Wednesday, 28 August 2024

WEDNESDAY, 28 AUGUST 2024

WEDNESDAY, 28 AUGUST 2024

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Karakia/Prayers

Karakia/Prayers

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.

Petitions, papers, Select Committee reports, and introduction of bills

Petitions, papers, Select Committee reports, and introduction of bills

SPEAKER: There have been petitions delivered to the Clerk for presentation.

CLERK:

Petition of Consumer NZ requesting that the House pass legislation requiring a product repairability label on large and small domestic appliances and electronic devices

petition of Rochelle Zajko requesting that the House urge the Government to allow drivers to make right turns on to and off State Highway 2 between Ōmokoroa and Waihī and remove new median barriers that block access from State Highway 2.

SPEAKER: Those petitions have been referred to the Petitions Committee. No papers have been presented. A select committee report has been delivered for presentation.

CLERK: Report of the Privileges Committee on the Question of privilege concerning investigations of possible breaches of court suppression orders in parliamentary proceedings.

SPEAKER: No bills have been introduced.

Points of Order

Speaker’s Rulings—Parliamentary Privilege

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries): Sir, I wish to raise a point of order. Respectfully, I just want to traverse briefly what we covered off yesterday, because I note, on the list of questions, we’re going to see yet another question—No. 12—and I just want to seek clarification. Yesterday, you said it was not inappropriate to ask questions in the House on the general subject of a privileges complaint before the Speaker. You said that it would chill and undermine one of the key purposes of us as parliamentarians. You also recited the 38-year old ruling, Speakers’ ruling 230/4. You also said, sir, it is inappropriate for it to be raised in the House in any way whatsoever.

My problem, sir, is that we have another question today. Inevitably, it’ll traverse areas that you yourself are in possession of, and it’s extraordinarily difficult, given that’s a 38-year old ruling, to learn at 2 o’clock that we’re going to have yet more questions. Arguably, I would put to you, sir, it is going to undermine the opportunity for the person suffering your investigatory powers—and it undermines natural justice if we’re going to have ongoing questions that have the effect of denying my colleague an opportunity to put her side of the story without this place being turned into an echo chamber, which has the potential to influence your decision. That is not consistent with that Speakers’ ruling, sir.

SPEAKER: Well, God forbid that this should ever become an echo chamber.

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition): Speaking to the point of order, a member lodging a breach of privilege complaint against another member cannot then deny any member of this House the ability to question a Minister on a particular subject area that may have been related to a privilege complaint. I do want to be very clear here that at no point have any members of the Opposition referred to a breach of privilege complaint, the existence of a breach of privilege complaint, or the subject matter within it. The only people that have done so, so far, are Shane Jones.

SPEAKER: Yeah, no—that’s not necessarily helpful.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Speaking to the point of order—

SPEAKER: Before you speak, I’d like to make it clear that I made a ruling yesterday which clarified Speakers’ ruling 230/4. There would be only one member of the House who would remember the initial incident that led to that 230/4 being brought in by Speaker Wall, reiterated by Speaker Smith. It was entirely to do with the way in which a privilege matter can be dealt with. So a privilege matter should be dealt with by letter to the Speaker, and then consideration for referral. But it is also possible for members to lodge a members’ notice of motion around a privilege matter. What this ruling was intended to do was to make it clear that if one track had been followed, the other could not be followed at the same time. The concept of saying that if a privilege motion is placed before the Speaker, it, effectively, gags the House from discussing something that may well be easily or frequently discussed in the public arena, is inappropriate. That’s the ruling that came down yesterday. The reality is that all of the matters that have been discussed are part of the consideration that may or may not lead to a decision about it being a privilege matter.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Speaking to the point of order—

SPEAKER: I’ll take Carlos—

Ricardo Menéndez March: Ricardo.

SPEAKER: Ricardo Menéndez March—you wouldn’t like to change your name, would you?

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Musterer—Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Look, I would like to seek your guidance around the comments made by Minister Jones in relationship to this idea that we would come at 2 p.m. and find out, because my understanding is oral questions are published well before that.

SPEAKER: Well, thank you for that. I think—

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: So what would you recommend that members do when these issues arise at around, say, 11 a.m. rather than 2 p.m.?

SPEAKER: Yeah, look, you’re making a point that’s not particularly helpful in the discussion.

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries): I’m focused on the expression “in any way whatsoever”. A question posed by an Opposition member that has the effect of undermining natural justice is not consistent with the words in Speakers’ ruling 230/4: “in any way whatsoever”.

SPEAKER: Look, I have taken extensive advice on this and I disagree with you. “Any way whatsoever” means the means by which a privilege matter is put before the House. The other point I’d make is on the issue of natural justice. Perhaps that is also being served by the ability for an answer to be considerably more lengthy than a question.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Prime Minister

1. DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori) to the Acting Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his Government’s statements and actions?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Acting Prime Minister): Yes, in the context in which those statements were made.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Will he commit to abandoning New Zealand First’s ongoing policy to repeal or remove references to the Treaty from legislation, just as he has committed to voting against the ACT Party’s Treaty principles bill, which is essentially the same thing?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: My response to that is they are not essentially the same thing. We rely upon the expertise of a famous man called Ngata and, before him, a man who became the Deputy Prime Minister for many months called Carroll, very famous for being the first Māori to win a general seat as well, so much he was admired in this country. The second matter—

Hon Willie Jackson: Ugh!

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, you can yawn, Willie, because you don’t understand, but your mother used to. She was much brighter. She was much more intelligent. But, on the second matter, we have not resiled from the Treaty of Waitangi where it applies, but we’re not going to have—as we’ve seen since 1987 when five judges couldn’t work out what the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi were—that being decided by woke media or, dare I say it, woke academia and by younger Māori who don’t know what happened yesterday at all.

SPEAKER: This is a pretty serious matter. So some of the general groaning and other such goings-on from the other side of the House are not particularly edifying for public consumption. Can we have Debbie Ngarewa-Packer.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Kia ora. Does he agree with the statement made by his deputy principal—sorry, Deputy Prime Minister—on 20 August 2024 that “There are no principles of the Treaty of Waitangi—it’s a three clause document.”?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The reality is that those who have apprised themselves of the thesis upon which that is based, 102 years ago, understand precisely that matter—as do leading jurists like Judd, who is very, very clear on that matter—and will prevail in the end because it’s based on the facts, not fiction.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Does he believe that Te Tiriti o Waitangi is made up of principles or articles that assert Māori rights?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Most definitely the Treaty of Waitangi is based on articles which set out Māori rights to be preserved and looked after, and they’re as clear as daylight, as explained by the famous lawyer become politician, joined by famous doctors becoming politicians, Pōmare and Buck, when he set those articles out and explained them with precision, followed by Ngāti Porou and all Māori around this country, including Ngāpuhi, who are a very difficult group of people to try and get alongside any great academic debate. But even Ngāpuhi, the biggest iwi in the country, believe that as well, only to have it redefined by lesser minds in this Parliament.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Does he then accept that the current Treaty principles are a watering down of the rights guaranteed to Māori in the articles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi to allow Crown to avoid honouring the Tiriti o Waitangi itself?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Again, the member in her question discloses her innocence, so to speak, or unlearnedness on this matter. How can there be a set of principles when they were never defined in the articles and never defined by the expert Māori—at the time, the Māori chiefs who they now gainsay and say, “They didn’t know what they were signing up to.” That is not the truth of the matter. The reality is where the Treaty applies, it’ll be honoured. Where it does not—where it is a fiction made up of modern jurisprudential activism—it will not be honoured.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Does he agree with the international law principle that states, “Where two documents conflict, the indigenous-language text takes precedence.”?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: That would sound like a brilliant argument until you realise that if you’re talking conceptually about ideas and thoughts, then how the language is framed is critical. Much that was being said back in 1840, where the English language was concerned, was never in the Māori mind, either there or in the Pasifika, in terms of its comprehension or understanding. But it was explained at the time, and what that member is actually saying is, having it been explained to the chiefs, they knew far less than she, all these years later, understands.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: On what grounds does he believe that Māori ceded sovereignty to the Crown?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: As the learned Apirana Ngata set out—

Chlöe Swarbrick: Here we go!

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: —it’s in article 1—yeah, there I go, Chlöe, because he knows something and you know nothing about this issue. Your audacity knows no bounds. Here’s this person who ran for the mayoralty when she was a teenager, virtually. Thinks she could run the Auckland city as a teenager; now is laughing at Ngata. Well, you’re not laughing at him while we’re here.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Point of order—point of order.

SPEAKER: Point of order—

Ricardo Menéndez March: Mr Speaker—

SPEAKER: When you’re called. Ricardo Menéndez March.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Thank you. We’ve just heard you commenting on the groans from the Opposition in relationship to the answers from the Acting Prime Minister and how they were not edifying of this place. I would ask you to reflect as to whether the style of answers that the Acting Prime Minister is giving are edifying whatsoever of the conduct that we should expect here in Parliament.

SPEAKER: I will reflect on that. But, before I do so, I’d certainly offer an observation that comments such as the Acting Prime Minister just made come as a result of interjections from the floor—that’s always been something that’s been allowed in Parliament, and it won’t be changing now.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Sorry. Point of order, Mr Speaker. I offered the comment “Here we go!” I don’t think that quite so much opens the door to the personal reflections and attacks from the Deputy Prime Minister just then.

SPEAKER: I think you’d be pretty thin-skinned to say that was a personal attack. The second point I’d say is—[Interruption] That is a view that I’ve expressed in here. Remember that this is a dynamic environment. The second thing is that the statement “Here we go!”—it depends on the inflection in the voice and it could almost mean “I don’t believe you.” So I’m not going to take this any further.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Here we go. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Well, I’ll tell you what, Ms Ngarewa-Packer. Just wait for a few minutes while the House draws a bit of breath and gets itself ready to listen to your question. When you’re ready.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: And here we go. If he cannot determine on what grounds Māori ceded sovereignty to the Crown, what gives the Crown the right to overrule the courts to entrench the confiscation of 95 percent of our coastlines as admitted by his Minister of Justice?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: With the greatest respect, that is a total misrepresentation of the facts. But I’d remind that member that some of us were around when a person called Whina Cooper was so moved by the protests that we were raising about land being taken off us—that’s, namely, Ngāti Wai being taken off us by the Crown on the Whangārei County Council—that she said in 1975 at a meeting, “I know what I’ll do. I’m going to have a Māori land march.” When it was over, she said, “We signed the Treaty so that we could become one people.” I’m listening to her, not that member.

Darleen Tana: With all that he’s experienced and shared with rangatira, hapū, and iwi leaders of late, what does he make of the odds that Māori will relinquish any of their mana tuku iho, let alone be coerced into accepting customary marine title of the order of 5 percent?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I make of it that in 2004 and 2005, in consultation, the person you’re talking about is talking to you now with every coastal tribe in this country, including Ngāi Tahu. They agreed with the foreshore and seabed legislation. Every coastal tribe did. That’s what I make of it. Because back then they realised what a fair deal was.

Darleen Tana: Does he think that perhaps Māori should feel thankful since 5 percent is a 250 percent increase on what they’ve been given to settle with anyway?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: That’s a rather extraordinary statement from a member when you look at it. Māori have 50 percent of the fishing resource of this country. We’ve made enormous progress because back then people saw that we had to start at a lower level—it was about 20 percent at the start—but now it’s 50 percent. I must thank my colleague on my left, who headed the fishing industry, called Shane Jones. Here we have got people who’ve done the mahi, so to speak, not all talk.

Hon Shane Jones: Can he confirm that the proposal to restore the wording of the 2011 takutai moana legislation was actually the handiwork of the Māori Party kahurangi Tariana Turia and Dr Pita Sharples, in agreement with the then Minister of Treaty settlements, Christopher Finlayson?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Alas, I have to confirm that.

