you for the opportunity to address this important question, the Firearms Prohibition Orders Legislation Amendment Bill, in the second reading. It is an omnibus bill because it changes the Arms Act, the Sentencing Act, the Search and Surveillance Act. If we believe that the main object of this omnibus bill is to improve public safety, then we need to look at what it intends to do and what it doesn’t intend to do, and what other actions the Government is taking, because this bill appears to be more about virtue signalling on gangs, really, than it is about guns or gun safety. It extends the firearm protection orders to any gang member who’s been convicted of a crime under a number of Acts, but, as we’ve just heard, gang members are already subject to firearm protection orders, and we need to understand and evaluate how well these are working.

Firearm protection orders and police search powers are already readily available, and this bill is simply going to open up communities to potential harassment—harassment through targeting, through increased and unclear search powers, and a really, really vague, vague definition of gang members or associates. We can talk about the risks from structural racism that this poses to our communities. For example, it allows warrantless searches on anyone the police suspect of having a firearm protection order to search for guns. That’s going to lead, inevitably—inevitably—to more harassment of Māori and Pasifika people, and we’ve heard this recently from the police.

The other thing it does is allow a person to request their firearm protection order to be reviewed or revoked after five years. Currently, firearm protection orders last 10 years or so. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing. It gives consideration to rehabilitation, and it seems to make sense, but we really need to consider whether this bill is needed at all.

I’m a firearms owner, and recently I managed to put all my firearms through the gun registry—because we’ve heard from the Associate Minister that the gun registry is problematic. It was a very, very simple process, and the one thing I had to do was take one of my rifles to get a serial number stamped on it because it didn’t have one. I know many people who are responsible firearm owners, and I know they’re people who hunt pest species like deer, tahr, chamois, pigs, goats, rabbits, hares, for food or to do pest control to restore, to protect our precious taonga. But guns in the wrong hands can be used to harm people, and we all need safeguards and restrictions. I am sure that we all agree on that.

This isn’t necessarily problematic, but it is somewhat ironic that the associate justice Minister is doing so much otherwise to open up access to firearms through an unnecessary review of the firearms registry—something opposed by the Police Association, something the police want to ensure keeps working, something that has been rolled out incredibly successfully and is making sure that we know what firearms exist and where they exist and who holds them, to weed out those people who are irresponsible, who are feeding guns to the criminal fraternity.

So we’ve got an ex - gun lobbyist who has made it clear that the firearm protection orders are part of a wider gun reform with other actions including easing restrictions on gun clubs and ranges, where we might see people being able to access ammunition for weapons that might not be registered. This is, as has been pointed out, an incredible inconsistency, a contradiction. That’s why this bill is really about virtue signalling, rather than about safety or concern about gun controls.

Our Green position, really, is that the fewer guns around, the better, but for those people who are responsible, we do need safeguards and restrictions. Gun ownership is a privilege, not a right. When I think about what this bill is trying to do, it’s a focus on gang members, which is unnecessary because they are already targeted by firearm protection orders, when we know that the biggest risk to life and limb historically—well, we should be concerned about some of the extremists, political factions, the extremists that we’ve had experience of.

Think about the Christchurch shooter. The Christchurch shooter was somebody who was able to get hold of a gun—there was no registry—and practise at an open range. Imagine if that shooter could simply buy ammunition at a gun range. Terrorist attacks in this country have been primarily done by non - gang-affiliated extremists. This legislation makes no change to that. It does not make our community safer from these threats.

Mark Cameron: What a rubbish—

SCOTT WILLIS: I can hear a member saying this is all rubbish, but, actually, you know, the evidence points to the truth in all of that, in that the Government also aims to make military-style semi-automatic weapons more available. This makes communities less safe, and personally, as a hunter, I don’t see any need for semi-automatic centre-fire weapons. Saying this will make our communities safer while allowing more military-style semi-automatics contradicts the whole point of legislation in the first place. It would allow more weapons that present a greater danger to our communities into our community, so the inconsistency is something that we should be really concerned about. If we want to crack down on criminals, let’s look at the existing firearm protection order rather than making it easier, because this is simply a nonsensical approach.

I think this bill is actually a distraction from this Government’s pro-gun agenda, or at least a fraction of this Government’s agenda, because we’ve heard about the need for military-style weapons for sport. Now, I’m not sure if members are aware of the sport that is being talked about here, but it’s called the three-gun shoot. It’s very popular in America. The three-gun shoot—

Mark Cameron: Point of order, Madam Speaker. Without over-litigating the point, if I may, it’s about firearms prohibition orders. I think the member is way wide of the mark with his remarks.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Yeah, well, Mark Cameron, I didn’t hear a Speaker’s ruling or a number for you to actually quote what your point of order is based on. It is actually my role as the Chair of this House to rule things in or out of order. Continue, Scott Willis.

SCOTT WILLIS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. As I was saying, this bill is actually a distraction from the Government’s pro-gun agenda. Talking about the need for military-style centre-fire weapons to participate in a sport that’s called the three-gun shoot demonstrates how we are risking becoming an American-style pro-gun society, because this is part of the reform that we have been hearing about. The firearms prohibition order legislation is part of a suite of reform that is aimed at changing gun ownership and who can own and use firearms in New Zealand.

The three-gun shoot includes centre-fire weapons, with a .223 calibre rifle or something heavier, with up to a 30-round magazine; pistols; and shotguns, going through a range shooting targets that could be clay targets and could be human silhouettes. This is about combat-style training in our community. It is deeply disturbing that we are seeing a bill that pretends to be doing something that is going to protect and safeguard our communities when, in actual fact, it is ignoring what we already have and is instead ushering in something that is going to make our communities so much less safe, that’s going to make society so much more dangerous, that is going to present so many more challenges to our police. That is so disappointing from this Government.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Before I call the next member, can I just remind all of our members that if you’re making a point of order, please state the Standing Order or the Speaker’s ruling that your point of order is based on. I call on the chair of the Justice Committee, James Meager.

JAMES MEAGER (National—Rangitata): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I look forward to attending the parliamentary hunt with the previous speaker, Scott Willis, at the end of the year. Given his experience in firearms, I think it will be an interesting opportunity for not only myself but all members of Parliament if they’re interested to find out a bit more about what hunting and shooting is about in New Zealand. It has a long and storied history in this country.

I’m happy to bring a member a copy of the bill because I think it might be wise to refresh about what this bill actually does. The bill is strengthening firearms prohibition orders (FPOs). It is making it harder for certain types of people to access firearms. That is what this bill does.

The bill extends on the changes made back in 2022 by the previous Government, by the Labour Government who brought them in. I suspect the reason that they brought them in is outlined in the initial briefing provided to the committee. I’ll quote some figures from the initial briefing. That briefing said, from 2020 to 2021, there were 26 deaths and 625 injuries reported from violence involving firearms. Gangs and organised criminal groups drive a large portion of firearms harm. In one police investigation in 2021 to 2022, approximately 1,800 firearms were seized in an operation to disrupt the illegal possession and use of firearms by gangs and organised criminal groups. I suspect that is what the genesis of the firearms prohibitions orders were all about—that and significant pressure from the Opposition at the time, led by Mark Mitchell, and I know that because I helped him draft his member’s bill at the time. That is why we have the FPO regime.

The reason why this regime is being strengthened is because the coalition Government, and the parties that formed this Government, didn’t think it was strong enough—it needed some strengthening. That’s what this particular bill is about.

As a committee, we worked very, very diligently and very hard to get it into a shape that we hope the House will support. I’d like to thank all members of the Justice Committee for their work on this bill. We tackled quite a number of gnarly issues, but I would like to acknowledge the continued and consistent good work by the likes of Dr Duncan Webb, Ginny Andersen, Tracey McLellan, Tamatha Paul, and Tākuta Ferris, who, as Opposition MPs, are always very constructive and very helpful members of the committee, and of course members on the Government side as well. So can I just acknowledge the work of the committee.

I’d also just like to acknowledge the advice provided by the Ministry of Justice. We actually went back and forth on a number of issues, which you will see outlined in the select committee report, including the extent to which warrantless searches can be undertaken, the extent to which we are focusing on whether or not someone is an associate of an individual who is a gang member or someone who is associated with a gang—we thought that was an important distinction—and also tackling some of those issues around what is the threshold of police needing to suspect whether or not someone has an FPO. Actually, as a committee, we wrangled with that issue back and forth, and we actually strengthened that by changing it to “reasonably believe” rather than “suspect”. Hopefully, that will relieve some of Mr Willis’ concerns. I wanted to thank the Ministry of Justice for their advice. I thank the Office of the Clerk for their advice on the legislative quality and the Parliamentary Counsel Office for the drafting too.

Can I also acknowledge the 40-odd groups and individuals who submitted on the bill, and we heard from 11 individuals. Interestingly, there was roughly a fifty-fifty split, actually. For a Justice Committee bill, that’s relatively unique. Generally, we have a lot of people who either really like or really dislike a bill, but this one was very evenly split, which I think represents some of the feeling across the House.

Now, in the couple of minutes I’ve got remaining, I just wanted to touch on the key changes made in this bill, because that, after all, is the purpose of a second reading—it is to look at what was discussed in the select committee, look at how the bill has changed, what conversations were going on, and whether or not the House accepts the recommendations of the select committee to make any amendments to the bill. Very, very briefly, as outlined before by the Hon Nicole McKee, Associate Minister of Justice, and some other members, we have changed that definition of whom can be issued with an FPO, and we’ve decided to include people who are associates of a gang. To make that clear and to put this on the record for the Hansard in case this ever gets to court at some point: we consider this to be people who are associated by way of participating in criminal offending, or demonstrating support for the gangs activities and aims, or attending gang events. That’s the kind of thing we’re talking about. We’re not talking about someone’s legal adviser or work colleague or an uncle or an auntie. That’s specifically what we’re talking about.

We made a few changes to when an FPO could be made. We thought that some of the original offences listed in the bill weren’t strictly associated with the types of offending that we were thinking about. So those offences have been narrowed down to, in particular, crimes against people, crimes against property, and threatening and conspiring.

There are changes in there around varying and modifying FPOs. One of the significant ones we looked at was what happens when you are an individual who owns or is in possession of a property. Under the original bill, if you owned a property but weren’t present, that property could still be searched in your absence. We thought that was a step too far in terms of warrantless searches, so we made the recommendation to remove ownership and amend new section 18AA(1)(c), which went more towards a person having influence, control, or direct access to.

The final one I’ll touch on is the conversation we had around what happens if you’re staying in a hotel and you are subject to an FPO—can the police then search every other room in that hotel? Of course, the advice that came back from the ministry was that, no, that would constitute, in all likelihood, an unreasonable search and seizure in that hotel. We always have the fall-back provisions of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act in terms of the reasonableness of search and seizure requirements.

I think that generally covers the main changes to the bill. We think the bill has been strengthened in a significant way. I want to thank the members of the Justice Committee for their hard work on it and commend the bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Mālō ‘aupito.

JAMIE ARBUCKLE (NZ First): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Before I speak on the bill, I’d just like to acknowledge your new role, as well. Congratulations, and it’s a pleasure.

I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on the Firearms Prohibition Orders Legislation Amendment Bill. Firstly, this bill is about reducing firearm crime and that is something I think everyone in New Zealand would like to see done. It’s also about reducing the risk around high-risk offenders, and a lot of the stuff that the bill touches on is around those high-risk offenders and actually putting restrictions on them.

Just as we’ve heard from the chair of the Justice Committee, James Meager, we heard or received 40 submissions on this bill and heard 11 oral submissions. There were, as we heard, different views on whether we should make some changes.

As we have heard from the chair—and what I’ll outline as I go through—we have strengthened this bill in a number of ways. One thing I’d like to say is this is another tool in the tool box for the police.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: The old “tool in the tool box” line.

JAMIE ARBUCKLE: As much as the Opposition seems, at the moment, not to want to give the police further tools to actually crack down on crime and gun crime and on gangs, this is another tool in their tool box. You would think everyone in this House—in being an MP and looking after our constituents—would want to look and give the police as many tools to control crime as possible. But, unfortunately, often in this House and, actually, through select committee, for some reason there seems to be some suspicion around what the police actually do in their actual role. I know, for one, that New Zealand First supports the police. We support what they do. Unfortunately, recently we heard from a member on the other side of the House, “Who would you rather meet in an alleyway?”. I know, for sure, if I was in an alleyway and somebody had a gun, I’d rather the police officer would be the person with that gun—

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Yeah, than a New Zealand First member!

JAMIE ARBUCKLE: —than a gang member. So this bill is about public safety—

Shanan Halbert: What are you doing in alleyways?

JAMIE ARBUCKLE: I’m still getting heckled from the other side because they’d rather see gang members in the alleyway than a police officer. But, as most New Zealanders would say, police officers are the right way to go about things.

Public safety is this bill; it’s about providing further public safety, it’s about stopping violent crime, and it’s about restoring law and order. Through the bill, we look at how disqualifications of an offender come about. If I just go to the bill: the disqualifications of an offender from obtaining a firearms licence prohibits the offender from accessing firearms and restricted weapons. It gives the examples that the offender must not associate with persons in possession of firearms or reside at or visit locations at which firearms are stored. That gives that further protection.

One part that we haven’t heard about is it also gives a review process and that’s important too, because if somebody has a firearms prohibition order (FPO) against them, now, after a five-year period, there’s actually a process where that can be appealed: it can be varied or revoked. That actually is a part of the bill that someone with a protection FPO against them hasn’t been able to do in the past. That’s actually the second part here in the bill.

We’ve heard also from the chair of the Justice Committee about the “without cause” search and how we’ve strengthened that, too, around the word “believe”—the police must “believe” that that person has a FPO against them before they can actually go in and search. But again, that is about public safety and actually providing that actual level of protection for our constituents.

New Zealand First supports this bill because it strikes the right balance between enhancing public safety and ensuring fairness in its application. The amendments recommended by the Justice Committee improve the bill by focusing its reach on those who generally pose a risk without overreaching into the lives of innocent individuals. The inclusion of serious crimes under the Crimes Act, such as offences against the person and property, ensures that FPOs are applied where they are most needed, against those involved in violent or organised criminal activities. This targeted approach is in line with our commitment to effective and just law enforcement. Furthermore, the adjustments to warrantless search powers reflect a careful consideration of civil liabilities. By requiring a “belief” rather than mere suspicion, the bill ensures the police actions are grounded in a higher level of certainty, which is a critical safeguard against potential misuse.

In conclusion, New Zealand First supports this bill because it is necessarily a step to protecting New Zealanders from the threat of gun violence, particularly in the context of gang and organised crime. It is a sensible, focused, and balanced piece of legislation that will contribute to a safer New Zealand. On that note, I commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The next call is a split call between Te Pāti Māori and the Green Party and I call on Tākuta Ferris, for five minutes.

TĀKUTA FERRIS (Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Tonga): Tēnā koe e te Pīka, otirā ngā mihi nui ki te whakatairangatanga o te reo taketake o ngā motu o Te Moana-nui-a-Kiwa i roto i tēnei o ngā wiki. Ka tū ake au ki te waha i ngā kōrero a Te Pāti Māori e hāngai ana ki tēnei o ngā pire e kīia nei ko te Firearms Prohibition Orders Legislation Amendment Bill.

[Thank you, Madam Speaker, indeed huge congratulations to the promotion of the indigenous languages of the islands of the Pacific this week. I stand to give voice to the statements of the Māori Party relating to this particular bill called the Firearms Prohibition Orders Legislation Amendment Bill.]

My colleagues have laid out a lot of the detail, so I’m not going to labour and repeat what they’ve said. But let’s get to the point: this bill was the result and a response to this country’s most horrific terrorist act that we’ve ever had to suffer, really. It’s just a brutal piece of our history and we shouldn’t just fluff around the edges of it, because it’s a critical piece of where this legislation came from.

As I’ve just sat, even just today at its second reading, listening to the comments and the kōrero that comes out, I just can’t help but recognise how many times the word “gangs” is used to make points relative to this piece of legislation. We shouldn’t forget that the word “gangs” is being used across a number of pieces of legislation in this House. Unequivocally, across all of those bits of legislation, that use of the word “gangs” has been associated with a disproportionate negative effect that will be laid at the feet of te iwi Māori—and I just want to remind everyone of that, because I just can’t get over how easily it’s just glossed over here.

Speaking of glossing over, we’ve heard from this side of the House that the select committee process was a bit of a fifty-fifty—it was pretty good one side, pretty good the other side. My view of that is that it wasn’t really fifty-fifty. That’s just a shining review that it doesn’t actually deserve.

In as much as the chair of the Justice Committee thinks it’s all good to make quips about parliamentary hunting trips as things worth discussing in this discussion, I think we should—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Can I ask the member to come back to the bill, please.

TĀKUTA FERRIS: Yeah, sure, I think we should come back to the bill. Obviously, Te Pāti Māori does not support this bill in the slightest. Inasmuch as, under this law, gang members and their so-called associates—a lot of the pieces of legislation, including this one, before this House, rely on the discretion of police. It’s a power that’s been exercised a lot in this country for a long time, and it has never favoured Māori—ever.

Another colleague over there in the Justice Committee is talking about the responsibilities of MPs to be here representing their constituents. Well, I can guarantee him that I’m 100 percent here representing the constituents who voted me in.

Mark Cameron: Just not gangs.

TĀKUTA FERRIS: Oh, yeah, OK, we’ll get to you later. Yeah just not gangs—just not gangs—yeah, like the big blue gang over there or the gang of farmers up North, or any bunch of people.

Let me get back to the kaupapa or the kōrero. So associates and the exercise of discretion—it’s never been exercised favourably for Māori. Within the remit of this bill—me, I’m a young man who has had to attend gang tangi. I could easily fall into the category of an associate of a gang member—easily.

Mark Cameron: Well, just don’t have an FPO.

TĀKUTA FERRIS: Yeah, good on you, mate. Good on you, bro.

Mark Cameron: We’re neither of those things. Just talk about the FPOs—maybe that’s a good idea.

TĀKUTA FERRIS: Have you ever been to a gang tangi? Have you ever had to go to one? Oh, well, ka pai. Kia kaha ki a koe. Kia kaha.

So, effectively, creating a double standard, leaving Māori as second-class citizens in their own country, the country in which they’re the principal sovereign, they’re the principal constitutional rights holder—this is the treatment.

To wrap up, I want to bring this House back to the reality that this House is responsible to Te Tiriti o Waitangi. It is responsible to its constitutional partner, te iwi Māori; in fact, te iwi Māori are the sponsor of the Crown’s constitutional position in this country and they deserve more respect out of this House and its laws.

TAMATHA PAUL (Green—Wellington Central): Mālō e lelei, Madam Speaker. Happy Tongan Language Week.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Mālō e lelei.

TAMATHA PAUL: I rise on behalf of the Green Party of Aotearoa to oppose this bill. You’ve heard our concerns pretty clearly from my colleague Scott Willis here today, but I really want to reiterate some aspects of the bill that raise pretty significant concerns for us. The big concern that we have is around the unjustifiably broad allowance for unwarranted searches if a police officer suspects that somebody is subject to a firearms prohibition order—key word there: “suspects”.

Just to talk about guns in particular, our general approach and philosophy to gun ownership is that people should need to prove that they need access to firearms for specific purposes, for things like pest control or hunting, not allowing tonnes of people to have guns except for a minority. It should be the other way around. A majority of people should not have access to guns except for a very small minority who need them.

It is our view that our communities are much safer when guns are not in them, period. There’s no reason for it, and I don’t want to live in a country like America where school shootings are completely normalised and enabled by their Government. Nobody wants to live in a world like that, and that’s why we have the protections in place that we have. I want to express my deep concern about the potential relaxing of gun laws in Aotearoa, and I want to reflect that this is a concern that many people in our communities have.

Back to the bill. I want to talk about police powers now. The main concern that we have again is around those unwarranted searches of people who are suspected to be subject to a firearms prohibition order. Our big question is: how will the police determine whether someone is suspected of being subject to a firearms prohibition order? Given most gang members are Māori due to colonisation, due to abuse in State care, does that mean that those of us who are related to gang members could be subject to unwarranted searches as well? What about the safety of the whānau and friends of gangs?

I’ve spoken to gang leaders in order to understand the implications of the legislation that has come through this House. Does that make me a suspected gang associate? What about situations where children are involved in a whānau or household or in the car, and might also subsequently be traumatised by an unwarranted police search at any time of the day?

The reason I ask those questions—the member might learn a little bit about what the reality is like for people who have been subject to unwarranted searches. Yesterday, we got a report, the Understanding Police Delivery report, which came out and confirmed the presence of bias and structural racism within the police, so it’s not far-fetched that some of us are suspicious about the way that police utilise the powers that they have access to. Our concern remains that if police officers have too much discretion, the bias that was confirmed yesterday, that even the Police Commissioner himself accepts—even though the Minister of Police and the Minister of Justice deny that it’s even happening in the first place—then how are we to trust that police will be able to discharge their duties under this bill and discharge the powers under this bill without adding to the structural racism and the bias that our people experience at the hands of the police?

Until there’s an acceptance, because I know Mr Arbuckle brought up the comments made around gang members and police in dark alleyways—people might not like the way that that was phrased, but what it was trying to demonstrate is that there is genuine distrust from many of our communities towards the police. Until the Government decides to accept that that is the reality for our people, then we’re not going to get anywhere. I do actually want to acknowledge the important work that Andrew Coster has done as the Police Commissioner, because at least when he saw that evidence and at least when he read that report, he accepted some level of responsibility and he said that the police have got work to do. But I tell you this: this bill undermines the work that the police are trying to do to rebuild trust within Māori communities and that is why we do not support it.

CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour): Contrary to what you’ve just heard—that this is undermining police’s work—police are very happy with the direction of this. Police are very happy with the direction of this Government. In fact, when we were on the Justice Committee just this morning, talking to the Secretary for Justice, who also chairs the Executive Board for the Elimination of Family Violence and Sexual Violence, I posed the question: will the Public Service target of 20,000 fewer people being victims of an assault, of robbery, or sexual assault by 2029 help sharpen his board’s focus and priorities, and will it strengthen the work of the multi-agency and interdepartmental across Government - approach? And the Secretary for Justice—go back to the Hansard, go back to the video—said, “Yes and yes.” He said it with a gleeful look on his face: “Yes and yes.” He was so excited about the fourth—and Tom Rutherford knows these Public Service targets better than anyone—Public Service target, which was about reducing the number of victims of an assault, robbery, or sexual assault by 2029 by 20,000.

This Firearms Prohibition Orders Legislation Amendment Bill is part of a suite of tools that we’re putting in the tool box. The member over the other side said, “Oh, they always keen talking about tools and tool boxes.” Well, guess what! We’re putting more tools in the tool box to sort out crime in this country. More tools in the tool boxes. And if he wants to know—“Well, we were on top of crime in the Labour Party.”—can I give him this statistic from the New Zealand Crime and Victims Survey, and why we are going with this firearms prohibition order (FPO) approach. The New Zealand Crime and Victims Survey showed the number of people in New Zealand who were victims of an assault, robbery, or sexual assault—

Shanan Halbert: What do your North Shore stats say?