Question No. 2—Prime Minister

2. Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition) to the Acting Prime Minister: Does he stand by all of his Government’s statements and actions?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Acting Prime Minister): Yes, and in the strict context and with the full comprehension and understanding of how they were said in the first place.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Is the climate in a “crisis entirely of humanity’s making”, as claimed by the Secretary-General of the United Nations at a meeting in Tonga yesterday, or is that crisis only a result of longstanding weather patterns as implied by Winston Peters to Pacific leaders at the same meeting?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The reality is both are contributory; everyone knows that. For example, the advent of the volcano in Tonga was 10 times stronger in terms of climate change than anyone contemplated and to say that’s of no matter is just to ignore facts. But both statements are correct.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does he agree with Winston Peters that “carbon dioxide is 0.04 percent of the Earth’s atmosphere and of that 0.04 percent the human effect is 3 percent” or does he agree with the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Ltd (NIWA) that humans are responsible for 33 percent of carbon dioxide that is in the atmosphere now?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: With the greatest respect, I can’t think of anyone who agrees with NIWA on that matter worldwide.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does the Minister of Foreign Affairs travelling to the Pacific and questioning the scientific consensus on climate change enhance or diminish New Zealand’s standing and reputation in the Pacific?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No such thing has happened. In fact, of the 14 countries—

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Well, he just did!

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No—do you want the answer or do you want to shout out like an inexperienced leader? Do you want the answer? You going to keep quiet?

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: I’d like to get one. What are the odds I’m going to get one?

SPEAKER: Yeah, very good. Just carry on with the answer.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Of the 14 countries that I visited in a matter of months, every one of those countries has been grateful for our understanding of the matters of climate change, the financing of climate resilience projects. We launched, for example, one just the other day with respect to radar in Tonga. It followed very hard upon, of course, the most dynamic recovery of the Deep-ocean Assessment and Reporting of Tsunami (DART) buoy tsunami warning of 17 DART buoys, which were let to run down to the last one before an informed individual—you’re looking at him—realised what a disaster this was and all 17 are back in place now. And all those countries, all those 14 countries, have been enormously grateful for two things: for seeing somebody turn up for the first time for a very long, long time, and what we’re doing to help them.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Why does the Prime Minister believe that it’s OK for the Minister of Foreign Affairs to travel to the Pacific and question the science of climate change in front of leaders who, in some cases, are finding their countries literally sinking into the ocean?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Because nothing of the sort is happening. The reality is, when someone is giving an interview and makes a statement it has to be seen in its totality, not just grab one little phrase, a few words, and think “I’ll make a home run of that.” Now, look, if you were in a court of law, you’d never try that because you’re bound to fail every case.

Hon David Seymour: Was just now the first time that the Acting Prime Minister had heard in this House the assertion that, in fact, the sea level is not rising but the Pacific islands are sinking?

SPEAKER: That’s a question that the Minister has no responsibility for, nor any capabilities to scientifically answer.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does the Prime Minister agree with his Foreign Minister that “the biggest tsunami in recent times was 1968. There’s always climate change.”; if so, does he think that tsunamis are primarily caused by climate change or earthquakes?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: With respect, I don’t pretend—no one pretends here to be a scientist on this matter, but one has to listen to the science. And the second thing is it can be caused by a volcano; it can be caused by an earthquake. That’s why we got the DART buoys out there. By the way, could I tell Mr Seymour that, actually, in the Pacific about 25 percent of the islands are actually, in fact, rising, and the scientific outer space imagery proves that categorically. But, of course, they wouldn’t want to know that, would they?

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Is the Minister of Foreign Affairs’ refusal to acknowledge humanity’s contribution towards climate change a reflection of his Government’s abandonment of New Zealand’s emissions reductions targets?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The reality is nothing of the sort. When we were in the Pacific they were greatly concerned about the fiscal cliff the previous Government left. For example, they set out the forward financing with respect to climate change, but set the ceiling—or the end part—at 2025, not 2026/27/28. It’s as though this issue would be solved by 2025. That’s how naive they were.

Question No. 3—Public Service

3. GRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland) to the Minister for the Public Service: What recent reports has she seen about public sector pay increases?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister for the Public Service): Earlier this month, Stats NZ released the labour cost index for the June 2024 quarter. The labour cost index measures pure pay rises and doesn’t include wage increases that reflect a promotion, for example, or reward better performance at work. The June figures showed very different results for the private and public sectors. Over the past year, labour costs in the private sector have risen by 3.6 percent. Over the same period, however, labour costs in the public sector have risen far in excess of this, by 6.9 percent.

Grant McCallum: Is this a change from the usual trend?

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: What’s wrong with wage growth?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Public and private sector pay increases, for the benefit of Mr Hipkins—

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: I thought you hated wage growth.

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I love wage growth. What I am always conscious of is taxpayers funding public sector wage growth that gets out of step with the private sector. So, if the members would listen, public and private sector pay increases have tended to follow a roughly similar pattern over time. In the last year or so, however, they have diverged markedly. Private sector labour cost increases have started to tail off while public sector cost increases have rocketed upwards. I am advised that public sector pay increases are being driven by two main factors: the first is the result of pay equity claims, and the second is the effect of the public sector pay adjustment and other settlements agreed by the previous Government.

Grant McCallum: Is there a breakdown of these public sector pay increases?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Yes. For the purposes of the labour cost index, Stats NZ divides the public sector into industry groupings. Labour costs in public administration and safety, covering both central and local government administration, rose 5 percent over the past year. In education and training, they rose 7.5 percent. And in healthcare and social assistance, they rose a very substantial 10 percent over the past year. I’m advised that an annual pay increase of 10 percent for the health sector is the highest for any public sector industry grouping since at least 2002, when the Public Service Commission’s dataset began.

Grant McCallum: What is the Government doing to manage high wage growth in the public sector?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Earlier this month, the Government issued a workforce policy statement that sets out how public sector agencies, including Crown entities, should approach a range of workforce matters, like remuneration, negotiation of employment agreements, pay equity, diversity, data, and information. I should mention that the context for this workforce policy statement is that, unlike members opposite, this side of the House does not believe there is a magic money tree at the end of the garden. Government agencies should be delivering better public services to New Zealanders but also doing so in a way that is fiscally sustainable and respects the fact that they are funded from taxpayers’ money. The Government has, for example, set a clear expectation that future workforce costs, including collective bargaining and pay increases, will be funded from within existing agency baselines. My expectation is that public wage growth will start to level off as inflation settles within the band and as implementation of the workforce policy statement influences pay decisions and bargaining.

Question No. 4—Prime Minister

4. CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Co-Leader—Green) to the Acting Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his Government’s statements and actions?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Acting Prime Minister): As in the case of the first two answers to the identical question, the same answer applies now.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does he agree with the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs, who said—and I quote—“Do I believe in climate change? The answer is for thousands and thousands and thousands of years there has been climate change”, or does he accept the scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change?

Hon Kieran McAnulty: What did Ngata say?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Ha, ha! Well, see, what Ngata would have said was that—and you’ll see it in Samoa and you’ll see it in the Cook Islands—pre-European times, no one lived by the foreshore or on the lowlands. They lived as high as they possibly could, because over the centuries and down through millennia, there had been climate change—that’s my answer to that. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just wait till you get a bit of quiet.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does the Prime Minister accept the scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The reality is we have done our best to bring ourselves up to date constantly with the science on these matters. But I want to say to that member something, that you can laugh and scoff but when the Māori were in Christchurch before European times, they never lived where the earthquake happened. We ignored them at our peril. But here she is thinking that’s a laughing matter. And the same was with the Pacific Islands. Down through millennia, they understood there are times of danger with climate change and they never lived in the low part of the country—that’s all I was saying. But to turn that into some kind of climate denial argument is ridiculous. For example, it’s like Mr Hipkins—is he going to Tonga? Is he going to Tuvalu for his first leadership airfare? No; he’s going all the way to London to the Labour Party conference. That’s how much he cares about climate change in the Pacific. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: No, hang on. We are going to have silence while questions are asked.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Is the Government committed to doing its part to keep global warming below 1.5 degrees?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: For the umpteenth time, the Prime Minister in countless speeches—as has the Minister in charge of these matters in terms of the environment—countless times has said that, so I cannot understand why on earth, given the progress we’re making, that question is being asked here today.

Chlöe Swarbrick: Does he agree with comments from former Tuvalu Prime Minister Enele Sopoaga, who said, when speaking about this Government’s planned reversal of the oil and gas ban, “don’t forget that whatever you are going to do, it’s going to increase greenhouse gas emissions, which are going to sink the islands of Tuvalu and kill the people.”?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: What I can agree with is that present Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance have expressed their gratitude to New Zealand for the money that we have set aside in the present Budget for climate change resilience and the long-term survival of that country. They have been enormously grateful to us for us doing that—not just words but real action.

Question No. 5—Health

5. SAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga) to the Minister of Health What progress has been made in lifting immunisation rates for New Zealanders, particularly high-needs communities?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI (Minister of Health): In December, the Government announced an investment of $50 million over two years for Māori health providers to help lift immunisation rates, particularly amongst high-needs communities, children, and older people, who we know have especially poor vaccine coverage. Already we’re learning that this programme is delivering positive results. Preliminary data shows that for the lead provider organisation, its teams delivered 33,330 vaccinations up to 30 June 2024. That’s more than three times their initial target of 10,000 vaccinations. This is exactly the kind of investment in front-line services—managed and delivered locally—which we need more of, to help deliver on the targets we have set to get our health system back on track.

Sam Uffindell: How has the immunisation rate changed over the preceding decade, particularly for our most high-needs communities?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: It is a challenging state we’re in with regard to immunisation rates. Immunisation is one of the most important ways to protect New Zealanders against diseases such as influenza, whooping cough, and measles. However, since 2017 total immunisation rates for all children at 24 months have dropped from around 93 percent to 81 percent at the end of last year. That is a decrease of roughly 12 percent. Māori rates have dropped by around 26 percent from 2017. We need to do better. Over the years, we’ve seen a lot of talk about supporting vulnerable communities which hasn’t, clearly, resulted in better outcomes. This Government will change that because we’re committed to doing better for all New Zealanders.

Sam Uffindell: Why did the Government prioritise this investment?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: As I said earlier, immunisation is one of the most important ways to protect New Zealanders against preventable diseases, so investment in immunisation will always be a top priority for this Government. This investment reinforces our commitment to get immunisation resources and funding as close to the front line as possible. Improving vaccination rates will also contribute to a range of health targets, including helping reduce emergency department wait times by preventing New Zealanders from becoming seriously ill.

Sam Uffindell: What role do targets have in improving health outcomes for New Zealanders?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: We want the health system to do better across the board. In recent years, immunisation rates for children have dropped, people are facing long delays accessing cancer treatment, emergency department wait times have risen, as have wait times for first specialist assessments and elective treatment. Performance against these has been well below acceptable for some time. That’s why we have put health targets back at the forefront of our decision making. We believe that targets help direct attention and resources to where they are most needed. Targets also provide the accountability and transparency that the system needs to ensure it is delivering timely access to quality healthcare, because that is what New Zealanders need.