CAMERON BREWER: —Shanan Halbert—from 2022 to 2023, jumped by over 20,000 people, to over 185,000 New Zealanders that are victims. This piece of legislation, Shanan Halbert, goes straight to reducing that. The justice department, the justice secretary, is right on our side. Wind back the tapes—they’re excited; the Public Service targets. You guys should have thought of Public Service targets, because the justice ministry is very excited, the police are very excited, the Executive Board for the Elimination of Family Violence and Sexual Violence are very excited, and they’re also very pleased with the FPO approach that we are taking.

All the amendments to this legislation that went through the select committee—we’ve heard a differing view, haven’t we? We’ve heard a differing view, but guess what? All the amendments were passed unanimously—unanimously. How’s that? So there you go. Were they there, were they asleep, or did they just agree with all the amendments? Well, I would err on the side of the third proposition that they agreed to all the amendments, because they are recorded unanimously.

Let’s go back to the bill and its purpose—all about reducing firearms crime and the effects on communities. It seeks to do so by enabling FPOs to be made and monitored against the wider group of people whose behaviour and actions indicate and pose a high risk of violence. The focus is on specifying new qualifying offences for members and associates of a gang and organised crime. We’ve heard again, haven’t we, that we seem to be—why are we always focused on gangs? Well, they increased by 3,000 in five years—over 51 percent under that administration. Man, did we have a mandate at the last election to get on top of gangs. Public meetings on gangs filled up every town hall around New Zealand. New Zealand has had an absolute gutsful, and this Firearms Prohibition Orders Legislation Amendment Bill goes to the heart of that. Specify new qualifying offences for members and associates of a gang or an organised criminal group; establish a review process to enable a person who is subject to an FPO to apply to the court to have their FPO varied, modified, or revoked; and the other third part of it: give the police additional warrantless search powers to monitor the person subject of an FPO.

This is a great piece of legislation. This is a suite that’s key to the Government’s agenda. This is something we have a big mandate on. This is why we won the election. I commend the bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Mālō e lelei.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Mālō e lelei, Madam Speaker. And I want to see that note! I think it said, “Cameron, stop dribbling. Sit down.”

Rima Nakhle: No, it had a love heart.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: No, it might not have said that. It said, “If you don’t know what you’re talking about, sit down.”—“If you haven’t read the bill, sit down.” Or perhaps it just said, “For God’s sake, your taxi is here.”

Look, the Firearms Prohibition Orders Legislation Amendment Bill is actually a serious bill. I’m going to put that little bit of levity aside and talk about this, and I really want to focus on warrantless searches, because invasion of privacy is important. It is very easy to say, “We hate gang members and their privacy doesn’t meet the same standards or have the same protections as ours.” Don’t get me wrong; on this side of the House, the vile conduct of gangs is abhorred as much here as it is over on the other side of the House. But we do need to be very, very cautious when we’re talking about warrantless searches, because we’ve got to remember the invasion of privacy, the invasion of personal space, of home, of vehicle, of personal property should be by law and not by discretion.

That’s why we have warrants, because warrants are a judge saying the threshold is met—that there is a reasonable grounds for a police officer or other authorised person to enter into someone’s home, to disrupt their personal space, and to search for some evidence of wrongdoing. Warrantless searches do away with that check entirely, right? They do away with it entirely. All we have now is a member of the executive, essentially—a Government agent—a police officer in this case, a constable, who is entitled to exercise their own judgment. It’s rule by discretion and not rule by law. That is a very, very dangerous thing. It’s not to say it’s never appropriate. We know that when police are in hot pursuit or they think there’s a crime occurring on the premises, they already have the power to have a warrantless search, and that’s appropriate. That’s the balance that’s been struck. But, here, there’s no issue of an immediate and violent crime going on. It’s that they’ve breached an order.

But wait, it gets a bit worse, and I think this is really important. The Act does not say, “If there is a firearms protection order in place, there’s a power to have a warrantless search.” It says, “If a constable has reasonable grounds to believe”. You don’t even have to be sure. Now, if you’re going to bust into—and let’s be absolutely upfront about this; these are not going to be doors knocked on at 3 o’clock in the afternoon on a sunny Saturday. These will be catching people by surprise in the dark of night. And there’s a reason for that, right? You do want to surprise people. You don’t want to forewarn them. I’m not even sure—because the Justice Committee changed the word “reasonable grounds to suspect” to “reasonable grounds to believe”. Certainly in the committee stage I want to interrogate exactly what that means, because it’s still a very vague test. It’s basically an honest reckon.

I’m not sure we should have invasion into private spaces on the basis that there’s an honest reckon that an order is in place. Either it is or it isn’t. If my house or your house, or the house of a member of the other side of the House, gets busted into in the dark of night because they thought—but we’re wrong—that there was a firearms protection order, then that’s an illegal search. It should be recognised as an illegal search. It shouldn’t be just, “Sorry. I was empowered to do it because I honestly thought on some grounds, but not very good grounds, that you had a firearms protection order in place.”

Let’s just expand that, because the other one that really bites is a vehicle. If there is a vehicle and the driver or any other person in it has a firearms protection order, that vehicle can be stopped and searched. Now, that has the same problems, but the next stage is concerning because anyone in it can be searched as well. I know the picture in our mind, and the picture in our mind is of a car, probably a beaten-up one, with a group of thugs driving round. But that’s not what the test is. It’s anyone in it. A spouse or a child can be searched. I think it was Tākuta Ferris who referenced the good work that the police have done talking about biases within their own system and the fact that Māori and other people of colour are much more likely to be picked up, and when discretionary decisions exist, they tend against Māori. That is a concern, and that is a concern when you have powers like this.

Of course, the chair of the Justice Committee, James Meager, mentioned that the right to search premises is loosely defined: an entire premises that a person occupies or controls. Now, those words do have some meaning, but we did run into the problem of, when a person is at the pub or occupies a hotel, exactly what the bounds of that are. I’m not comfortable that the power is constrained by the statement in section 18AA(1) that the warrant is “for the purpose of checking whether the person is complying with the conditions of the FPO”. Yes, this is a so-called tool in the tool box. It’s a pretty significant tool. It’s a very extensive power, and I’m concerned that police, given this power, will use it as a pretext.

We know that police do like to keep close tabs on people who they think are criminal offenders or likely to be criminal offenders, and they’re entitled to do that in given ways. The vagueness of this warrantless search power is, essentially, if misused, a licence for harassment, and that’s a real concern. I do think we need to think extremely carefully about that. And you’ve got to remember this is, essentially, a civil power. If you go back to the Arms Act and see the basis upon which it can be imposed, although it’s almost penal in nature, the test for whether it should be imposed or not is on the balance of probabilities. It’s a very significant curtailment or infringement of liberty that a court imposes simply on the balance of probabilities. I think we need to hold that in mind as well.

I do think—and Mr Brewer, I think it was, sort of guffawed that the Labour Party and others agreed to amendments but opposed the bill. I can’t use the language I’d like, but our view is that we worked hard to make this bill as least bad as we could. But it’s still pretty bad. We still oppose it, and we oppose it for two reasons, as Ginny Andersen very eloquently said. The first is that extremely wide warrantless search power. The second is this: firearms protection orders were put in place by the last Government. They haven’t been in place very long. There’s not very many of them out there. They seem to be doing a pretty good job. Why do we need to crank up and do this kind of legislation, which is very heavy-handed—if it’s in the tool box, it’s a sledgehammer—when we haven’t even seen whether the other ones are working?

I concur with some of my other colleagues on this side of the House who have said it’s a bit of window dressing. On the one hand, you’re saying we’re going to crack down on guns and where they are, and on the other there’s a narrative from one party in this House, the ACT Party, that they’re going to liberalise gun laws. On the one hand, we want to know where the guns are; on the other hand, we don’t want a gun register. On the one hand, we want to be able to enter someone’s house and search for these guns; on the other hand, we’re going to have military-style automatics which people can do sports shooting with. Now, that is a double narrative. That is cognitive dissonance, and it doesn’t work.

I appreciate some of my colleagues on the other side of the House, the National Party, are trying to be moderate in these things, but in respect of this particular part of their legislative programme, the little magenta tail is wagging that blue dog. Kia ora, Madam Speaker.

RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini): Madam Speaker, thank you for allowing me to take this call on the Firearms Prohibition Orders Legislation Amendment Bill. We’re in the second reading.

I’d like to start my contribution today talking about warrantless searches that the previous speaker, Duncan Webb, was mentioning. I respect the fact that we need to ensure that people’s privacy and protections are indeed protected. But, in this instance, if you don’t mind, Madam Speaker, I’d just like to turn our memories back to 2020, to a bill by the name of COVID-19 Public Health Response Bill that was pushed through the House, where it allowed for a private dwelling or marae—for police to enter on reasonable grounds to believe that people gathered there in contravention to the COVID rules. I don’t know why it’s OK for public health to have warrantless search powers but not for public safety. So I just want to remind us about what happened back then.

Terms, like “window dressing”—also, it was referred to by someone across the House that this law will make our society so much less safe and that it’s virtue signalling instead of gun control. Yes, if you don’t believe it, please go back and watch the recording. All I’d like to ask the House is: what’s so wrong about restricting illegal access to guns? I’d like to ask the House: what’s so wrong with trying everything that we can to keep our neighbours safe? I’d like to ask the House: what is so wrong about sending a strong message to gangs that intimidation and gun violence is not OK? That’s what we’re intending to do with this bill, amongst other bills. I have no shame in commending this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): The next call is a split call. I call on Glenn Bennett for five minutes.

GLEN BENNETT (Labour): Kia ora, Madam Speaker. Just responding to the previous National Party speaker, Rima Nakhle, who just finished their contribution. Very different circumstances; very different times; COVID legislation—and we had challenges in that space and we were really open to it. Obviously a one-in-100-year pandemic comes around rarely and extreme measures had to be taken, which is excessively different to what this piece of legislation is all about. I’d rather be speaking this afternoon, I guess, about gun prohibition—how do we rid this country of guns?—but I understand that is not a conversation that could be had, and there are purposes that guns are used for in New Zealand, and so I understand that.

As we’ve heard the rhetoric; as we’ve heard the speeches over the last 45 minutes, there’s been lots thrown around, obviously, about getting tough on crime, lots of stuff around gangs. That rhetoric was around “Let’s get tough on crime” and this is another tool in that mysterious tool box that they talk about. But we really need to be talking about how do we get tough on the causes of crime. How do we get tough on the causes of gangs? That’s a conversation I’d rather be having in this House rather than just tinkering around with some legislation which hasn’t been in for long—legislation that hasn’t been around a long time that we’re actually tinkering around with this afternoon.

As my good friend and colleague the Hon Dr Duncan Webb mentioned earlier, it’s the search warrants that are a real challenge and a real issue for us. It’s around that “without cause”—without cause. That is cause for concern, and it should be. The communities that I’m part of—and the world that I’ve been part of for many, many years—is one of those communities that regularly has the police visiting; that regularly has a knock on the door from police to deal with issues going on.

I know that there are challenges within the communities I live in—there are challenges—but also there are vulnerabilities. There’s this gung-ho attitude and there’s these—you think they’re all just thugs and gangsters, but at the at the base of that, they’re actually human beings and often vulnerable human beings and often those who actually don’t understand the systems and how they work.

That’s why this legislation is an attack on our vulnerable and is an attack on those who aren’t as articulate to know the law and how it works. In terms of police overreach, we as a Parliament—as a sovereign—need to ensure that we are making sure that our police force—those who are on the streets, ensuring to keep our streets safe—are also protected from themselves and protected from their overreach and what they are able to do.

We cannot support this legislation. As I’ve listened and heard from ACT, as I’ve heard from National, as I’ve heard from New Zealand First, I really feel that this is around weakening the gun laws that are currently in place. I feel like it’s tinkering and it’s just focusing on minor issues instead of addressing the root causes of crime, instead of addressing the root causes of gang violence, which they talk about often.