Question No. 6—Finance

6. Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) to the Minister of Finance: Does she agree with Nicola Willis, who, prior to the 2023 election, said, “For many people, things feel so bleak that they are looking at opportunities overseas and voting with their feet, with almost 40,000 Kiwis permanently leaving the country last year”; if so, why did 80,000 Kiwis move overseas in the year up to June 2024?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): I agree with Nicola Willis’ full quote from 2023, which was “Labour has mismanaged and vandalised the economy on a scale unlike anything we have seen in recent history. Government spending is up 80 percent—$1 billion a day more than 2017. The current account deficit is the largest in the OECD. The economy has been anything but well managed. For many people, things feel so bleak that they are looking at opportunities overseas and voting with their feet”. To the second part of the question, the member is referring to two different measures, so her comparison is misleading.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Are Kiwis leaving in record numbers because, as Alan Pollard, Chief Executive of Civil Contractors New Zealand put it, “unfortunately, our business is largely downsizing, downscaling, putting off staff and parking up equipment because they don’t have that confidence going forward.”?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, as has been traversed in this House several times, we have inherited an economy that was vandalised and mismanaged by our predecessors. This was characterised by a free-wheeling big spending Government that pumped inflation into the economy, left the Reserve Bank in a position of having to hike interest rates very high. That has had a sad effect on our economy, and I am pleased that good managers are back in charge and that inflation and interest rates are coming back down.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Are Kiwis leaving in record numbers because, since she took office, there are 5,000 fewer jobs in manufacturing and 8,000 fewer jobs in construction?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, that question doesn’t even make sense. She’s linked two things in a way that I think, if she reflects on the question and looks at it grammatically, doesn’t actually make sense. As I said in answer to the previous supplementary, it is true we have inherited an economy that is very challenged and we are doing the work required to fix it.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Are nursing graduates and junior doctors leaving because they are concerned the Government won’t provide them with jobs?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: No.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Have the 30,000 young Kiwis that have left the country done so because they do not want to live in a country where the Government does not believe in climate change and actually makes it harder for them to buy a home?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: It would be easier to address her questions in a serious and fulsome manner if she didn’t make wild accusations. We’re a Government that believes in climate change, that is currently consulting on our emission reduction plan, which relates directly to our obligations in the zero carbon Act, and I would urge the member to refrain from such exaggerations in her future questions. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: There was so much noise coming from this side of the House that I couldn’t hear that answer. In future, I will ask for the answer to be repeated in silence. So we’ll just have a little bit of decorum, thank you very much.

Hon Barbara Edmonds: Are Kiwis leaving in record numbers because they see there are fewer jobs, a tax cut that won’t help them if they’re unemployed, and a Government that has no plan and is doing nothing to help?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, not only does that member choose to defend the economic management of the last Government which directly contributed to inflation being higher than it should have been, and therefore interest rates having to rise higher to counter it with devastating economic effect, she also continues to be opposed to tax relief which has assisted 3.5 million New Zealanders. If she wishes to campaign on increasing tax relief, along with her colleague David Parker, the Piketty pirate, then I wish her luck.

SPEAKER: That last comment wasn’t particularly parliamentary. Can we have Laura Trask—question No. 7.

Question No. 7—Internal Affairs

7. LAURA TRASK (ACT) to the Minister of Internal Affairs: What recent announcements has she made about phase 2 of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into COVID-19 Lessons?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister of Internal Affairs): Yesterday, I announced the detailed terms of reference for phase 2 of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into COVID-19 Lessons Learned. Phase 2 will run from November 2024 to February 2026 and will review matters that the public believe are not adequately addressed in phase 1, including vaccines, lockdowns, and other matters. I also announced that Grant Illingworth KC will chair the second phase, supported by Judy Kavanagh and Anthony Hill as commissioners. Together, they have experience in litigation, economics, and public health, and I have great faith in them to lead the inquiry.

SPEAKER: Thank you. Can I just say, for the next answer, can the member just sort of move a bit closer to that microphone.

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: Yeah, they’ve never given me one here.

SPEAKER: Yeah. OK, let’s get that sorted. Is someone going to make a note of that? Carry on.

Laura Trask: What other matters will phase 2 of the inquiry cover?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: Phase 2 will cover the key decisions taken by the Government on the use of vaccines, including mandates and safety, and the use of lockdowns, in particular the extended lockdowns in Auckland and Northland. The inquiry will assess whether key decisions struck a reasonable balance between minimising COVID-19 and social and economic disruption such as health and education outcomes, as well as the impact on inflation, business activity, and social division.

Laura Trask: Why is it important to have a second phase on the inquiry?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: I’ve heard from many members of the public that the terms of reference for the first phase of the inquiry were too narrow and did not cover many issues of importance to New Zealand. We have listened. The purpose of the inquiry is to learn from the past so New Zealand is better prepared for any future pandemics. This expanded inquiry will help to address questions the public still have about how the Government handled the pandemic and will benefit both future Governments and the public in responding to a future pandemic.

Laura Trask: Were the public able to contribute to the terms of reference?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: Yes. More than 13,000 people submitted in February and March of this year to shape the terms of reference for phase 2 of the inquiry. New Zealanders have had their voices heard and the commitment in the ACT coalition agreement to broaden the terms of reference, subject to public consultation, has been met and delivered on.

Question No. 8—Social Development and Employment

8. Dr CARLOS CHEUNG (National—Mt Roskill) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What recent changes has she made to support people on the jobseeker benefit into work?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Yesterday, I outlined our Government’s employment investment framework, which will guide how the $1.1 billion available for the Ministry of Social Development’s (MSD’s) employment support schemes is spent. Three major changes will result from this new framework: (1) 70,000 people will have an MSD case manager by the end of the year; (2) we are putting beneficiaries first in the queue for support schemes that boost their job prospects; and (3) we are supercharging intensive support for young job seekers. Our Government continues to take action to support more New Zealanders into work, and the employment investment framework is one tool to achieve this.

Dr Carlos Cheung: How will the employment investment framework work?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Our employment strategy will be guided by the evidence of what works and what doesn’t. Where programmes succeed, they will continue, but where they are not delivering results, we will not be afraid to stop them. The framework includes a greater focus on case management, which will rapidly expand to cater for 70,000 people by the end of the year, as well as putting beneficiaries first in line for support schemes that boost people’s job prospects. Non-beneficiaries will still qualify for employment support, but we don’t want those most at risk of long-term welfare dependency missing out. That’s why our Government is putting beneficiaries first in the queue for help.

Dr Carlos Cheung: What are the targets that have been set to put beneficiaries first in line for support schemes?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: As part of the new employment investment framework, I announced new targets to prioritise people on the jobseeker benefit for employment scheme support. This will see a greater proportion of MSD’s spending on employment programmes, such as Mana in Mahi and Flexi-wage, go towards supporting people on jobseeker benefits, rather than non-beneficiaries. Two targets have been set to achieve this. The first is to have 70 to 75 percent of those supported by Flexi-wage being people on jobseeker support by the end of June—an increase of 49 percent—and, second, to have 50 to 55 percent of those supported by Mana in Mahi being people on the jobseeker support by June 2025, an increase from 31 percent.

Dr Carlos Cheung: How will these changes help young job seekers?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: We are supercharging intensive support for young job seekers by reserving 30 percent of places with in-person case managers for those aged 18 to 24. This will mean that more than 27,000 young job seekers—or 65 percent of them—will receive intensive, one-on-one support under our Government, from either a case manager or a community-led programme. We are determined to have 50,000 fewer people on the jobseeker support by 2030, and to give young New Zealanders a brighter future than almost two decades on welfare, which would otherwise be forecast.

Question No. 9—Police

9. Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) to the Minister of Police: Does he stand by his response to being asked what is the biggest thing he’s done since he took office, “Oh, I think probably, the letter of expectation that I put out there for the commissioner”; if so, why?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Police) on behalf of the Minister of Police: At the time it was said, yes. Letters of expectation set a framework and pathway for results, and it remains an important document by which I hold the commissioner to account. As a result of this letter of expectation, Police have stood up community beat teams, a national gang unit, and, soon, gang disruption units in districts. There have been no incidents of gang tangi taking over towns and preventing the public going about their lawful business. Legislation will soon empower police to disrupt and disperse gang gatherings, and gang patches will be banned in public places. In the first five months of this year, compared with last year, there was 6 percent fewer serious assaults resulting in injury, 15 percent fewer burglaries, 10 percent fewer aggravated robberies, and 10 percent fewer stabbings. Auckland Council has reported a 35 percent reduction in crime in the CBD, and Heart of the City is saying there is 50 percent less retail crime. While levels of retail crime remain unacceptably high, Police tell me the rate of increase has halved, and as the member will be aware, in the first six months of this year there was a 14 percent increase in foot patrols for the same period. There is, of course, more work to do to fix the crime hangover that this Government inherited, but we are getting on with the job of seeing good progress.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Is he concerned that weekly methamphetamine levels in Auckland have increased by 61 percent when compared to quarter 1 of 2023, to quarter 1 of 2024, and, if so, what action is being taken to reduce increasing methamphetamine levels?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: On behalf of the Minister, there is obviously a lot of work still to be done to bring gang organised crime under control. There is a programme of work that includes setting up the national gang unit, and more work will continue to proceed in that space. The use of methamphetamine is abhorrent, and we are serious about getting on top of it.

Hon Ginny Andersen: How can he claim to be backing the front line if he stands by while Nicole McKee excludes A-category firearms from the firearms registry?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: On behalf of the Minister of Police, we are working, as the Minister is, on ensuring that gun safety and the safety of the public is paramount, and we will continue to ensure that is the priority for this legislation.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Will A-category firearms be excluded from the firearms registry?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: That is a piece of legislation that is being worked on by Minister McKee, and that will be part of the process we are working through.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order, Mr Speaker. It would occur to you that the last two questions should have been asked of the Minister in charge—

Hon Ginny Andersen: It was.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I beg your pardon?

Hon Member: He’s not here.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, the Minister in charge is the Minister over there—McKee is the Minister in charge.

SPEAKER: No, hang on—no comment on a point of order.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I’m asking why she was allowed to carry on when she could have had the chance the next day or today of asking the question to the right Minister—if she was, of course, serious about it.

SPEAKER: Well, I think the point is that by asking a Minister a question that might be slightly related but not necessarily the Minister’s portfolio, there simply isn’t going to be the answer that might otherwise be expected.

Hon Ginny Andersen: Thank you, Mr Speaker. How are New Zealanders meant to feel safer when he has reduced Police funding by $108 million, reduced the number of front-line police, and cut staff in Police by 248 since he took office?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: As the member will be aware, there have been no reductions to front-line policing, and the public can feel safer because the reality is there have been 14 percent more foot patrols nationwide, 10 percent fewer aggravated robberies, 15 percent fewer burglaries, 6 percent fewer serious assaults resulting in injury, and 10 percent fewer stabbings.

Question No. 10—Workplace Relations and Safety

10. TEANAU TUIONO (Green) to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: Does she believe employees are ever wrongly categorised as contractors; if so, what remedy do they have to change their contract status?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Yes, I’m aware that miscategorisation of worker status has been occurring for years, and I believe this uncertainty is an issue for both workers and businesses. Workers who believe they’ve been miscategorised can challenge their status under section 6 of the Employment Relations Act. The Employment Relations Authority and the Employment Court use a series of tests under the common law to decide whether a person is an employee or contractor. While in many instances it can be very obvious to both the business and worker whether a worker is an employee or contractor, the world is a complicated place and sometimes there is genuine uncertainty. The member will be aware I will be making decisions on how to clarify this distinction and provide certainty to both workers and businesses.

Teanau Tuiono: Will the Minister commit that her work to clarify the status of contractors will allow employers to exploit an imbalance of power to require employees to agree to describe what is, in truth, an employment relationship as something else?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: The legal status quo has created uncertainty for contractors and businesses because of contractors’ ability to challenge their employment status if they believe they should be classified as employees. While I’ll still be considering advice on options—and those haven’t yet gone all the way through Cabinet—we want to clarify the original intent of contracting parties’ arrangements while minimising any risk of exploitation. But I’d also like to make the point to the member that most contractors are actually very happy with their status. Stats New Zealand reports 90 percent of contractors are happy with their current arrangements.

Teanau Tuiono: What does the Minister believe the implications of the recent Court of Appeal decision are for the coalition agreement commitment to “maintain the status quo that contractors who have explicitly signed up for contracting arrangements can’t challenge their employment status in the Employment Court.”?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: I will make it clear to that member that what this Government is intending to achieve is clarity for both parties to a contract, about what was the original intent of their agreement. But I’d also just like to make the point that my understanding is that one party to the Court of Appeal decision has filed for an application for appeal, and I’d just point the member to Standing Order 116, which suggests that this would be out of scope for Parliament to be talking about.

Teanau Tuiono: Does the Minister acknowledge that the Court of Appeal’s decision ensures Uber drivers will now be recognised as employees, thereby securing rights like minimum wage, sick leave and holiday pay?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: I would once again just refer to Standing Orders 117 and 116, which make it clear that in any case where notice of appeal is given, Standing Order 116 has effect from the time when the notice is given, until the appeal has been decided. It would be improper for me to comment on that member’s question.

Teanau Tuiono: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I’m just seeking some clarification here. The appeal was dismissed on the Monday and so, in that context, the Minister should be free to comment.

SPEAKER: The Attorney-General might like to comment.

Hon Judith Collins: Thank you, Mr Speaker. It might be helpful—the point, too, is that the Minister cannot be asked to give legal advice on to the meaning of the court decision, but also, if this is subject to appeal, then she’s quite right that we need to be very careful as to how this is discussed in Parliament.

SPEAKER: OK, so without losing that question, do you want to reword it, just to have another crack at it, and can the Minister state if it can’t be an answer given in the public interest—state just that. You don’t need a list out of the book.

Teanau Tuiono: Will the Minister respect—can I put it that way?—the Court of Appeal decision around removing the rights of unsecured gig workers wrongly classified as contractors to challenge their employment status?

Hon David Seymour: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, the Standing Orders are actually very clear that to raise such matters in a supplementary question—a supplementary question is listed in the Standing Order. You’ve now got a member who is getting up and, in my view, mischaracterising the court’s finding. It’s very, very difficult for a Minister to respond to that when he’s breaching the Standing Orders for the question.

SPEAKER: Yeah, that’s true, but the Minister can make it very clear about what the answer is. Everyone should know in the House that you don’t discuss matters that are currently before the courts—in this case, potentially before the courts—because of the, presumably, usually, 40 days for appeal, but that would be too long for there to be no discussion. I’ll ask the member to ask his question again. The Minister can answer it by saying exactly as the Hon David Seymour has suggested.

Teanau Tuiono: Does the Minister commit to not legislating over the Court of Appeal decision in removing the rights of insecure gig workers wrongly classified as contractors to challenge their employment status?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: I do not wish to pre-empt any decision that may be found by any court of law, in this House. However, I’ll simply make it clear that the intent of this Government is to clarify the boundaries between employment and contract agreements.

Camilla Belich: Notwithstanding the Uber case, will the Minister guarantee that New Zealanders will still have the right to go to court to clarify their employment status under this Government, and, if not, why not?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: This Government hasn’t yet made any decisions on where we will land in order to adopt the coalition agreement, which is to uphold the intent of both parties when they’re signing up to a contract.

Question No. 11—Transport

11. Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula) to the Minister of Transport: What recent announcements has he made on speed limits in Christchurch?

Hon MATT DOOCEY (Associate Minister of Transport) on behalf of the Minister of Transport: I’m sure you will agree this is great news for Cantabrians. Yesterday, I announced the New Zealand Transport Agency will soon begin consultation on the South Island’s first 110-kilometre speed limit. This proposal of a new 110-kilometre speed limit on the safe Christchurch Southern Motorway of Rolleston, one of National’s first roads of national significance, is—

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Where’s your Woodend bypass?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: —great news for Cantabrians, Duncan, and will result in faster journey times for those travelling in and out of Christchurch on this critical South Island route.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: What impact would the speed limit increase have on Cantabrians?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: Good question. On behalf of the Minister of Transport and all Cantabrians, boosting economic growth and productivity is a key part of the Government’s plan to rebuild the economy. This proposal supports that outcome by reducing travel times and increasing efficiency on this key South Island route. Started by the previous National Government as a safe road of national significance, the Christchurch Southern Motorway has reduced congestion, improved safety and travel time reliability—

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Until you get to Brougham Street.

Hon MATT DOOCEY: —and luckily the last Government didn’t have time to cancel it. Increasing its speed limit to 110 kilometres per hour will further enable Cantabrians to get where they want to go quickly and safely.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: When can Cantabrians have their say on this proposal?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: Oh, good question. On behalf of the Minister of Transport, I know Nicola Grigg will be interested that consultation on this important 110-kilometre per hour speed limit proposal opens on 3 December and will close four weeks later on 1 October. This Government recognises that roads of national significance improve safety—that’s right, Megan—which is why our new speed limit rule will enable new expressways built to safe standards to have 110-kilometre speed limits from the day they open without going through a separate consultation process.

Dr Vanessa Weenink: How does this proposed 110-kilometre speed limit on the Christchurch Southern Motorway fit into the Government’s plan to accelerate New Zealand?

Hon MATT DOOCEY: Well, on behalf of the Minister of Transport, this Government is getting New Zealand moving again through our Accelerate New Zealand plan. Kiwis overwhelmingly supported not only this Government but our plan to accelerate New Zealand by reversing blanket speed limit reductions, delivering 110-kilometre speed limits on roads of national significance where it is safe to do so, and cracking down on the excessive use of road cones and temporary traffic management.

Question No. 12—Health

12. Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour) to the Associate Minister of Health: Does she stand by her statement to Radio New Zealand that “The document you have referred to was not generated or collated by any members of my office, was not left on my desk by any member of my office, and was only received as a hard copy on 6 December 2023.”; if so, was the document received by her directly or another member of her office?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Health): I believe I was clear in the House yesterday in response to oral question No. 10 that a range of information from various sources was provided to officials who then subsequently scanned the information into one document. The scanned version of that information is the one referred to in the Official Information Act response to RNZ from which the member is quoting. I remind the member the same document was provided to the Labour Party five months ago on 27 March. Regarding the second leg of the question, as a new Minister with multiple portfolios, I was provided with a large amount of background information relevant to my portfolios over the first few weeks after receiving my warrant. It would be impossible to categorically state the source of all the information I was provided; however, I can confirm, as I’ve stated repeatedly, it was not left on my desk by any member of my office. I’d just like to add that the member and some of her colleagues are fixated on claiming that I am connected to the tobacco industry. I want to again state to this Chamber: that is not true. I can state unequivocally I have never had any involvement or engagement with the tobacco industry. If the Opposition continues their smear and soundbite campaign, they can continue to do that and they will be judged on the fact that they will be unable to find any proof. We are, on this side of the House—

SPEAKER: That’s probably enough so far.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: How was the document delivered to her office?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: I will reiterate my previous answer that clearly the member missed: as an incoming Minister with a range of portfolios, I was provided with a large amount of background information relevant to my portfolios. It would be impossible to categorically state the source of all the information I was provided.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Does she stand by her statement to Radio New Zealand that “My office and I have not been able to identify who authored the document or delivered it to me.”; if not, why not?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: Yes.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: When, as she said in answers to oral parliamentary questions yesterday, health officials scanned the information into a single document, did those officials make any changes to the content?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: Not that I’m aware of.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Is she saying that the compilation of different information that she has described as historical policy positions did not occur in her office or by Ministry of Health officials?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: I’m sorry, Mr Speaker, can she repeat the question?

SPEAKER: Yes.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Is she saying that the compilation of different information that she has described as historical policy positions did not occur in her office or by Ministry of Health officials?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: I think what she’s asking is did my office compile the document, and I think I’ve answered that repeatedly that my office did not compile the document. What I will, I think, highlight for the member, which may be of assistance, is that the information in the document does refer to a range of statements and policies and positions that were both historical and things that the New Zealand First Party campaigned on. But it may be of assistance to simply summarise that the document reflected coalition agreement commitments, and everything I have done is deliver on those coalition agreement commitments, which were published in November last year.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Look, I appreciate the Minister provided some information there, but did not address the substance of the question. But my point of order is in reference to her first part of her response. It was a very carefully worded supplementary that used the wording the Minister provided yesterday in her responses. There were a number of answers provided that disputed the fact that it was a document—it was a collection of information. So to try and avoid that path, the member has used the information the Minister gave the House yesterday. Therefore, for the Minister to stand up and say, “I don’t understand the question”; I’m not sure that washes and nor should it stand.

SPEAKER: Well, I took it that she didn’t actually hear the question. That’s why I asked for it to be stated again.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Thank you, Mr Speaker. So, to repeat, is she saying that the compilation of different information that she has described as historical policy positions did not occur in her office and did not occur in the Ministry of Health?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: The compilation which she refers to summarises historical policy documents, as I’ve stated repeatedly. It included historical policy positions, but it included a range of things, as I’ve stated repeatedly. The information included a range of things and we’ve traversed repeatedly that I don’t know the source because it came in my office with a whole lot of other information.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: In the vein of the question being asked a number of times, can she name all the people who didn’t write the document?

SPEAKER: Look, we don’t have time for seven billion names, so have you got another supplementary?

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: How can she know the document was a compilation if she is already on record as saying she didn’t know where it came from and it was not compiled during the time it was in her office or afterwards?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: Sorry, Mr Speaker. Could she repeat the first part of the question?

SPEAKER: Yes.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: How can she know the document was a compilation if she does not know where it came from but it was not compiled during the time it was in her office or afterwards?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: Mr Speaker, as you will become aware, it was easy to tell it’s a compilation because there are different typefaces. You can see different watermarks on the paper. They were separate pieces of paper that were handed to the ministry.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: In the vein of that question, has she ever heard that famous line “I shot an arrow into the air. Where it landed I knew not where.”?

SPEAKER: Have you got any other poetry that might help the afternoon move on a bit? Do you have another question? You’ve got another question, if you want it.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Did her or her office—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Hold on. We’re listening to a question.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Did she or her office receive an electronic copy of the document before 6 December 2023?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: As I’ve stated repeatedly, the document, as you’re referring to, was scanned by Health. It may have been emailed back to my office. As to the date it was received, I don’t know. It was, as I’ve said, a hard copy compilation of information that was handed—and it’s unfortunate in all of this discussion that we have missed the point that we have one of the lowest smoking rates in the world and we are working towards delivering the smoke-free target as we speak.

General Debate

General Debate

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business.

Why can’t this Government just be upfront with New Zealanders? How hard is it to stand up to this country and actually tell it like it is? It shouldn’t be that much to expect that a Government takes responsibility for the decisions that it makes. And every single question time, we see the Government obfuscate and duck for cover and fiddle the numbers and blame everybody else except them.

We saw it today: 8,000 construction jobs gone. They are the ones that have stopped Kāinga Ora building. They are the ones that had an eight-month gap of uncertainty that caused the likes of the Salvation Army to cancel projects. They are the ones that have pulled funding from councils so pipes aren’t going in the ground. They are the ones that have gutted the sector, causing the apprentices that we trained to go overseas. And whose fault is it, according to them? Everybody else except the Government.

We had the Prime Minister come to the local government conference this week—after scrapping the affordable water reforms and pushing all responsibility back on councils, and scrapping the recommendations from the Future for Local Government Review, which would have helped councils—and turn around and blame councils for rates going up, when it’s actually at the feet of the Government. They know it’s at the feet of the Government, and they’re doing it on purpose because they want to shift the blame.