We cannot support this legislation. We would ask that the other side of the House does consider what getting tough on the causes of crime could look like, getting tough on the causes of gangs. How do we actually deal with those things? Not just throw around “tough on crime” soundbites, but actually look and dig deep into what is broken fundamentally in our community of Aotearoa New Zealand. We cannot support this bill.

TIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki): Well, there it is. If we hadn’t heard enough rubbish from the other side, this bill is now an attack on the vulnerable—those poor, vulnerable, violent criminals. Those poor, violent, vulnerable gang members. That’s what this bill is an attack on, according to them. We heard it from the Green Party, “Leave the gangs alone; it’s not fair”. They actually doubled down on their comment that they’d rather see the weapons with gang members than with police members. That’s the attitude that we’re up against. That is what we had six years of. That’s how we got to this position.

I’m proud that we’re actually doing something practical about it, supporting our police who are out there, making our communities safer. This bill—there’s two key parts. The first part is about who can be subject to a firearms prohibition order. There’s been a lot of discussion on that. I don’t want to dwell on that too much, but I’m OK with us targeting them towards people who have been convicted of serious violent crimes, people who are associated with criminal gangs.

The second part, that’s had a lot of discussion, is around the ability for police to conduct warrantless searches. I have to start by coming back to the bill itself. It would be nice if someone from the Green Party read it, but if you read section 18AA, it is where a constable has reasonable grounds to believe that a person is subject to such an order—not who suspects—which was the entire substance of the last Green Party contribution; it is where they are believed to do it. Then we had some contradictory position from Labour around “Well they’re going in at 3 o’clock in the morning and they won’t have time to research it”.

These are deliberate operations. They do have time to prepare. Yes, police have to make difficult decisions in the operational environment. That relies on us enabling our police to make decisions to act in the best interests of our community—I, for one, completely back our police to do that—but they can’t do it unless we give them the framework, unless we give them the tools and the legislation. That’s what this bill is doing. It is enabling police to go out and target the people who need to be targeted the most.

This should not be about the rights of convicted criminals, the rights of members of criminal gangs but the rights of every member of our community to live in a safe community, to live free from fear of violent crime, of illegal use of illegal firearms. That’s what this bill is doing. I commend it to the House.

Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour): Mālō e lelei, thank you, Mr Speaker. OK, it’s the Firearms Prohibition Orders Legislation Amendment Bill, and today, we’re at a little bit of a crossroads, I think, on this legislative journey, because on one hand, it’s a moment where we’re actually making decisions that potentially have a profound implication on the safety and on the wellbeing of various communities, but probably not in the way that we think so.

We’re here to discuss the Government’s proposed changes to firearms protection orders (FPOs), but I think we have to be really clear from the outset, and let me be clear from the outset, that these changes aren’t what they seem. They’re not robust, and we’ve heard from several people today that have pointed out reasons as to why that’s true. They’re not safety-enhancing measurements that the Government’s contributions to date would have you believe, and, instead, actually, they’re just a bit of a smokescreen. They’re a diversion from the real and dangerous agenda that’s at play here, which is simply a loosening of the gun laws to make military-style semi-automatic weapons more widely available.

Now, when we begin by acknowledging the existing framework, the FPOs, as has been discussed, are already in place, or the laws surrounding it—the current conditions—are already in place and they are functioning effectively. As my colleague the Hon Dr Duncan Webb said, they haven’t been there for that long and we don’t have enough empirical evidence or enough data to show whether this is doing as good a job as it could be. But why bother ramping that up and doing something else before we’ve had the chance to discuss that or just to really get to the bottom of whether that was working? By doing this, we’re introducing another whole set of variables that actually have detrimental effects on other people.

These orders are a critical tool that the courts currently use to prevent individuals—particularly those involved in criminal activities. The current legislation, we believe, certainly, on this side of the House, is comprehensive. It covers not only the firearms but also ammunition, restricted weapons, and other related items. So I think that the system is working as is. It’s designed to protect the public by ensuring that those that actually do pose a risk—because, let’s be clear, there’s some people that do pose a serious risk—are kept away from firearms.

When we think about it, we could ask why, therefore, is there need for change. I think the answer is quite simple, and that’s just that there isn’t one. The Government’s proposed amendments add almost nothing new. They extend the FPOs—sure—to a broader group of people, including those over 18 who are either members of gangs or organised crime groups, or they may just be mere associates, or in the wrong place at the wrong time.

It’s supposed to be for those convicted of certain offences, but, let’s be honest, this is not going to be about that. It’s not groundbreaking, and it’s open to misuse. It’s open to all sorts of things going wrong, and the tools to protect our communities already come from the Search and Surveillance Act. The police already have, I think, the powers to conduct warrantless searches to the extent at which we should be affording them the opportunity to do so in the first place.

This is not entirely new, but it steps over a line without actually fixing something that it purports to do, and I think that that’s a dangerous combination. It’s certainly not innovative. It’s not going to do any of the things that I think it has been said that it will, but it introduces a level of uncertainty and a level of potential risk that I think is just not worth it. That, again, brings us back to what the true intent is behind these changes. This is one of four bills, or potential bills, that will be making their way through this House. Together, they’re leading us in a direction that I don’t think, in retrospect, we’ll be very pleased with.

The Government’s real agenda here is to loosen gun laws. I think that that can’t be said in a light way, and that shouldn’t be perceived in a light way. The Government’s real agenda is to loosen gun laws in a way that will make things more accessible. Now, that might end up being an unintended consequence, but if you don’t take notice of the unintended consequences and if you don’t take notice of the advice and of all the information, that’s what can happen.

It’s not just conjecture and it’s not just me saying that; it is, in fact, supported by police advice that these weapons will inevitably end up on the black market. Who benefits from that? Actually, it’s the gangs and the criminal organisations that you’re purporting to crack down on—so the very people that we’re supposed to be trying to protect our communities from—and the irony of that is actually quite palpable.

The Government claims that they’re tough on crime, and we’ve heard them say that on many occasions. There’s a lot of verbose talk about it, but when push comes to shove and they’ve actually got opportunities to put bills through this House and to create legislation—when you actually look at it, it doesn’t do what it says it’s going to do. Their actions will put more dangerous weapons in the hands of criminals, and that’s not something we should take lightly.

Now, let’s consider the practical implications. The bill proposes to extend the FPOs, and we’ve talked about that today and other people have gone through the specifics of that, but it doesn’t achieve anything. It creates this illusion of action while actually doing nothing to address the root causes of gun violence. I know that other people have said that, but we should think about that more deeply. It’s not a time to be shallow. It doesn’t do what it says it’s going to do, but it provides the opportunity for the Government to point to a specific example of them being tough on crime. While that might not seem like a bad idea to many, it also prevents them from doing the things that they should be doing to be tough on crime. It’s a false sense of security.

It’s not all just benign things—it’s not doing anything—but, as I said, it also introduces some variables that actually can have some pretty profound implications, not only on individuals and not only on certain communities, but it’s a slippery slope to degrading the types of standards that we should have in some of that surveillance and some of that police work. I think that the best example of that is surely the bill introducing without-cause search powers. Almost every speaker on this side of the House has chosen to highlight that, and that’s no accident. That absolutely is our number one concern when we think about this. On the surface, it might sound like it’s a small thing, but when you start looking at the ways in which it could be misused, it’s quite frightening to think of the ways that could manifest.

So, as I’ve said, if this bill was making our communities safer, we wouldn’t have a problem with it, but because it’s not, we can’t support the bill. It’s not about preventing gun violence; it’s about creating a distraction—a distraction from the fact that the Government is quietly working to loosen gun laws and making our streets more dangerous, not less, and this bill does nothing at all to address the issues around gangs or around all of the things that the National Party, in particular, has campaigned on so hard for. Instead, the bill weakens the very protections that keep most of those communities safe.

In contrast, Labour in Government was the one that introduced the firearm registry, and that was a critical tool in reducing gun crime over time. We’re the ones that have taken actual, meaningful steps to address the root causes of violence and keep those dangerous weapons out of the hands of the people that we don’t want to have them—out of the hands of the people who could very easily misuse them. When we look at that contrast, it just beggars belief that the National Party are being led by the ACT Party, here, and introducing a piece of legislation that they must surely know doesn’t do what they’re being led to believe in.

In conclusion, I really think that anybody listening and people considering this—and I want to acknowledge the people that submitted on this bill and gave their time to lend their expertise and their lived experience. It was informative and it was really interesting to hear something from as many different perspectives as we were able to during this process, and I urge people to think about this bill for truly what it is. It’s a dangerous distraction from the real issues at hand—not just in the manifestation of this bill, but what’s yet to come.

The Government has proposed changes to FPOs that I don’t believe enhance our society in any way, shape, or form—in fact, they undermine it—and let’s not be swayed by empty gestures. This is one of several bills that are going to be finding their way through the House in this genre, in this particular sector. I think it’s the first time that we have a real reminder that we should be looking through the lens, not be blinkered, and realise the fact that this is another empty gesture and a hollow promise.

Our commitment actually must be to the safety of those communities, and on this side of the House, we are committed to the safety and security of all New Zealanders. So we don’t support this bill in its current form, we don’t believe it achieves anything at all, and we do not commend this bill to the House.

TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. It gives me great pleasure to rise as the final speaker on the second reading of the Firearms Prohibition Orders Legislation Amendment Bill.

I just want to acknowledge, firstly, the chair of the Justice Committee, James Meager; it’s his birthday today. I’m sure he got plenty of well wishes from around the House this morning on the Justice Committee, plenty of nice words and kind remarks.

In the second reading, it’s really important to focus on what took place at the Justice Committee on this bill as it went through—remembering that it was introduced on 1 March this year, referred to the committee on 5 March, and reported back on 26 July. The committee received 40 submissions—15 on behalf of organisations; 20 as individuals. There was a real split on the submissions that were received—some in favour; some against. It was really good for the committee to work through and iron out those details as they worked through the business of this legislation.

Let’s be really clear: this bill is about reducing firearms crime in New Zealand and the impacts it has on the community, by enabling firearm prohibition orders to be made and monitored against the wider group of persons whose behaviour and actions pose a high risk of violence. I commend the bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Firearms Prohibition Orders Legislation Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 68

New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 49

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Tana.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Courts (Remote Participation) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Minister for Courts): I seek leave to present a legislative statement on the Courts (Remote Participation) Amendment Bill.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Leave has been sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is none. That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

Hon NICOLE McKEE: I move, That the Courts (Remote Participation) Amendment Bill now be read a second time.

I’d like to begin this speech by talking about the select committee. I’d like to thank the chair and the members of the Justice Committee and take the opportunity to wish the chair a happy birthday today. I’d also like to acknowledge and thank all of the people who have been involved in this work for their thorough consideration of the bill. I also want to thank the submitters who took the time to express their views on this bill.

At the Justice Committee, 16 written submissions were received from interested groups and individuals. Four of these submitters also made oral submissions. The submitters raised many useful points, some of which I expect the Ministry of Justice will consider as part of the first-principles review of the Courts (Remote Participation) Act. Submitters were largely in favour of the changes in the bill and the continued use of remote participation in the courts. Some submitters raised concerns about the use of audio links and remote participation more broadly. I am confident that the existing safeguards in the Act and the new safeguards in the bill will ensure that the use of remote participation is in line with the principles of natural justice and will uphold the rights of parties. The Justice Committee has not recommended any changes to the bill. This reflects the targeted nature of these amendments. More substantive suggestions for change were made by submitters; however, these were beyond the policy intent of the bill.

I’d just like to touch briefly on why this bill is needed. This bill is returning to the House and it signals another step towards fulfilling the Government’s commitment to enable more remote participation in court proceedings. This work forms part of the Government’s core priorities to restore law and order. As we know, our courts are under pressure and delays in court processes have a significant impact on court participants, particularly those who are vulnerable. The drivers for these delays are complex and have been exacerbated by events such as the COVID-19 pandemic.