This Government has never been upfront. They weren’t upfront during the election campaign, when every single person in the country except Nicola Willis could see that her tax plan did not add up. Then they brought the tax plan in and, lo and behold, they’ve got no money. They’re stripping money left, right, and centre. They are cutting everywhere they possibly can, and yet they’re looking New Zealanders in the eye and they’re saying these cuts are not affecting front-line services. Doctors come forward and say, “We’ve had to close our health centre because we have no staff.” What does the Minister say? “That’s not true.”

When you’ve got a situation where the Government says one thing and the Opposition says another, there’s a pretty simple solution to this: talk to those on the front line. Who are they? The doctors. I think it shows a fair bit of gall and a fair bit of arrogance for a Minister to stand up in Parliament and say that doctors are lying, to say that nurses are lying and social workers are lying, because they are the ones who are impacted. Those front-line workers and patients are the ones that are copping it because of this Government’s decision. Do they take responsibility? Absolutely not.

Housing is another area. They’ve stripped money from community housing providers. They’ve stopped Kāinga Ora building houses. They’ve made it harder for people to enter into emergency housing. And then they turn around and they say, “Hey, look, we’re succeeding. Fewer people are accessing emergency housing.” Well, it doesn’t take a fool to figure out why. But that’s the thing. This Government is treating New Zealanders like fools. They are treating New Zealanders as if they are thick. They think that if they look New Zealanders in the eye and say one thing—bugger the evidence; it doesn’t matter—because we said it, therefore it must count.

Look at what they’ve been saying about energy, trying to pull the wool over New Zealanders’ eyes and saying it is down to the ban—

Sam Uffindell: We’ve brought the prices down, Kieran. Have you not seen the spot price, mate?

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: It is an absolute crock, Uffindell. You wouldn’t have a clue. They’re standing there saying that a ban on oil and gas, which actually was still looking for oil and gas and hasn’t found one in 20 years, is why Uffindell has to pay so much more for his power. He’s almost paying more for his power than he pays for his grocery bill that one time a month that he does it for his wife.

I think what sums it up—I’ve just been sent something here; it’s from Dan Bidois’ pamphlet. Dan Bidois’ pamphlet says, “Materially improving housing supply is the only solution to this challenge.” This is what he sent his constituents: “These are the actions under way from this Government to address housing supply: giving police tougher powers, capping the use of sentence discounts, setting up military-style academies. There is no silver bullet to improving the housing supply, but we are throwing everything at it.” They are throwing everything at it, but they have no examples to give, because they’re all talk. And if they were upfront with New Zealanders, they would say, “We conned you in the election, we’re not being upfront with you now.” That’s what this country deserves: an honest Government.

Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Minister for Regulation): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I don’t claim to be a person of great faith or a follower of organised religion, but I have much respect for what the Judaeo-Christian belief system has done for Western civilisation, and I’ve been studying a little bit. I’ve been learning about something. I’ve been learning about the Sorrowful Mysteries, and I thought, as I learnt about the Sorrowful Mysteries, about Chris Hipkins. As I watched the Labour Party cheer on Kieran McAnulty, I thought about the sorrowful mysteries of Christopher “Hapless” Hipkins.

The sorrowful mystery that first comes to mind is this new thing: a capital income tax. You see, they’ve learnt nothing from the last six years. They’ve learnt nothing about saving money. They continue to repeat the damaging trope that saps the self-reliance and spirit of New Zealand. They tell their would-be supporters, “Your problems are caused by someone else’s success, but if you vote for Labour, we’ll take their money and give it to you.” Well, that is a sorrowful mystery—it never works. It never has worked anywhere, because the only thing that socialism has done for the poor is given them more company wherever it’s been tried.

Then there is the sorrowful mystery of an oil and gas accord—an energy accord offered by the Labour Party, that is—with no oil and gas in it. You see, they say they want to reach across the aisle and cooperate on securing energy for New Zealanders on those cold winter nights when the lakes are low and the wind doesn’t blow—oh, but, no, no, no; it cannot be done with natural gas. It cannot be done with the industry they’ve decimated in Taranaki, which means there are now not enough people in the industry to keep the gas pressure up, regardless of finds, by the way—no, no, no, no. It is a sorrowful mystery: a promise to cooperate but not to use the fuel that will actually work.

Then there’s the sorrowful mystery of Christopher “Hapless” Hipkins—the No. 3 one—that Māori never ceded sovereignty and that we are a society where some citizens follow the law and respect the Government, and others are somehow living in a parallel society. It’s as if they’ve learnt nothing from the last six years of dividing our country as a partnership between races, with some people having some rights and other people having others, based on their ancestry.

But, Mr Speaker, you’ll be pleased to know I won’t spend too long on the sorrowful mysteries of Christopher “Hapless” Hipkins because I’ve also discovered the joyful mysteries of the ACT Party in Government, and the first joyful mystery is the cutting of tax and the saving of money through careful spending and the slashing of Government waste. No longer do we throw money at every problem and hope that some of it sticks to the wall while creating inflation for hard-up Kiwi families. No, you see ACT Ministers in the Cabinet, across the Government, arguing to spend less and arguing for the Government to tighten its belt, just as people in firms and farms and families have had to do for the last five years while Labour engaged in wanton spending.

Then there’s the joyful mystery of slashing the red tape. Right across the Government, you see the active ACT Party, whether it is in early childhood education centres, where people are drowning—they say, “All I want to do is help children learn and reach their potential, and all I actually do is live in fear of the Ministry of Education.”

There’s the significant natural areas, the nationalisation of farms—but only if you do conservation, do you lose your property right. That’s going.

I see Brooke van Velden is sorting out, where so many have failed, the Holidays Act, the Health and Safety at Work Act, and contract law, so you can actually give one New Zealander a job on behalf of another without being tied up in red tape and regulation.

Then there is the final joyful mystery, of having the courage to start an uneasy conversation about the framework and understanding around our nation’s founding document that will truly allow each of us to live in this beautiful land, with equal rights by birth or legal immigration. No matter who your ancestors were, you were joined together in this country under universal humanity, with the same basic rights, and what underpins these joyful mysteries of the ACT Party? It’s the simple idea that each of us deserves chances and choices to be able to make our way in the world and flourish in the way that we choose to make a difference in our own lives, and help make sure that when each of us can succeed in our own way, all of us can succeed as a wonderful country and the best place to live on the entire planet. Thank you, Mr Speaker, and God bless.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): The member who opened this debate, the Hon Kieran McAnulty, invited the House to tell it how it is, so let’s do exactly that, on the state of welfare that we inherited when we took office. Instead of dealing with the welfare State, instead of dealing with ballooning numbers that came on to welfare, I think the other side of the House would prefer to bury their heads in the golden sand—perhaps the golden sands of Treasure Island.

As I said, in the spirit of telling it as it is, let’s just have a look back at what we have inherited: 70,000 more people on the jobseeker benefit—70,000—at a time there were businesses everywhere, desperate—desperate—for staff. So what do we have now? We have now over 200,000 New Zealanders on the jobseeker benefit. That is nearly the size of Wellington—nearly the size of Wellington. What’s worse is 115,000—115,000—have been on welfare for more than a year.

Let’s have a look at the children in those households: 220,000 children growing up in benefit-dependent households, because we saw welfare dependency surge under the last Government.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Excuses—more excuses.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: We’re telling it how it is. I’m just laying out the facts, which is a great way to do it, but are we going to sit here and say, “Oh, woe is me. We can’t deal with this.”?

Tom Rutherford: No. We’re going to do something about it.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Absolutely. First step, job number one—because this side of the House understands the value and importance of work—we have set an ambitious target to reduce the number of people on jobseeker benefit by 50,000 by 2030.

Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Heartless.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: What have we done? We have reset—oh, it’s heartless! They think it’s heartless to want to get people into a job. They think it’s heartless that someone should be earning their own income and be able to provide for themselves and their family—oh, that’s heartless! Well, I’m sorry, I’ll tell the House what is heartless: to leave people on welfare to rot—to rot. Under that side of the House, you could sign up to a jobseeker benefit, you could sign up and have zero contact with the Ministry of Social Development for 12 months—until it was time to sign up again. How does that help someone find a job? It didn’t, which is why welfare numbers ballooned. Instead, under our watch, it’s a far more proactive system.

Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: Punitive and callous is what you are.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Within two weeks, a job seeker will return to Work and Income, be very clear about what support is on offer to address the barriers that they face to work. They’ll also be really clear about what the expectations are, what their responsibilities are, in return for receiving welfare support.

Now, let’s just talk about some of those work obligations, because the other side of the House used these words like “callous”. Well, work obligations are: having a CV, turning up to Work and Income, applying for a job, participating in training to get a driver’s licence, taking a job if offered. Oh, but those things are terrible! Guess what! Every single one of those work obligations gets someone closer to finding a job. That’s what this side of the House values. That’s why we’ve introduced our traffic light system to make it really clear—really clear—to people about what their responsibilities are. We want to ensure people are making the most of all of the opportunities available through Work and Income, and upholding their responsibilities.

Yesterday, I announced more things to make the system more active—by ensuring the employment support programmes are actually targeted to those on welfare. Oh, shock horror! Shock horror! It’s quite amazing to think that only 31 percent of those participating in Mana in Mahi were actually on the jobseeker benefit. So a high-value, high-intensity programme that is successful—more of it would be going to people who weren’t on welfare.

These are the sorts of things, common-sense changes, that our Government is changing to make sure the welfare system is more active, to make sure it is connecting more people with the opportunities of work, because this side of the House understands the value of work. We understand how important it is to have a job and to have an income.

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): This week we celebrate the opening of the Paralympic Games in Paris. New Zealand has sent 25 Paralympians and I’m sure everyone joins me in wishing them well. However, it is also a sad and anxious time for our disability communities. Minister Upston had her big shot to lead her party in the general debate—didn’t mention disability communities once—and yet on 15 August she gutted Whaikaha, the Ministry of Disabled People that was set up to transform the disability support services and give disabled people greater choice and control over the services and supports that they access to transform their lives. Instead, after a whole three months in the role, what does she do? She transfers disability support services from Whaikaha to the Ministry of Social Development (MSD). MSD didn’t want this—they don’t have the capacity or the capability to handle this.

Most disabled people I have spoken to have had a terrible experience—already—accessing what they’re entitled to through MSD. And she’s using the money that we had budgeted for the Enabling Good Lives (EGL) roll-out this year to make that change. Money that should go to disabled people is being used for this Minister’s pet ego project. And the EGL roll-out has been paused. Providers describe this move as “an unwanted distraction from the real issues”. Disabled people describe it as “a disaster”. Nowhere in the Government’s review that was recently undertaken was this even suggested. It’s something that Minister Upson has plucked out of thin air with absolutely zero consultation with the disability communities and no evidence to suggest that outcomes will improve for disabled people. And we know that it won’t.

She also announced a funding freeze. According to Peter Reynolds, CEO of the New Zealand Disability Support Network, this amounts to a cut—a 5 percent cut in funding, in real terms after inflation—to a sector that was already struggling. Guidance that is being provided and leaked by the sector shows that this Government is seeking to severely restrict and reduce access to residential services for disabled people. This means—and a provider said to me this morning; this is a real example—someone who is being harmed, in a position of violence, whose case has been worked on for the past year will now be told “Tough luck. There is no money from this Government to help you to live safely.”

Disabled people who have reached out to me are terrified. The mum of the 9-year-old who told me today that her 9-year-old cannot breathe independently. She needs 24/7 hospital-level care at home. She said that she often spends 22 hours in a day monitoring her child to make sure that she’s still breathing. She estimates that she saves the Government $7,000 a day by providing this care at home, otherwise her child would be in a high-dependency unit in a hospital. Her care package is over $105,000 a year and it doesn’t even cover the expenses. This mum is now terrified because this Government has changed the rules to require that such packages are reviewed—again—and potentially cut. A provider said to me this morning that these new changes will put lives at risk.

I implore the Minister to reverse these cuts, to restore respite care, to not shift disability support services from Whaikaha to MSD, to instead strengthen Whaikaha and start listening to the disability communities. These are all things that the communities are calling for through campaigns. And if those who are listening disagree with what’s happening—whether they’re disabled or an ally—share your story, make your voice heard. Contact your local MPs, write to the Ministers, march on the streets, attend the rallies and public meetings, and share stories.

This Government’s austerity measures are stripping disabled people of their rights, their dignity, and is shrinking their worlds. According to Peter Reynolds, “Minister, you cannot tell us that cost cutting is necessary because of the fiscal situation. When it comes to tax cuts for landlords or excise cuts for tobacco companies, the Government is able to fund billions. The Government’s choice not to adequately fund disability support is exactly that, a choice, one that this Government can change if they choose to.”

Once again, I say that these decisions by this Government are putting people’s lives at risk, and yet not one mention from the Minister who’s gutted these services, frozen funding, and made cuts to front-line services.

Hon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for Mental Health): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Look, it will take some time for the effects of the last Government to be corrected—a Government that was a failed socialist experiment that set this great country, New Zealand, back. When you think about the one trick they had in their playbook, to centralise—whether it was the three waters reforms that went down like a cup of cold sick, whether it was Te Pūkenga, the polytechs reform—and let’s focus on the health reforms, hitting through the health system like a wrecking ball in the middle of a pandemic. Even their own Heather Simpson report said to go from 20 DHBs to 12. But they knew better. They knew better than all the health professionals, they knew better than the public, and they went through our health system like a wrecking ball to demolish it in the middle of a pandemic. That’s what we pick up the pieces from today.

I welcome Health New Zealand’s approach to regionalise the health service. We need the accountability and the responsibility to go back out into regional and rural New Zealand—to connect where the need is, so that decision making can be made as close to the need as possible. That is vital in an area like mental health, where we need local solutions for local needs. What we have had in the last couple of weeks is further reports from organisations like the Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission, where they laid bare the last Government’s track record on mental health. All this announced funding and what difference did it make? No material difference. You’ve got to scratch your head and say: how could you announce so much funding but not make a difference? But I tell you what. To give the last Government credit, they could do that. They had a track record in that and they had a history of making large announcements and making very little difference.

In the coming financial year, we will spend $2.6 billion on the ring-fenced mental health and addiction and suicide prevention funding. That is a significant amount of money. Last financial year, it was $2.4 billion. With the $200 million uplift that comes through Budget 2024, $2.6 billion is going to be spent. It’s important that in this Government we make sure that that funding is prioritised on the right need, it’s targeted in the right need, and it goes to the right area. We have been very clear: under this Government, we will increase access to timely support, not just treatment services but prevention and early intervention as well. For people to address their needs, they need access, and we will provide faster access.

The second thing we need to do is grow the workforce. The Auditor-General reported several months ago that we did not have a mental health and addiction workforce plan. It beggars belief. Under six years of the last Government, there was no plan to grow the workforce. No wonder people are stuck on waiting lists. You’ve got a growing workforce vacancy rate in our mental health services because we don’t have a plan. That’s what this Government will do: have a plan to grow our workforce.

We’re going to strengthen the focus on prevention and early intervention, to intervene earlier in vulnerable Kiwis’ lives and improve the effectiveness of services, so when we spend hard-earned taxpayers’ money, we know it’s going into services that will make a difference. That’s why for the first time in the health plan, in the Government’s policy statement for health, we have mental health targets where 80 percent of people will see primary mental health services in one week; 80 percent of people will see their specialist services within three weeks. I spoke to my counterpart in Scotland recently. Their Government target is 18 weeks. We have just set a target for three weeks. We’re going to increase the baseline training of mental health and addiction workforce from 423 a year to over 500 mental health and addiction specialists out of baseline, and we’re also going to ring-fence our mental health funding, so 25 percent is spent on prevention and early intervention. It’s a privilege to be part of a Government that will deliver for New Zealanders.

Rt Hon ADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour): Tēnā ra tātou e te Whare. I just want to start off by acknowledging the 230 employees at Winstone’s in the Ruapehu District who are about to lose their jobs. I just want to send our thoughts to all of them. They’ll be going through some serious issues right now, and I think they should be acknowledged. Seventy percent of them are Māori. A great deal of them are mana whenua from Ngāti Rangi, and I just want to acknowledge what they’re going through.

I want to reach out to my colleague Suze Redmayne as well and support what she’s trying to do. I support Debbie Ngarewa-Packer as well. They are constituents within that electorate. It’s really a situation where I believe that the Government needs to get past all the rhetoric and actually get in there and do something positive for that region. I would encourage the Minister for Regional Development to put his hand in there. I know he’s made some statements and I encourage him to continue with that. I think a solution for that area is really critically important.

Just a few stats: Mercury Energy has increased its profits by 159 percent. When we were in Government, the cost of electricity there at that plant made up 15 percent of their cost; today it’s 40 percent. Something is not right, and we need a Government to actually address that issue, otherwise those 230 families will be dealing with the issues that the Hon Louise Upston talked about. We’re talking about an area that is quite deprived in the first place. They don’t have the locally available support always. Turning up to a seminar on employment, that might be a bit of a struggle. Before they know it, the traffic light is probably going to be red. We should try to avoid that situation. I say to the Government, actually, stop those sorts of cuts. We don’t need the chaos that’s been created across a whole lot of areas.

I also want to acknowledge the Horizons Regional Council. They’ve just made a decision to continue with Māori constituencies. I want to acknowledge former MP Jono Naylor for leading that discussion there and the chair, Rachel Keedwell. I won’t quote her, because two of the words that she used about the Government would be surely ruled out of order, and I don’t want to trigger anyone opposite.

Talking about being triggered, it seems that some people get triggered by history. For example, the Hon Willie Jackson wrote an article about the Rt Hon Chris Hipkins accepting that Māori did not cede sovereignty. Does that mean the Government does not have sovereignty? No. What it means is that the way in which sovereignty was achieved was not through Māori ceding it—that’s the point. And that is history. I find it astounding that members can get up here and deny that that happened, when we, through Treaty settlements—dozens of them that have come through that say exactly that. I actually think it’s time for this country to have a grown-up conversation around it. Ditch the bill on principles of the Treaty and actually talk about the relationship that we should be encouraging across our whole nation.

Talking about triggering, I find it interesting that some people just don’t want to talk about it. Members in certain select committees decide, “No, we don’t want to have a briefing from the Waitangi Tribunal.”

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Really?

Helen White: Really?

Rt Hon ADRIAN RURAWHE: Yes, it is shocking. I mean, let’s get enlightened about things and we might actually learn something from why they did the report that they did on Treaty principles, because I think that this House could learn a lot from that. Through that bill that has not yet come to the House, this is going to cause division across our whole country. I mihi to the Rt Hon Chris Hipkins for actually setting the platform for us to be able to have a unified, grown-up conversation around it. Mr Speaker, thank you.

KAHURANGI CARTER (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I take this call on behalf of the Green Party to stand alongside our disabled communities across the motu who have consistently been gaslighted, disregarded, and disrespected by this Government.

I start my kōrero with the words of Minister Louise Upston on RNZ just yesterday morning: “There has been a lot of scaremongering out there which I wanted to stop. It is grossly unfair that people are using this to concern and worry disabled people. That is not the case.” What we are witnessing is not just a series of policy decisions, but a glaring manifestation of systemic ableism. Ableism operates by determining whose lives and contributions are valued and whose are dismissed. Under the current Government, it is alarmingly clear that those born poor, marginalised, disabled, and without access to stable housing are not prioritised. Under this Government, the worth of individuals is measured by their economic contribution, and they’re fit with a narrow, often arbitrary definition of productivity. This fundamentally ignores the reality that navigating a bureaucratic system riddled with penalties and barriers is a monumental challenge in itself.

When preparing for my kōrero today, I was reminded how this very Government have treated our disabled communities over the last six months. In March, changes restricting the flexibility of disability support funding and crucial equipment and modification access were introduced overnight without any consultation—completely ignored. The minimum wage exemption which ensured 900 disabled workers were treated with respect and dignity—scrapped. The transfer of disability support services from Whaikaha to the Ministry of Social Development, without consultation, to a ministry in which disabled people have very little trust—extremely distressing. Policy guidance, Needs Assessment and Service Coordination services, and Enabling Good Lives cite curtailing access to residential care while also indicating cutbacks to community support, putting money before human rights—damaging.

What this means for our disabled communities is that these changes result in limited access to essential services like housing, public transport, healthcare, and fair wages. It impacts their daily lives by making it harder to secure a home, get around, receive proper medical care, and earn a decent income. These are the real-life realities of this Government’s decisions. We must confront the reality of the situation: this is a systemic and targeted assault on our disabled communities. When the community voices concerns about the Government’s ableist agenda, we are met with dismissive remarks from the Minister who claims, “There’s been a lot of scaremongering out there which I wanted to stop”. This belittling language is an attempt to undermine valid concerns. Let’s instead consider what the community itself is saying.

To the Minister, I ask: who is truly engaging in scaremongering, the experts within our community or this Government? Is it Dr Huhana Hickey, Māori lawyer and disability advocate, underscoring the importance of inclusion: “We don’t know if the Māori voice around disabilities will continue, because we’re not sitting at decision-making tables, and that’s where we all need to be.”? Or rather, does she think it’s Prudence Walker, Disability Rights Commissioner, who highlighted her worry: “I’m concerned by the return to placing disability support services within an agency that is not specifically designed to meet the needs of disabled people. We had begun to move beyond this approach … But it appears this is being disregarded before Whaikaha had the chance to demonstrate enduring success”.

Despite the grim reality faced, we are committed to a future where everyone can thrive, not just survive, through affordable, accessible housing, income, and disability support.

SUZE REDMAYNE (National—Rangitīkei): Thank you, Mr Speaker. When New Zealand elected the Government last year, we were tasked with getting our country back on track, and that’s precisely what we’re doing. We inherited significant challenges, particularly in our energy sector. The previous Government eroded confidence with their oil and gas exploration ban, the impractical and costly $16 billion Lake Onslow scheme, and the unrealistic 100 percent renewable electricity target by 2030. As a result, New Zealand businesses are now facing the highest electricity prices in the Western World. The damage done by the previous Government, including stifling investment and increasing sovereign risk, has led us into an energy crisis. The soaring electricity prices are a major concern, threatening the viability of Kiwi businesses, many of which are vital exporters, and the jobs they support.

Recent announcements of job losses at Winstone Pulp and Oji’s Penrose facility highlight this issue, with high electricity costs cited as a factor. This situation is not coincidental; it’s a direct outcome of poor policy decisions by the previous Government. I’ve seen firsthand what our businesses and communities are up against, never more so than last night at a standing-room-only public meeting in Raetihi about the closure of Winstone Pulp, to which Adrian Rurawhe just referred. And I want to acknowledge my colleague across the House Helen White for venturing into the heart of the mighty Rangitīkei to be there. We were there to listen. The kōrero was heartfelt, and it was real. MC Liz Brooker talked to us about kotahitanga—unity. She nailed it. The solution to the current power crisis needs to extend beyond politics and election cycles. Our businesses, communities, and families, like those we heard from in Raetihi last night, expect and deserve nothing less—nothing less than a long-term solution which ensures and delivers reliable and affordable energy.