This Government is committed to improving court performance and access to justice so that people can move on with their lives faster. The greater use of remote participation can help us to achieve this goal. In addition, justice sector agencies and the judiciary are continuing to work on a wide range of other initiatives to address delays. This includes improving case management, reducing adjournments, and providing for same-day sentencing.

What this bill does, in order for me to remind the listeners at home watching, is it makes three discrete changes to improve and clarify the legislation governing remote participation in court proceedings. Two amendments are to the Courts (Remote Participation) Act and one is to the Criminal Procedure Act. Firstly, the bill gives victims and their support person the option to observe criminal trials and sentencing remotely instead of in person, if suitable technology is available and a judicial officer or court registrar considers this to be appropriate. This gives victims a safer and easier option to attend these hearings, as it enables them to avoid the stress and the potential for re-victimisation and intimidation of attending court in person. Victims may also benefit from reduced travelling time and those associated costs. However, I anticipate that some victims will still want to attend in person and, importantly, they are still able to do so if they wish.

The second change allows for the use of audio links, such as telephone conference calls, for appropriate court proceedings. Audio links will not be used in criminal proceedings that defendants attend, because it is critical to the delivery of justice that defendants can engage effectively in proceedings that affect them. Likewise, proceedings under mental health legislation that will determine whether a person needs to be compulsorily detained and treated cannot be held using audio links if the person is required to attend the hearing. The use of audio links will increase the number of people able to participate remotely. Many people in the community who are involved in court proceedings may not have access to audiovisual technology. With this change, they will still be able to avoid the time, cost, and effort of travelling to court for short procedural hearings.

The third change makes permanent what was a temporary amendment to the law during the pandemic. That change clarified that remote participation in criminal proceedings and remote observation by the media and the public are consistent with the principle of open justice. Open justice enables public scrutiny of criminal proceedings and promotes public understanding of and public confidence in the criminal courts.

These changes together strike the important balance between providing more efficient and accessible ways to participate in court proceedings, fair trial rights, and the fundamental constitutional principles of judicial independence. The bill maintains judicial control over the use of remote participation in courts and recognises that it will not always be appropriate or possible for technology to be used in some court proceedings.

The first-principles review that’s being undertaken is a review of the Courts (Remote Participation) Act. This review aims to identify a clear, enduring regulatory framework that will enhance access to justice, promote efficiency, and enable more remote participation in court proceedings without compromising the interests of justice. The Ministry of Justice will be engaging with the judiciary and other agencies as the review progresses.

In conclusion, the Courts (Remote Participation) Amendment Bill is one step towards our wider goal of enabling more remote participation in court proceedings. Passing the bill is part of the Government’s third quarter action plan for New Zealand. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Mr Speaker. First of all, I suppose I should wish James Meager a happy birthday. He’s had a tough morning, so I thought it’d be appropriate.

Look, I recall when this came to first reading. We supported it then and we support it now, but we did it cautiously and we remain—well, I certainly remain—cautious about how we use technology in the courtroom. Having said that, of course it is a very powerful tool, and we know through our annual reviews and more widely that the courts are groaning under the weight of their workloads. The last Government and this Government are working on moving cases more quickly through the courts, particularly the family and criminal jurisdictions, but across the entire court framework, and I absolutely commend that.

I do think that we need to think in a principled way about the use of technology and particularly remote participation in the courtroom. It is actually quite interesting that in terms of the actual utility of looking at someone face to face to tell whether they are telling lies or not—whether they’re trustworthy or not—all of the evidence says it’s one of the most unreliable factors. Nevertheless, we still have a strong sense that important parts of legal proceedings should be done in person.

In terms of the criminal aspect, which is the one, of course, that I was most concerned with, there’s kind of two aspects to it. First of all, it can only occur in proceedings where the defendant is not required—procedural matters where the defendant is not required to attend. That could be scheduling, it could be evidential matters, could be any range of proceedings. But the really important second thing is “and the defendant … [doesn’t want] to attend”.

Any defendant who wants to attend a criminal proceeding is entitled to attend, so they can go and do things which are really important, like listen to their lawyer talk to see whether they think they’re of a reasonable quality; look at the judge and try and understand what the judge is thinking or which way they’re leaning. They’re all really important things for defendants—and see the prosecution witnesses and advocates and what have you as well. Having said that, in terms of the criminal framework, it’s a relatively narrow exception in respect to those procedural matters.

In terms of enabling victims to participate remotely—that is to say, observe trials remotely—that’s a great innovation. The idea that a victim can essentially switch the proceeding off if they like is actually a really good thing, because for many victims it’s both cathartic and important and traumatising in equal measures to be part of that proceeding. It’s actually a really good innovation that they can do that. So absolutely concur with that.

In terms of making sure—and it’s a funny thing that anyone can walk into a criminal trial just out of a sense of a curiosity and watch it. But that’s actually a fundamental principle that justice—in this jurisdiction and largely around the world in developed nations—is done in public. Anyone can go and have a look, see what the charges are, what the evidence is, how the procedure goes, and actually be reassured, in doing that, that we have a robust and fair justice system. That’s a presumption across the justice system, not just criminal justice. There’s carve-outs for family law and other matters, but it’s actually a general presumption. Making it clear that open justice is both consistent with, and must be maintained in respect of, audiovisual, remote participation proceedings is also a really good thing.

It was a good committee process in the sense that we went through it, we listened to the various experts and submitters and essentially were reassured. I won’t trouble the House any longer, other than to say it’s a good step. This is what we should be doing wherever we can, working across the House to address things which might not be particularly exciting but are actually really important. Certainly, speedy access to justice for everyone fits within that category. Kia ora.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that that motion be agreed to.

TAMATHA PAUL (Green—Wellington Central): Ngā mihi, kia ora koutou. I rise on behalf of the Greens to affirm our support for the Courts (Remote Participation) Amendment Bill, because it makes a change that may result in criminal proceedings being less traumatising for victims going through the justice system, and may reduce travel time and travel costs for victims as well. More broadly, we support centring the needs of victims and survivors throughout the justice process.

It’s probably already been touched on throughout the debate already, but this bill allows victims and support people to remotely observe a criminal trial and sentencing if they wish to, and other criteria are met—for example, a judicial officer or court registrar does not determine that it is contrary to the interests of justice. This is likely to be better for some victims, less re-traumatising, and reduce travel times and costs and therefore accessibility. The bill allows the use of audio links, such as teleconferences for remote court proceedings and civil proceedings. These can only be used where the defendant is not required to and does not wish to attend the hearing. Finally, the bill makes permanent a change during COVID-19, which is to clarify that courts should be able to conduct hearings remotely or virtually and that this does not impact on open justice—as in, public—and the media can still observe those proceedings remotely.

This is really great, and begins to address the issue of court backlogs. We know that there are a significantly high number of cases backed up within the justice system, and backlogs can be really traumatising to victims. It is positive that the Government is making changes to try and reduce this backlog without infringing on the rights of defendants in the justice process. When looking into court backlogs, I found that 142,000 court events have been delayed because of the pandemic since March 2020. That is 142,000 out of 2.4 million appearances, such as sentencings, bail applications, and pretrial hearings. Court backlogs can cause significant distress to survivors. One survivor of sexual violence, Rosie Veldkamp, said that as a result of the delays, she felt like giving up on her case. She said, “My mental health was getting worse. I was just always upset and honestly felt like it was never going to happen.” This point was echoed by independent victims’ advocate Ruth Money, who said, “The trauma involved in waiting for a trial or waiting for a sentencing, or even a bail hearing—it distracts you.” So, yeah, anything that can improve outcomes for victims, we support that.

In the Strengthening the Criminal Justice System for Victims survey report, they found that 77 percent of victims in a 2018 survey disagreed or strongly disagreed that victims’ views, concerns, and needs are listened to throughout the justice process. But the big thing that I want to focus on is the way that this bill might improve one aspect of the justice system, for victims navigating the system. There are ways that we can make trauma-informed adjustments to our courtrooms to protect and uplift the mana of victim/survivors. In Backbone, a national coalition of survivors of violence against women in Aotearoa New Zealand—in their survey in 2017, 496 victim/survivors from Aotearoa New Zealand reported their experiences of family court proceedings. According to the guide, 58 percent of the survey participants said they had been threatened, intimidated, or physically assaulted by their abuser while attending court-related appointments or hearings. By including remote access, we will reduce the chances of this happening, if a victim/survivor chooses to participate remotely.

Trauma isn’t just present in a few unique or exceptional cases; it’s a pervasive theme running through our entire criminal legal system. By recognising that trauma and actively accommodating people who have experienced it, our courts have the potential to break cycles of harm in people’s lives and in our communities. In a quote from the Centre for Justice Innovation, the Chief Victims Advisor report to the Government in 2019 said that we could look to making changes to the physical layout of the courtrooms to increase security and protection of victim survivors. This could include creating safe, blocked-off waiting areas for survivors, as well as secure entrances and exits to courtrooms. Some survivors have called on the courts to implement totally separate facilities for victims in the courthouse, to keep them away from their perpetrator to prevent violent encounters or traumatisation. Some further suggestions for trauma-informed approaches to courtrooms include lowering the judge’s bench to not have it towering over survivors, having well-lit car parks, and warm, welcoming artwork. These suggestions can help make a courtroom be more inviting and less sterile to traumatised survivors. We want courtrooms to be safe places, particularly for victims, children, people who do not speak English, and people with disabilities, as has been recommended in Turuki! Turuki!, by the Safe and Effective Justice Advisory Group.

I want to finish off my contribution in the House today by talking about my own work that I’ve done supporting survivors of sexual violence. A few years ago, I supported a large group of women who had been victims of sexual assault and harassment by local musicians here in Wellington. When I was supporting those women, we talked extensively about what pathways they had available to them. They could either go down the legal pathway route and press charges, or there were other pathways working with different organisations that respond to harm and support survivors through their healing. Some of them chose to go down the legal pathway, but some of them also chose not to because they did not feel safe within the justice system, they didn’t want to participate in a system where they felt that the odds were stacked against them, and they felt that they wouldn’t be believed. Not all people who experience harm choose to take up a criminal proceeding against the perpetrator, and a big reason for that—and a core reason behind the #MeToo movement—is that victims often feel the justice system re-traumatises them. They feel that they will not be believed if they come forward. So any small steps that we can take towards making our justice system safer for victims are important steps. I commend this bill to the House.

JAMES MEAGER (National—Rangitata): Mr Speaker, thank you very much.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Happy birthday.

JAMES MEAGER: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Can I acknowledge all the well-wishers today—that’s probably about enough joy to be spread my way. I’d just like to spread a bit of joy to some of my friends who share a birthday today as well: to Jamie and James who are mini-me’s—sons of colleagues of mine who share my birthday—Richard Menzies; Charles Henley; Ollie Newton, who I went to university with; and my high school science teacher, Ian Willis; and Tim Costley’s sister—happy birthday to you all. What a great day—what a great day it is.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Something was in the water that year!

JAMES MEAGER: And I hear there’s an impromptu happy birthday later on. But this is a good, solid bill, supported across the House. It is traditional to thank the Justice Committee members for their hard work on this bill, so once again I’d just like to reiterate my thanks to Dr Webb, the Labour, Greens, Te Pāti Māori members for their constant constructive and supportive work on the Justice Committee, and also to colleagues on the Government’s side. Can I thank the 16, I think, submitters who made written submissions and the four who presented to us orally. Such is the nature of this bill that everyone was in favour and it is one which is well supported across the House. Can I just acknowledge the work of the Justice officials across both Parliaments who have worked on this bill also.

The bill does a couple of simple things: it continues a series of Government initiatives to try and modernise and speed up the court system, because, as the saying goes, justice delayed is justice denied. And one of the big issues we have in our justice sector is the delays felt through the court system. This will go one small way to doing that, so I congratulate the Minister for bringing the bill through the House. The other way that we will be achieving this is through Te Au Reka, which is the court’s digitising system, and the Justice Committee has an open briefing on that that we are going to be following as part of our own scrutiny plans.

Just finally, I’d like to touch on the fact that the bill has gone through without changes. It’s very difficult, as the chair of a committee whose job it is, to outline to the House the changes and the additions that were made to a bill when it comes back without any amendments. I’ll do my best just to briefly touch on some of the other submissions made by contributors. People did raise some concerns around the ability to roll this out across different courts and some of the resourcing that would be required. Some submitters said it didn’t go far enough, and actually we needed to improve the accessibility into the courtroom. I think that’s a fair point, because there are some physical constraints about our courtrooms that mean that some individuals still aren’t able to fully participate in the justice system. And I include things like wheelchair access for people who may want to be sitting on a jury and other such accessibility issues.

I think, in saying that, it’s a bill that’s well supported across the House. It will go some way to unclogging parts of our justice system. It will mean better protections for victims to participate in legal hearings without having to be physically present. So with that I would like to support the bill through to committee of the whole House stage and through the House. Thank you.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): The next call is a split call, which doesn’t look like it’s going to happen. So the next one on the bill is—oh, sorry. Apologies, the Hon Casey Costello—sorry if I jumped ahead into the future.

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Police): Mr Speaker, I’ve blended in with the furniture! I rise to speak on behalf of New Zealand First—

Greg O’Connor: In a cloud of smoke!

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: Oh, perfect! It won’t be, soon. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on behalf of the Courts (Remote Participation) Amendment Bill. New Zealand First believes in practicality. We support front-line efficiencies and we are about practical approaches, and this bill definitely offers a practical solution to reduce court delays and enhance the efficiency of the justice system.

I spoke last night regarding the impact of victims of crime and the power and control relationships that occur and the stresses of going through a justice system. I think it’s timely that we look broadly at all the opportunities that we have to reduce the stresses and pressures of a justice system. I think this is a step in the right direction to allow us to provide some alternative practical options as to how we have witnesses and victims not only participate in the court process but also view and watch.

Unfortunately, with the nature of the level of crime now, courts have become highly secure environments, and I think, as the member across the House said earlier, they’re not the easiest place to be or to visit or to be part of a court hearing. Just with the nature of the environment and the type of people, it does become onerous, especially if you don’t know the system that you’re entering into.

I think this bill provides a great opportunity to broaden the way in which we move forward using technology to our advantages, but particularly remove some of the constraints and delays that occur through a court process. Anyone who has been either a witness or on a jury or part of supporting an offender or any process that you go through in the court system, it is extremely stressful and torturous when you go to the hearing and, for a variety of reasons, court hearings get deferred and delayed, and you have to go through the process repeatedly. Having worked on court escorts in my past, where you’re transporting people to and from the court, there is nothing more frustrating than when you have had a defendant who was in custody have to sit in the court cells for a long period of time, only to have the hearing deferred, then transport them back. It is an unpleasant environment for everybody involved. Any opportunity to reduce the risks and the pressures on both defendants in the court system should be welcomed, and I think this is an impressive step in that direction.

We have, as we’ve heard repeatedly today, a massive backlog. As we know, justice delayed is justice denied. This opportunity to look at ways of building up efficiencies in the system is impressive, but also the opportunity to be able to observe the court system and support an open justice system. I think this House has proven that an open access democracy is supported brilliantly through online participation—that people at home can observe without having to go through the process of coming into the House. I think that democracy has been well served by that. I think this is another step of ensuring that we can move forward with the times, using technology to our advantage and improving our justice outcomes.

New Zealand First believes in taking a pragmatic approach, and this is a pragmatic approach, ensuring that no one is excluded from court processes due to technological barriers. I appreciate that there will need to be some capital investment as we move forward to ensure that these standards are maintained and that systems are protected. We believe the bill maintains judicial discretion, ensuring that remote participation is used appropriately and does not compromise the fairness of court proceedings. The bill clarifies that remote hearings do not undermine the principle of open justice and ensures the transparency for the public and media.

By making permanent the temporary pandemic era provisions, the bill guarantees that remote hearings can continue without compromising the public’s right to observe justice being done. I think, as we move forward with technology, we can gain significant advantages and we can see—and I have visited custody units that use audio-video links well, and it is well received by defendants who are able to expedite their court hearing quickly. It was proven successful during the pandemic period and I think we can continue to build on this with the programme of work moving forward.

New Zealand First supports the bill to third reading, as it balances modernising court processes with safeguarding the rights of victims, defendants, and the broader public. It is a pleasure to have yet another piece of legislation that we have come together to support for the benefit of our communities and law and order generally. We commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): The next call is a split call.

TĀKUTA FERRIS (Te Pāti Māori —Te Tai Tonga): Tēnā koe e te Pīka. Tēnā anō hoki tātou. Aku kōrero mō tēnei pire ka tukua ki te reo Māori, nō reira mena kei te hiahia ētahi ki te whakarongo ki ēnei kōrero, meinga ko tō whakarongo ki te puare o tō taringa.

Ara ake nei au ki te tuku i ngā kōrero mō tēnei o ngā pire e kīia nei ko te Courts (Remote Participation) Amendment Bill, ngā whakaaro me te anga o Te Pāti Māori mō tēnei o ngā pire.

Tuatahi ake kei te tū tautoko a Te Pāti Māori me tāna e ōhākī ake nei, e oati ake nei kia tika ngā mōtika o te pārurenga i roto i ngā tikanga whakahaere i ngā kōti i tēnei whenua. Kātahi rā te whai tikanga hāpai tangata, te whai tikanga whakatika i te hē, me ēnei āhuatanga e riro mai ai te ngako o tēnei mea te tikanga ture i a te tangata.

Me te manaaki anō hoki i te hunga e aupēhia nei, e pēhingia nei rānei e te kaihara mā roto i ngā tikanga whakahaere o ngā kōti. Nō reira ka pai te kawe mai o tēnei o ngā ture.

Kia tiki atu au, tērā ētahi taha o te ngako o te whakaaro o tēnei ture kei te akiaki mātou o Te Pāti Māori i te Kāwanatanga kia whānui ake, ne, te kākano o tēnei o ngā ture. Arā ko taua kākano ko te āta whakatika i ngā hē o te whare o Te Tāhū o te Ture.

Me tā mātou mōhio kua roa, kua roa te whare o Te Tāhū o te Ture e pēhi nei, e ngaukino nei i runga i te iwi Māori. Kua roa tērā āhuatanga i roto o Aotearoa, kāore i tua atu i a Moana Jackson mā ki te whakamārama i ēnei āhuatanga. Mēnā e hiahia ana he paku wāhi kimi kōrero, rangahau, nama rānei hei atawhai, hei tiaki i a koutou i roto i tēnei mahi whakariterite ture mō te motu.

Nō reira kei te akiaki mātou i a koutou kia pānui, kia pānui i te whakatikatika i te huarahi o te ture. Kia hōrapa te whakatika i ngā huarahi o te ture, i te mea e mōhio pai ko tēnei mea, te kaikiri ā-whare, he āhuatanga kua roa, kua roa e noho nei i roto i ngā tikanga ture o tēnei kāinga nei, o Aotearoa.

Nō reira kia kaha rā ki a tātou i roto i tērā āhuatanga.

Hoki nei, kapo ake nei au i tēnei kōrero a tērā taha e mea ana ko te “justice delayed ko te justice denied”. Anā ko te iwi Māori ia e roa ana e tatari ana kia kite i te justice nō roto mai i tēnei Whare. Tukuna ki a rātou mā runga anō i te aroha o tēnei Whare. Me taku mōhio i tū mai tēnei Whare i runga i te aroha o te Māori, me tana kupu whakaae, whakamana i te Tiriti o Waitangi.

Nō reira kia hoki rawa mai taua āhuatanga, taua aroha ki roto ki ngā ture o tēnei Whare, tēnā pea ka ea haere te wāhi ki a tāua.

Nō reira kia wetekina nei ngā aupēhitanga kua roa e kaikiri nei i runga i te iwi Māori kia tika te takoto o ngā ture katoa e whai wāhi ai ngā mokopuna, ngā whakatipuranga i roto i ngā whakahaeretanga o tēnei motu, atu i te whare herehere, atu i te tukituki ki ngā pirihimana, atu i te noho ki ngā whare kōti.

Me taku akiaki anō hoki kia rite, kia rite te hanga o ēnei momo Whare ki te nuinga o te iwi ka tae atu ki a ia. Kua taetae au ki roto i ngā kōti o ngā rohe, hanga Pākehā tonu, Pākehā tonu te āhua o ngā whare katoa. Me ō rātou tikanga whakahaere, ērā āhuatanga. Engari mehemea ko te nuinga o te tangata ka tae atu ki ērā whare he Māori, kia Māori mai te āhua. Kia whakaahua atu i te wāhi ki te Māori, ā, i te wāhi ki te Pākehā i roto i tēnei mea, te whakahaere i tēnei o ngā whenua e noho nei tātou.

Nō reira kāre au mō te tōwai i ngā kōrero, mō te tōroa rānei i ngā kōrero, engari kia hoki nei au ki tēnei kupu āku: kei te tautoko ake, ā, kei te akiaki i tēnei taha, tēnei taha tōna katoa, kia hōrapa haere te whakatika i ngā tikanga ture o tēnei Whare. Kei te tuku mātou i tēnei o ngā pire ki te Whare, tēnā rā tātou.

[Greetings, Mr Speaker, and greetings to us all. I will deliver my speech on this bill in the Māori language, so if anyone wishes to listen to these statements, I encourage you to put your earpiece in your ear.

I rise now to speak on this bill, known as the Courts (Remote Participation) Amendment Bill, and to share the views and position of the Māori Party on this bill.

First, the Māori Party supports this bill and its commitment to ensuring the rights of victims are upheld in the judicial processes of our courts in this country. This is essential to upholding human dignity, correcting wrongs, and ensuring that the essence of this thing, of justice is available to all. And also to care for those who are oppressed, suppressed or harmed by offenders through the judicial processes. Therefore, we welcome this legislation.

I would like to highlight that there are aspects of the intention of this bill that we, the Māori Party, encourage the Government to expand on, right, the seed of this legislation. In particular, that seed is to focus on addressing the systemic issues within the Ministry of Justice.

We know that for a long time, the Ministry of Justice has oppressed and mistreated the Māori people. This has been an ongoing issue in Aotearoa, and no one has explained this more clearly than Moana Jackson and others, if you are seeking information, research, or statistics to assist and protect you in the preparation of this legislation for the nation.

So, we urge you to examine and amend the paths of the justice system. Let these amendments be widespread, as we know well that institutional racism has long been a part of the justice system in this home of ours, New Zealand.

Therefore, let us be strong in addressing this matter.

I want to echo this statement from the other side that “justice delayed is justice denied.” And Māori have been waiting a long time to see justice from this House. Let it be delivered to them with the compassion of this House. I know this House was founded on the compassion of the Māori people, with their assent and authorisation of the Treaty of Waitangi.

Therefore, let that characteristic, that compassion, return to the legislation of this House. Perhaps then, the balance can be restored for us all.

So let us dismantle the longstanding oppression and racism that has burdened the Māori people, so that all laws are just and fair for our grandchildren and future generations to ensure that they can participate in the governance of this country in ways other than in prisons, clashes with the police, and sitting within the court system.