Right now, in the absence of low-emissions natural gas, electricity generators are resorting to coal-fired and diesel-powered plants, leaving gas peakers offline. This ban has not only contributed to our fuel shortage but also resulted in higher electricity prices and worse environmental outcomes. The Electricity Authority and the Commerce Commission are collaborating to assess market competition and the ongoing high prices. In addition, the Prime Minister and energy Minister Simeon Brown announced on Monday that the Government has moved quickly to approve a raft of immediate actions to address the serious risk to our energy security and affordability, including urgently reversing the ban on offshore oil and glass exploration and cutting red and green tape to allow for liquefied natural gas (LNG) imports.

This Government is taking five urgent actions. We’re reversing the reckless decision to ban offshore oil and gas exploration, with my colleague the Hon Shane Jones leading this legislation. We’re removing regulatory barriers to the construction of critically needed facilities to import liquefied natural gas. We’re easing restrictions on electricity lines companies owning generation, ensuring access for gentailers to hydro contingency, and improving electricity market regulation to ensure New Zealanders have the affordable electricity they need. We are currently facing a gas shortage, and it’s clear that gas is essential for supporting intermittent renewable energy sources. Around 50 countries import LNG. To ensure New Zealand has sufficient affordable energy, part of our plan is to swiftly remove regulatory barriers to enable LNG imports so we can rebuild confidence in the sector.

In addition to these immediate actions, electrifying New Zealand’s economy is a key part of our Government’s plan to grow our economy and reduce emissions. To make it easier and cheaper to electrify our economy, we’re establishing a one-stop shop, fast-track approvals and permitting regime. We’re amending the Resource Management Act to speed up resource consenting, delivering stronger national direction for renewable energy. Our Government is acting swiftly to rectify the previous Government’s failures. We’re committed to restoring confidence in our energy sector, and we call on members opposite to support our actions.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): Why hasn’t the Government issued a special humanitarian visa for the families of Palestinian New Zealanders who are stuck in the war zone in Gaza after Israel has killed 40,000 civilians and displaced 1.9 million people from their homes in Gaza?

Now, in times of war and crisis, New Zealand has always tried to do the right thing and offer a safe haven so people can escape danger. Remember the 800 Polish refugees—733 of them children—who arrived in Wellington here in 1944, having fled wartime Europe. In the 1970s, we gave a home and a haven to the refugees from Pol Pot’s genocide in Cambodia. Our Government resettled 1,700 Afghans who escaped the Taliban in 2021, and we issued a special humanitarian visa for the families of Ukrainian Kiwis who were able to flee Russia’s invasion and make a home in New Zealand and shelter from the war.

All year, the Palestinian community in New Zealand has been begging this Government to do the right thing and allow their family members the chance to take shelter in New Zealand. Is it any wonder? We can see on our screens, every day, the carnage, the destruction, the mass starvation, and the slaughter of civilians. Israel has reduced Gaza to a pile of rubble. Is there anyone in this House who cannot understand why Palestinian New Zealanders are desperately asking for the right to have their family members take shelter here?

The Government’s response is an embarrassing silence and some feeble excuses. Immigration Minister, Erica Stanford, said that “Issuing special visas would merely give Palestinian New Zealanders false hope, as they could not leave Gaza.” Now, that’s not only patronising but it’s wrong. Actually, while travel outside of Gaza is difficult, having a visa makes a difference. It can facilitate the approval from the Israeli authorities, and there are other ways out. I know a case of four young children orphaned in Gaza who used a private firm to cross into Egypt, and they simply need visas, now, so they can come and join their relatives in New Zealand. If they go back to Gaza, they could well be killed.

The Government needs not only to issue a special humanitarian visa for Gaza; it needs to use all of the diplomatic channels at its disposal to get Israel to allow those people to cross the border at Rafah into Egypt. Private sector firms have been charging huge amounts of money to get people out of Gaza and into Egypt, so we know it’s possible.

These people are facing unimaginable horrors. The Government could help them to safety, but it is choosing not to. Erica Stanford’s explanation that she took this issue to Cabinet, and Cabinet decided not to create a special visa suggests that it was rejected on political grounds, and I think the Minister owes this House and the public an explanation of what the reasons were. Why did her Cabinet colleagues not support a special visa?

For this Government, doing the right thing somehow is too hard and too complicated, but not for others. Canada allocated 5,000 special visas to the people of Gaza. Australia has allocated more than 2,800 visas to people so they can get out of Gaza and go to Australia, and, already, more than 1,200 of those people have arrived in Australia. If they can do it, why can’t New Zealand?

I say to the Government—I say to the Government—listen to the cries of the Palestinian community in New Zealand, do the Kiwi thing, and give these people a lifeline. Issue a special visa for the families of Palestinian Kiwis desperately trying to escape the war zone, and make every diplomatic effort to help those people come to safety in New Zealand.

CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour): Thank you. Today I want to take you through five wins in five minutes under this coalition Government. The first win: tax relief is now a reality. This month, the good people of Upper Harbour have been seeing a wee boost in their pay packets, thanks to the Government delivering on its election promise of tax relief for hard-working low to middle income workers. This Government lifted the tax thresholds for the first time in 14 years—long overdue—meaning for the average Auckland household a boost of $2,085 each and every year. As the Minister of Finance told us at the time, our tax relief package sends a signal to those hard-working Kiwis that this Government backs them, we acknowledge the cost of living, and we say Kiwis deserve to keep more of their hard-earned cash.

The second win: Auckland regional fuel tax, gone. The unpopular Auckland regional fuel tax that was in place for six years has gone, saving Auckland motorists 11.5 cents per litre. It was axed on 1 July, bringing down the cost of fuel and subsequently bringing down the cost of living. Since then, our Minister of Transport has announced that legislation will be introduced this year to enable time of use schemes to reduce travel times on our busiest roads and boost economic growth. What’s more, tolls will fund many new roads of national significance, with the New Zealand Transport Agency already getting on with the first seven. Public consultation on its design is already under way for the dedicated busway up Auckland’s Northwestern Motorway, State Highway 16—great for Upper Harbour. These user-pays funding mechanisms are something Aucklanders have overwhelmingly supported for 20 years to get their city moving. It’ll be this coalition Government that finally turns that wish into results.

The third win—the third win in five mins—local water already working. Earlier this month, the Government announced its Local Water Done Well plan, the creation—via its Local Water Done Well plan—of new financially sustainable water organisations that will have increased access to borrowing from the Local Government Funding Agency for water services. The burden on ratepayers will reduce and local government can finally commit to significant local water infrastructure investment, with Auckland, of course, leading the way. A deal was struck between this Government and Auckland Council back in May, which saw Auckland avoid the previously projected 25.8 percent rates increase yet keep the complete control of water assets. Subsequently, Auckland Council was able to roll out a 6.8 percent rates increase, less than half the national average. But don’t worry, for the many other councils up and down the country, help is on its way.

The fourth win: the official cash rate down—the official cash rate down. Upper Harbour residents, as well as Kiwis, had to endure the highest inflation in more than a generation. And good news: inflation is coming under control. It’s returning to within the statutory band of less than 3 percent. In fact, this month the Reserve Bank showed us its confidence in this downward trend by stepping down the official cash rate by 25 basis points. We’ve got a long way to go after the last Labour Government vandalised our economy, drove up inflation and subsequently interest rates, but mortgage holders can finally see some light at the end of the tunnel.

Finally, FamilyBoost is under way. From 1 July, FamilyBoost took effect, helping over 100,000 Kiwi families with early childhood education costs. From Unsworth Heights to the North Shore to Massey in the west, FamilyBoost is not only helping parents, it’s great for kids and great for the centres.

Five wins in five minutes: tax relief a reality, Auckland regional fuel tax gone, Local Water Done Well already working, the official cash rate down, and FamilyBoost now under way. Thank you.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Today, I would like to talk about and just kind of unpack some of the Government’s position around education. I’d like to play a little game in today’s debate, sort of comparing and contrasting what the Minister of Education is doing and what the Associate Minister of Education is doing.

Let’s start with round one; let’s start with teachers and principals. On one hand, we have the Minister of Education saying prospective teachers are required to have NCEA level 2 maths in order to even begin teacher training. But what about the Associate Minister’s charter schools? Oh, look! Teachers are not even required to have a teaching qualification. Second, the Minister of Education said teachers are going to be well resourced with professional development opportunities. But what about the Associate Minister’s charter schools? Nope. Nope—actually no requirement for personal development whatsoever. Third one—still on the teachers and principals round—the Minister of Education: excellent and experienced principals result in excellent outcomes. Oh—what about charter schools? Oh, no, not the same. Sponsors have no need for an education background. How shocking!

Now, let’s talk about round two, on curriculum. The Minister of Education says, “We need consistency and an explicit approach to teaching reading, writing, and maths. We need one hour of reading and numeracy and literacy in the classroom a day. We want to see cellphone bans.”—green tick from the Minister of Education. But what about the Associate Minister’s charter schools? Oh! Oh! Different again. We see inconsistencies and flimsy curriculums in charter schools. There is no requirement for anything that the Minister of Education has mentioned. What about the Minister of Education consistently talking about every child in this country having access to one of their programmes? Like, surely this is a big green tick. But what about the Associate Minister’s charter schools? Incorrect again. Charter school students apparently are not considered under the definition of “every child in this country”.

Let’s move on to parents, whānau, and students. We see the Minister of Education talking about how parents should be integral to student educational progress and, indeed, we see parents taking an active role in the school’s governance—being on their school boards. But what about the Associate Minister’s charter schools? Oh, oh, what a shame! Incorrect again. Parents are not required to be part of the governance structure, or even decision making.

Let’s go on to the next question. What about when it comes to Māori educational outcomes? Now, we have heard both the Minister of Education and the Prime Minister mentioning over and over again about how Māori educational outcomes are failing and that we need to work hard to engage, and they have been working hard to engage Māori educational representatives and organisations to lift Māori student achievement. Surely this is a big tick. But is it the same thing as the Associate Minister’s charter schools? No, actually, because charter schools do not even give effect to Te Tiriti—not in the bill.

Finally, the last round is around process. There are a lot of things we could really be talking about, but, in general, we want to see transparency and accountability in our public education system—something that the Minister of Education supposedly cares very deeply about. So they gave an example: they can request information via the Official Information Act. But, alas, no—you cannot request information from a charter school via the Official Information Act if you are a student or parent.

I’m not sure what you think about this Government’s educational objectives, where we have the Minister of Education saying one thing, singing one tune, and the Associate Minister another. What we see is a National Party continuously using their “back on track” slogan, but my question is: what track is their coalition partner on? Thank you.

HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE (Te Pāti Māori—Hauraki-Waikato): Tēnā rā koe e te Pīka, otirā, tēnā rā tātou e te Whare. As te Wiki o te Reo Māori approaches, I want to take the time and reflect on how far we’ve come, the current political landscape, and where we should be heading instead.

I did have a pre-planned kōrero. However, it has completely gone out the window after today’s Māori Affairs Committee. Today, we had the briefing and hearing of Te Taura Whiri i te Reo Māori and Te Mātāwai, and I didn’t realise how confronting and emotional it would be. Now, you would think that it would be common that I was asking questions in te reo Māori to te reo organisations in the Māori Affairs Committee room, but, unfortunately, it is not common. It made me reflect on what should be common in our society and in this country. It should be common to speak Māori in this Parliament. It should be common to have Māori representation in councils, like Māori wards. It should be common, not rare.