I also urge that these institutions be shaped to reflect the majority of those who come into contact with them. I have visited courts in different regions, and they all are very Pākehā, in their appearance and their procedures. However, if the majority of those entering these courts are Māori, they should reflect the Māori people. It should represent both the Māori and Pākehā presence in the governance of this land we live on.

So I do not wish to repeat any comments nor prolong my speech, but I return to this point of mine: we support this bill, and we urge this side, this side in its entirety, to make broader corrections to the judicial processes of this House. We commend this bill to the House, and thank you all.]

HŪHANA LYNDON (Green): Kia ora. Tēnā koe, otirā tēnā koutou katoa i roto i tēnei ahiahipō. He tū tēnei mai i te Rōpū Kākāriki ki te tautoko, nō reira me reo Māori ahau i tēnei wā kia whai ahau i taku tūngāne, i a Tākuta, ki roto i tēnei tū whai āhua me te pire e pā ana ki te Court (Remote Participation) Amendment Bill.

Tāku e kite nei, tēnei mahi a te kōti he mea whakamātautau, he mea whakawā i te hunga Māori. Āe, ko te nuinga ko te Māori. Anō ko te hunga e patua ana i ētahi wā he Māori tonu. Ko tētahi o ngā raru kua kite tonu ahau i roto i Te Taitokerau, he tawhiti rawa te wāhi kāinga o te whānau i ngā whare kōti.

Ki roto i Kaitaia, Te Hiku, tētahi ki roto i Te Kaikohekohe, anō ki roto i Tākiwira me Whāngarei. He tawhiti rawa mō wētahi. Nō reira tēnei pire he mea pai mō Te Taitokerau kia noho te whānau ki te tautoko i tō rātou tangata e kōrero ana ki te kaiwhakawā me te kore e mataku.

Anō, mō te hunga kōrero, te hunga kaikōrero, kia whai pānga ki roto i ēnei mahi kia kōrero mā runga ipurangi kia whai wāhi, kia whai reo rātou ki roto i ngā whakawākanga a te kōti anō.

Tāku e whakaaro nei e pā ana ki tēnei pire, kua rite, e rite ana ngā kōti mō tēnei tirohanga hou, tēnei mahi hou ki roto i te kōti. Anō ko te pūnaha; kua rite te pūnaha mō tēnei tū whai āhua hou. Koia tētahi o ngā pātai e tautoko ana au i taku whaea, a Casey Costello, me ōna āwangawanga kei te rite te kōti mō ēnei mahi hou.

I roto i te wā o te mate Korona, e kitea ana ko wētahi o te nohoanga a te kaiwhakawā ki runga ipurangi. I pērā mātou ki roto i te Kōti Whenua Māori, e pērā tonu ana. Ka noho te whānau ki mua i te kaiwhakawā mo ngā take whenua nei, nō reira kua tae ki te wā ko tēnei tētahi pire e taea ai e te whānau te tautoko, ki te whakawaha i ā rātou kōrero ki mua i te kaiwhakawā.

Rau mano tāngata, rau mano tāngata ki roto i Te Taitokerau e hanga tōmuri ana nā tēnei mea, te mate Korona, anō mō te noho ki te whakawā ki roto i te kōti. Nō reira mai i tēnei ture hou e taea ai e ngā kaiwhakawā, me kī ngā whānau, te whakatutuki i te noho tahi ki roto i te kōti kia oti katoa ngā herenga ki te kōti. Me taku whakapae ko te hiahia kia tuku te Māori kia haere te Māori ki te mahi i tāna mahi kia kore he here ki roto i tēnei ture a te Pākehā, anō ki roto i te ture a ēnei o ngā kōti.

Tētahi atu kaupapa kua kite ahau ki roto i wētahi o ngā rangahautanga, te rangahau, te tangata taea ki roto i te kōti, kātahi ka mataku i te mea ka kite rātou i te nanakia, i te tangata i tūkino i a ia. Nō reira ko tētahi mea nui ki a au, i te mea kua kite au i ētahi whānau, kahore rātou e puta ki roto i te kōti mō te nohoanga nā te mataku. Tēnei mea te noho ā-ipurangi nei, ka taea e te whānau me te tangata te whakapuaki kōrero ki mua i te kaiwhakawā kia kore rātou e mataku.

Anō mō te whānau tautoko, tērā pea ka noho te whānau tautoko ki roto o Muriwhenua. Kahore rātou e wātea ana ki te tae ki roto o Whangārei nā te kaha tawhiti, nā te nui o te utu, engari i taea e rātou te noho ki runga ipurangi ki te tautoko i tō rātou whānau, te tangata, aha raini.

Mō te mahi tahi ki te rōia. Ēnei rōia whai rawa nei, e awhi ana, e mahi ana ki wō tātou whānau, taea e rātou te noho tahi ki te whānau ki te tutuki i ēnei mahi mā runga ipurangi kia iti tonu te utu.

Nō reira koia ahau, te Rōpū Kākāriki, e tautoko ana i tēnei wā. Kia ora.

[Greetings. Hello to you, and also greetings to everyone here this evening. This is a speech from the Green Party in support, so I will speak in Māori at this time to follow my brother, Tākuta, in this stance on the Court (Remote Participation) Amendment Bill.

As I see it, the work of the court is to test and judge Māori people. Yes, the majority are Māori. Even those being harmed at times are also Māori. One of the issues I continue to see in Te Tai Tokerau is how far away family homes are from the courthouses.

In Kaitāia, Te Hiku, one in Te Kaikohekohe, and another in Dargaville and Whangārei. These are all too far for some people. Therefore, this bill is a positive move for Te Tai Tokerau, allowing families to support their loved ones as they speak to the judge without fear.

Additionally, for those who speak, for the speakers, it provides an opportunity to participate in these proceedings online, allowing them to have a voice in court hearings.

In my view, regarding this bill, they are ready, the courts are ready, for this new perspective, this new approach within the court system. Also, the system; the system itself is prepared for this new way of doing things. That is one of the questions, and I support my elder, Casey Costello, and her concerns about whether the courts are truly ready for this new method.

During the time of the coronavirus pandemic, we saw judges holding hearings online. We experienced this in the Māori Land Court, and it continues. Families sat before the judge to address land matters, so now it’s time that this bill allows families to support and present their cases to the judge.

Thousands of people, thousands of people in Te Tai Tokerau, have experienced delays due to the coronavirus, including delays in court hearings. So with this new law, judges, as well as families, will be able to come together in court and fulfil all the obligations. I would say that the desire is to allow Māori to go about their work without the constraints of this Pākehā law, or the law of these courts.

Another issue I have observed in some research is the fear some people have in court when they see the rascal, the person who harmed them. Therefore, one important aspect for me is that I have seen families who do not appear in court for their hearing because of fear. This ability to participate online allows families and individuals to speak before the judge without fear. 

Furthermore, for the support of families, it may be that the supporting family members live in Muriwhenua. They might not be able to attend in Whangārei due to the distance or the cost, but they could participate online to support their family member or whoever it may be.

Regarding working with lawyers, these well-resourced lawyers who support and work with our families could sit with them to address these matters online with less cost involved.

So that is why I, on behalf of the Green Party, am in support at this time. Thank you.]

CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour): It gives me great pleasure to rise in the second reading of the Courts (Remote Participation) Amendment Bill, and it’s great that uniformity and support has broken out on this Government bill across the House and around the House, Minister Watts. It’s great to have Minister Watts and Minister Bayly here to witness this historic moment, where everyone is in support of a Government bill.

Thinking back and looking back on where this has come from, let’s have a look at the New Zealand Herald story “Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith on reducing court delays as Government key priority” The first opening line of this New Zealand Herald story in January: “Justice delayed is justice denied: 500 days for a jury trial, 18 months for victims of serious crime for their day in court.”—and wait for it—“The new Government is taking a laser focus on improving the timeliness of the system.” The New Zealand Herald, by an objective journalist. We are delighted that that laser focus is turning now into a Government bill, it’s got its second reading, and it has support around the House.

And just to reiterate the key features of this: this is where, going forward, the justice ministry and our court system are going to use audiovisual technology, where appropriate, to ease the pressure that we’ve talked about extensively this afternoon on courts and increase access to justice. It means more options for attending court for victims and other participants such as lawyers. The proposed measures—and this is an important one; I know it’s very important to Rima Nakhle, who is our number one advocate for victims on our Justice Committee—will also help reduce the risk of victims being intimidated or revictimised, which can happen, as we know, and examples have been given when they are having to attend court in person.

The Justice Committee has worked very diligently and conscientiously under the leadership of Justice—James Meager—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): He got promoted for his birthday!

CAMERON BREWER: Well, the only way we’re going to get him out of Rangitata is to promote him! I commend the second reading of this bill to the House.

GREG O’CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): Thank you, Mr Speaker. One of my myriad duties as the member of Parliament for Ōhāriu, Assistant Speaker, and many other jobs I have here, is I’m also the Labour spokesperson on courts, so it gives me great pleasure to take this opportunity to examine this piece of legislation and to do so in what would appear to be a climate of agreement.

However, I am particularly reflecting on the comments of the last speaker, Cameron Brewer, that this is a relatively simple bill that does bring changes to the system—I don’t think anyone would actually doubt that. I don’t think it’s going to quite have the impact of turning the justice system from being the quite sluggish, very slow system it is now—a very careful use of words—to something that is going to race our defendants and speed justice up, because it simply won’t do that. But what it will do is ensure, particularly looking after our victims, to give them some opportunities to be heard elsewhere.

Before I go into the further details, I think it’s an important thing to remember about the core of our justice system, and Mr Meager will know that as a lawyer, the number one court or the registrar’s court—it has different names these days, but it’s actually the entry point into the justice system, and it’s a very important part of it. In each town and city there is this court where, when you run foul of the law or you need the assistance of the law, things are channelled through this place and we have a judge who sits there, so there’s an understanding of the equality of the system so that everybody gets access to the system.

You’ve got to be careful about introducing remoteness to the system whereby things can be done in different places, because once you do that, justice can become different things to different people. While I’m very much in favour of these provisions of this bill, I think we should go to amendment 3, which is clarifying the relationship between virtual participation and open justice. Now, obviously this was brought about and the Labour Government brought this in during the COVID pandemic, which certainly accelerated—as the pandemic did in so many of our professional lives or lives in anything—the use of audiovisual, of video, and words like “Zoom” entered into our lexicon.

It was a great opportunity for us to start to understand the opportunities for this, but anyone who’s ever worked on a computer project—and I’m sure Mr Bayly in his business life has seen computer systems being introduced, online systems being introduced that are going to change the whole way we do business. We were going to go paperless and we were going to become so efficient. I personally remember INCIS as being this system—actually, many of these provisions weren’t that much different, because all of a sudden, this is way back in the 1980s, we were going to introduce this system into justice that was going to include courts, include our judges, include our prisons, include everybody, so you would only ever enter a name once. You’d arrest someone on Courtenay Place on a Saturday night, enter their details, drop them off at the watch house, and that was the last anyone would ever have to enter another detail. Well, it never quite happened that way. I think the INCIS mainframe was last seen weighing down a yacht out in the middle of Cook Strait somewhere, and that was where it all ended up.

But seriously, I’ve seen many attempts over the years, and not only in the justice system but in many places, where we are going to solve everything with technology. Well, that’s fine, but often the people who introduce the technology are not the people who actually understand the business on either side. So never lose sight of—while we’re seeking to go online to use better technology—what the nature of our business is, and the nature of our business is to ensure that people receive justice—the justice being the criminal who comes into the system, the defendant, that they have the justice.

A lot of that is ensuring that they’re actually seen by a real person at some stage, and so I’d hate to ever see the system where—and I see already Mr Meager mentioned Te Au Reka. I’m pleased to see you’ve had a briefing on that; it’s going to be a system where everybody will be online, the lawyers will be online. Good luck with that, with getting defence lawyers online, I’ll say. It was hard enough getting the judges to even have a laptop on their desk when this was first being mooted. In fact, I was just very recently talking to someone who’s a judge’s assistant and whose job was actually to do everything, to actually turn the computer on, the lot, for one of these judges—hopefully, a judge long since retired.

I know that getting everybody online into a system—and this comes back to the point of this bill, and I know the Speaker in the Chair will be looking for me to do that, which is to make sure that when we do start to put everything online, there is someone in the system that they will actually see, and they will understand that there are real people involved in this, and that our witnesses, when they do come to court—and we talked about victims. I know the member from the Greens Tamatha Paul talked about victims. Victims should be at the centre of our court system, but actually don’t assume too much about victims, because, having dealt with a lot of victims, going to court is an important part of the process for them. A lot of our victims actually do like to sit in the back of the court and actually see the defendant standing there in the dock, justice being meted out to them. So don’t ever make assumptions. What really worries me is that the more online we get, the more we will take that centre-point of the District Court, of the High Court, out of the system. So all of a sudden, everything has been done online.

Going back to what I said before, and I’m being a little bit cynical; probably know too many defence lawyers myself who I just—good luck trying to get them online.

James Meager: Let’s not go back; let’s look forward.

GREG O’CONNOR: Some of your compatriots maybe, I’m sure, Mr Meager—you’ve sat in the court. Good luck trying to get some of those people to actually be able to do all their business online. The other thing, too: as soon as you go into that, you also get some security issues. Go back to this issue where witnesses and people at home can be sitting and observing parts of the court process that actually may not be able to be made public; they may be suppressed. Even that information all of a sudden is going to be online, ensuring that we’re going to have that.

Going back, from listening to me, you might think I’m totally opposed to this. I’m not. This is very good, but don’t think this is any more than what it is. It’s a relatively simple bill that actually does ensure that we’re able to utilise the technology, but without changing the nature of our business.

I see right through the process, too, anyone who’s had the opportunity—and I really commend everyone in the House to take the opportunity to go to one of the new specialist courts, because actually the specialist courts are going the other way. I was lucky enough to be in the wonderful Palmerston North and looking at what they do with the family violence court.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Great town.

GREG O’CONNOR: Now, each of us will have somewhere in our jurisdiction, a court. The drug courts are another one. Now, these are more specialist courts. Instead of having this conveyer belt of people going through the justice system, they were actually able to take a little more specialisation. One of these specialisations is the family violence court. Actually, they’re shaped differently, but the essence of it is that it’s much more personalised. It’s important that the defendant, in this case, is actually in the room with the judge, with the lawyers, and with all those others involved in the system.

While we’re doing this, we’re actually moving to another system. The drug courts are actually the same thing. Again, go to the drug courts. Those of you in Auckland—I understand there’s one opening in Hamilton if it hasn’t already—there’s one in Auckland City and one out at Waitakere. Well worth a visit because you’ll actually see another way that justice is being administered. I was lucky enough to be there when we had three of the people who had been through the courts actually graduating. As a bit of a cynical old detective, I had my doubts when I went in there. You know, it’ll obviously be—statistics over the years; we’ll see how it works. Certainly I’m convinced there is another way, but the other way wasn’t moving online. The other way, and what I was able to observe there, was actually there was more personal involvement in it.

So while, yes, let’s use our technology; yes, use this—and I look forward to Te Au Reka. I do note that Te Au Reka has had a considerable reduction in its funding. While we’re going to go online, the funding is not going—well, in fact, $31 million less funding for courts this year. While we’re going to be making these advances—[Interruption] Laptops cost money—I don’t know if you know over there: to go online, it’ll cost money.

I could speak longer about this. It’s a topic near and dear to my heart. I do recommend this, and I believe that it’s something that is the start of an issue, but let’s not forget what justice is about; what the court system is about. Thank you.

RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini): It’s a pleasure to rise and speak in the second reading of the Courts (Remote Participation) Amendment Bill. Before I get into the nitty gritty of this bill, I would also like to say happy birthday to our excellent chair of the Justice Committee, James Meager, who received a lot of lovely support around the Justice Committee today.

I’d also love to say to my mother: happy birthday, Mum. Behibbik kteer ummi. I love you so much. I’d also like to say a happy birthday to my niece Silia, happy birthday to my sister Nagewa for tomorrow, and happy birthday for Rima Luti two days ago.

Getting back to this bill, as I am surrounded by a number of Ministers, and talking about this bill to these Ministers—the Minister of Climate Change over here, Simon Watts, the MP for North Shore. I know there’s a climate of change coming with respect to remote video access for our courts. As I’m surrounded by the Minister of Statistics, Andrew Bayly, I know the statistics of completed court cases in a certain time frame may well change for the better. I’m surrounded also by the Minister for Land Information, Chris Penk, and the information in the departmental report is that this will help victims. So anything to get our justice system back on track—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): But is it their birthday? That’s what we want to know. Continue.

RIMA NAKHLE: Anything to get our justice system back on track. I—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): Back on track—back on the bill. Back on the bill.

RIMA NAKHLE: —commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): The next call is a split call.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Now, I’ve spent a lot of time in this Chamber this week, and I can tell you I have not been happy about it. There has been bill after bill just wanting to destroy our environment, and it’s been an awful time for me, someone who cares about the environment and doesn’t want to increase pollution.

Here we are on Thursday afternoon, and we seem to be having a birthday fest. Happy birthday to Mr James Meager, the chair of the Justice Committee. I have to say I’m very pleased to be speaking on a bill that everybody agrees about, and can—

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Nobody cares about Freddy the Frog’s birthday.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: Aw! My colleague is saying that nobody cares about Freddy the Frog’s birthday, but I can tell Dr Ayesha Verrall that I care about Freddy the Frog every day of the year—

David MacLeod: Which one?

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: All the Freddies. All the Freddies, David MacLeod, all the Freddy the Frogs.

Right, happy birthday to James Meager, the chair of the Justice Committee, and well done to all members of that select committee, whether or not it is their birthday today or yesterday or sometime last week. Well done to them, too, for working through what my colleague has described as “quite a simple bill”. These are small changes, but they’re good for victims. They’re good for efficiency. So well done for having some common-sense legislation.

TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Look, this bill has been well traversed, and in the efforts to enable Mr Meager to celebrate his birthday more fulsomely, I’m happy to commend this bill to the House and get on with it. Thank you.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Well, kia orana, Mr Speaker—I wasn’t expecting to perhaps get to my call so quickly. I want to wish a happy birthday to Dua Lipa, who has got a birthday happening at the moment, and Mr Meager as well—in fine, fine company. I want to acknowledge the work of the committee that Mr Meager chairs, the Justice Committee, for the work that they’ve done around this bill.

It’s very clear that members on this side of the House will be supporting the bill’s second reading this afternoon. It’s one of those extraordinary situations where the actual report from the select committee is rather brief and the recommendation is unanimous, and that’s because it’s gone through that process without any amendments. To have that go through the process on a unanimous sort of point is something that we don’t get to see very often—

Hon Rachel Brooking: But we’d like to see more of it.

TANGI UTIKERE: —so I want to acknowledge the work around that—and we would like to see more of that, for good pieces of legislation.

I want to just touch on a few things. The courts spokesperson on this side of the House, for the Labour Party, Greg O’Connor, has talked about the fact that courts are a really important part of democracy here in New Zealand, and what’s really important is that there is an ability for those who are part of the democracy to be involved in the process—whether it’s as a defendant, whether it’s as a witness, whether it’s as a victim, whether actually it’s as a member of the public who may just want to go along and understand what is happening in their community. It’s really important that, when it comes to participation in courts around this country, it’s accessible for those that need to or want to be involved.

I know that Mr O’Connor spent some time in the fine city of Palmerston North last week, and I know that he took the opportunity to visit our local courthouse while he was there. Now, that gave an opportunity to not just appreciate the different logistical issues, I guess, that arise from time to time but the facilities that exist. Certainly, in our community—as you will know, Mr Speaker—we’ve had some changes in our local courthouse to reflect the changing times. Whether it’s the general layout, whether it’s the way in which the accessibility aspect is targeted, there have been some changes.

However, there are some aspects of the court system and structure where things haven’t changed, and it has taken quite some time for people to get on board as part of that. The reality, of course, is that as we move along and end up with technological change and advancement and innovation, it makes things a little bit easier to grasp and get on board with. I reflect that perhaps 10-odd years ago, it would be a very different approach if we were talking about the use of remote participation and what that might mean. I’d hazard a guess and suggest that you wouldn’t see someone on a screen beaming in to a courtroom, in that particular sort of phase of things.

One of the responsibilities that I’ve had, in a former role before coming here, was as a judicial justice of the peace. I’m very familiar with the insides of courtrooms and have conducted hearings via audiovisual links (AVL). There have been some limitations. I recall, actually, when I was dealing with an arrest matter in Palmerston North and the defendant was in the Levin police station, where there’s a requirement to, basically, sight the bail bond and the conditions that are signed. At that time, it wasn’t very easy to effectively discharge that duty—when you’ve got a defendant who is holding up a copy of the bail bond up against the screen, which is then being beamed down the camera through to courtroom number three in Palmerston North. With the introduction of this opportunity, there needs to be a guarantee that there are appropriate and adequate logistical resources when it comes to not just AVL but IT and the like, to ensure that it is a smooth process.

One of the fail-safes, I guess, in terms of this particular bill, is that it allows for the judicial officer—whether that’s a judge, a JP, a registrar, or someone else; a community magistrate, perhaps—who is making those decisions to still consider the interests of justice for all participants, particularly, actually, for the defendant, who may not have been convicted at that particular point in time, because, of course, the presumption of innocence is what is expected in this country. Knowing that a court registrar or a judicial officer still has the right to be able to, basically, pull the plug and not allow remote access is something that is to be protected and something that continues in this particular piece of legislation as well.

The interesting thing that often is kind of set to the side is the role that victims can play in court proceedings. One thing that this bill does is it provides an opportunity for victims to participate in proceedings on their own terms. They don’t have to be in the courtroom physically. They can, effectively, be beamed in, but don’t have to have all sets of eyes looking at them if they don’t want that. It doesn’t mean, of course, that for some victims that opportunity is removed—there is still that opportunity for victims, in addition to a victim impact statement. But, despite this legislation, it would still be open to a victim if they chose to front up in court and wanted to, whether it’s to deliver a victim impact statement or otherwise, in the presence of whoever is in the courtroom at the time—the opportunity for them. What’s pleasing, I guess, is that it’s not a default that suddenly all victims who will participate in this process will suddenly only have remote participation as their only choice.

Those that have been to courthouses around the country will know that many of the courthouses are quite different in terms of the infrastructure kit. When we look at the Taihape courthouse, it’s very different from the courthouse that’s located in Marton, which is very different to the courthouse that is located here in Wellington. And so what’s going to be important is ensuring that the infrastructure to allow remote participation, whether that be by audiovisual link or otherwise, is actually up to spec, because that also assists in ensuring that the nature of justice that is going to be available to those participants is not—there’s no risk there. It’s a pleasure to be able to support this bill. We look forward to its passage past second reading. I commend this bill to the House.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): It is a great day in this House. It is a great day because it’s James Meager’s birthday. It’s a great day because it’s Rima Nakhle’s mother’s birthday. It’s also a great day because we’ve reached unanimous support in this House. And, finally, it’s a great day because finally the courts are catching up to the rest of our society, and that is that technology can be used for court proceedings. This is a great bill, and I commend it to the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): This bill is set down for committee stage next sitting day. Members, the time has come for me to leave the Chair, and I note the excessive birthday wishes to Mr James Meager, so it must be his shout. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 27 August 2024.

The House adjourned at 5.55 p.m.