As a first-time language speaker, it hit me real hard at how far we’ve come to get to this moment, the generations of hurt and suffering we’ve endured as a people to get to this point. And, yes, ironically, as simple as a question may sound, asking it in te reo Māori it was not. It was the response from the quiet, humble, but proud smiles across the room as I asked these questions that fuelled my soul. As cliché as it sounds, this is the medicine to the current political landscape we have right now. It was hard for me to not raise my voice and sometimes not pūkana and add in a haka or two here and there, but I just simply spoke Māori. No matter how big and small, you know your language and culture. We are so proud of you. The impact of these small smiles spoke 1,000 words of our tūpuna, in that split moment, that I wish I could bring into the House with me and into these the debating chambers.

Whina Cooper once said, “Take care of our children. Take care of what they hear, take care of what they see, take care of what they feel, for how the children grow, so will be the shape of Aotearoa.” As a mokopuna, at times, I have been left speechless and distraught in these debating chambers, listening, hearing, and feeling the long list of legislation that’s been put against us: section 7AA, fast track, section 27 in the court justice, disestablishing Te Aka Whai Ora, Māori wards, first-home buyer grants, gang legislation, removal of Māori names in Government, removal of Te Mana o te Wai, removal of three waters, removal of smoke-free laws, the disestablishing of Te Arawhiti, and we haven’t even reached the Treaty principles bill yet. And this isn’t even touching on the cost of living crisis. The majority of this legislation has been rushed through urgency without public consultation. And when we are given the opportunity to speak under urgency, I get attacked for stickers. Ironically, in my head, I keep asking myself, “When are we going to have an adult conversation?”

One of the biggest highlights I have been able to do in this role—although being in it for a short amount of time and although in Opposition—is delivering pātaka throughout my whole electorate of Hauraki-Waikato, where our electorate team has been able to deliver free kai, free winter essentials, warm clothing, and free health necessities and sanitary products for our constituents, and for wāhine. These are the key issues and needs that our people are desperately seeking throughout this country. And, as I said before, when are we going to have these conversations? It feels like we are globally hot and locally not. That is the situation that I currently feel that we are in.

Although the political landscape that we are in, the current recent events, should be a testament to where we can move as a country, Eliza McCartney, Olympian, speaking te reo Māori in Paris; Kai Kara-France, UFC champ, was asked, “How do you have 13 first-round wins?” He answers by saying, “Cos I am Māori.” We’ve even seen King Charles write a speech in te reo Māori in official Matariki greetings. It should be common to see these athletes, Olympians, and everyday New Zealanders in Aotearoa accepting and acknowledging our culture. We have watched the world embrace our culture, customs, and heritage, so we do expect that, and we demand that from this Government. Tēnā rā tātou.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

SPEAKER: I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Courts (Remote Participation) Amendment Bill, Corrections Amendment Bill, and the Firearms Prohibition Orders Legislation Amendment Bill.

House in Committee

House in Committee

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members, the House is in committee for consideration of the Courts (Remote Participation) Amendment Bill, further consideration of the Corrections Amendment Bill, and consideration of the Firearms Prohibition Orders Legislation Amendment Bill.

Bills

Courts (Remote Participation) Amendment Bill

In Committee

Part 1 Amendments to Courts (Remote Participation) Act 2010

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members, we start with the Courts (Remote Participation) Amendment Bill. We come first to Part 1. This is the debate on clauses 3 to 8, “Amendments to Courts (Remote Participation) Act 2010”, and Schedule 1. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Minister for Courts): I am pleased to be here to speak on the Courts (Remote Participation) Amendment Bill, and I’d like to acknowledge the parties across the House for their support of this bill.

This bill forms part of the Government’s core priorities for this quarter. Improving court performance and access to justice is in the interests of all New Zealanders. The use of technologies to make the court more efficient and accessible will help us to achieve this goal, and this bill reflects one step in that direction. Remote participation can reduce travel time and costs for participants in the community. Remote participation of defendants who are in custody reduces the risk of violent incidents by high-risk defendants occurring during transport or in court. Remote participation can also reduce transport and security costs for Corrections and Police.

This bill improves and clarifies the law in relation to remote participation while preserving the ability of the judicial officers and the court registrars to control court proceedings. For instance, it enables the court to impose conditions to protect the integrity of the court process. We will begin today by turning our attention to Part 1 of that bill. Part 1 contains two targeted changes to the Courts (Remote Participation) Act, to enable greater use of remote participation in court proceedings.

The first of these changes will allow victims to observe criminal trials and sentencing remotely if suitable technology is available and they wish to do so, with the ability for a judicial officer or court registrar to direct otherwise if they consider that this would not be in the interests of justice. Remote observation will not be appropriate or available in all situations. For example, natural justice requires that where a victim is also a witness in their trial, they cannot hear the testimony of other witnesses before giving evidence themselves. This amendment will give victims more options for how to choose to engage with the court process and help avoid the re-traumatisation that is often felt by victims in the courtroom. Importantly, victims will still be able to attend in person if they so wish. This amendment will come into effect six months after Royal assent. This additional time is needed to allow for the development of new court processes and supporting material.

The second change allows the use of audio links such as telephone conference calls for criminal proceedings that defendants do not attend, and for appropriate civil and Family Court proceedings. The Act currently authorises the use of audiovisual technology only. This change will expand the number of people who are able to participate remotely, and many people in the community who are involved in court proceedings do 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. Audio links will be able to be used only when the judicial officer or registrar is satisfied that the parties will be able to effectively comprehend and participate in the proceeding. Audio links would usually not be appropriate for participants who are vulnerable due to their age, cognitive ability, or language comprehension. In addition, audio links will not be permitted for mental health proceedings that determine whether a person needs to be compulsorily detained and treated if the affected person is required to attend.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m pleased to stand in this committee stage and recognise the good work that this bill does and recognise our spokesperson, Greg O’Connor, as well, who’s had a number of things to say on this. With the indulgence of the Chair, I don’t intend to drag the committee stage out, but I do hope to make some general observations before we move on.

Firstly, remote participation is very much supported as a useful tool, but we do need to make sure—and the Minister may wish to comment on these things—that the technology being used is reliable, because there are plenty of instances where court proceedings haven’t worked because, at one end or the other, the resources haven’t been put into the technology there. This bill sits alongside, I imagine, Te Au Reka, which is the digitisation programme of the Ministry of Justice. We’d really want to be aware that everyone needs to be on board with that: judges, lawyers, trial participants, and we want to make sure that the potential for disruption really is minimised in the case of any access disruptions there.

We are concerned that the courts are being asked to do this with $31 million less in this Budget than the estimated expenditure was in 2023-24. This is once again the Government saying, “Do more stuff but we’re not giving you more money to do it.”, and that’s a concern. On a more principled basis, this bill, we think, has struck the right balance, and we commend the Minister on that, but we do want to express some concerns if this is the first step. We certainly don’t want virtual participation to become a default position or to hinder access to justice. In that sense, the concern is scope creep, that over time, either by law or by practice, there isn’t a genuine option for victims or for offenders to attend in person.

I just want to recognise that, even if the law says they can, the way in which that option is presented sometimes can make it very difficult—whether that might be in a corrections setting, “I’m sure you don’t want to attend, do you?”, with a clear indication that it wouldn’t be good for relationships if you do; or the kind of dismissiveness that we sometimes see, and should never see, but we do sometimes see, of victims: “I’m sure you don’t want to turn up and confront the perpetrator.”

That brings me to another point, which is that it is important that victims have the choice—always have the choice. We certainly would be cautious or very concerned if there was any suggestion that sentencing perpetrators could be remote in any kind of serious offending where there is a victim involved, because victims have a right and should always have a right to confront the perpetrator in person, in the courtroom, should they choose to do so. And the reading of victim impact statements is one example of that, but that’s not the only example. Simply being there and seeing a sentence handed down and the judge knowing that victim is in the courtroom and, essentially, participating by their presence is really, really important. So victims always need to have the option to be in court with the accused at the same time.

I’m just going to cite Chief District Court Judge Jan-Marie Doogue, who notes “Sparing a defendant the emotional discomfort of being confronted by the presence of their victim”—in remote participation, that is—“runs counter to three purposes of sentencing in the Sentencing Act 2002. The effect on the delivery of a victim impact statement within the provisions of the Victims’ Rights Act 2002 is also a consideration that may [weigh a court] against the use of AVL”. That’s the kind of really important victim-centric approach that needs to be taken into account. Those are my comments that the Minister may or may not wish to respond to.

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Minister for Courts): Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you to the member, the Hon Duncan Webb, for your questions; they are really good questions and deserve an answer, I think, straight away. I’ve tried to capture as much as I could there, so I’ll just work through some of those issues that you’ve raised there.

One of them is about the technology and whether or not it’s going to work. We are aware in some cases where there have been issues—one of the things that has been made very clear in this bill is that there needs to be a few days of advanced notice given so that technology can be tested to make sure we’re not in a situation where people are in court or not, they are remote, and the technology fails. It’s very important that all parties to the use of audiovisual or just the audio technology do make their intentions known to the court registrars or the judiciary officers that that is their intent so it can be sorted. This bill is making permanent what was brought in under COVID-19 and adding to it the ability to have the audio technology, because not everyone does have access to audiovisual.

In relation to victims, they most definitely have a choice. I think we must always respect the fact that victims have a choice, but we also have the ability, by using this technology, to make victims feel safer and not feel re-victimised and not feel that they have to appear in situations where they feel vulnerable. But it is important, as you mentioned, that they have the choice to be there. My understanding is that with the delivery of victim impact statements, if the victim actually does not want to be in court but wants to deliver such a statement, they could do this potentially through VMR, which is a virtual meeting room. That will be hosted by the court. The guests will be the participants and the lawyers, and it can be streamed to observers to make sure that those ethics of open justice are available as well.

I think on top of all of this is looking at the review, which is a first-principles review of how this is working and will be undertaken as well over—well, it’s already under way. This is going to look at the costs, it’s going to look at the effectiveness, and it’s going to look at how we can make it better for all users, including the courts, the victims, all participants. Really, what we’re looking at doing is making permanent what had been in place over COVID-19 that was going to expire in November—adding to it the audio as well and having that first-principles review about how we make sure that we do it right and continue to do it right and make changes if we have to in the future.

HŪHANA LYNDON (Green): Kia ora, Madam Chair. I stand on behalf of Te Rōpū Kākāriki to again support this bill, but adding on to my colleague from the Labour Party, just to query a couple of further parts to Part 1, acknowledging that we are expanding and providing the opportunity for both audio links and audiovisual links to be provided. As someone from Te Tai Tokerau—mindful of travel distance, mindful of our capacity for Wi-Fi reception across the rohe. Hearing from the Minister, also, that there’s an opportunity for us to maybe have like a hub-and-spoke approach where a victim might be able to go to a place such as Kaitāia, and Zoom-in using their technology to a hearing in Whangārei is really good, because it provides that ability for us to stay within our kāinga in the Far North, but be able to participate using better technology than what we might have in Hokianga or somewhere like that.

I did want to follow up, though, in terms of resourcing and acknowledging that there will be a review of the system. With the resourcing, thinking about both the hardware available in the courthouse but also the ability for staff to be allocated—knowing that we’ve still got the funding shortages within the department—and the relevant trained staff who are able to dedicate their time, because this might be a request that comes up more often than not, now—with providing the opportunity for this remote connection into hearings, we could see an increase in volumes of requests to utilise this technology.

There is a question around resourcing, capacity, and capability, but acknowledging, certainly, that this is a good step in the right direction for us to all be able to participate according to our tikanga, particularly from a victim perspective. I am mindful, too, that of course—as we’ve heard previously—for a victim to be able to participate in front of the offender is also a part of that journey. Having the audiovisual opportunity, you can then not have to undergo, sometimes, the whakamā or the intimidation that might occur in the courthouse when you are engaging face to face with your offender and those that might be his supporters.

That’s my basic question; it’s around resourcing, capability, and capacity. If we do get increases in requests for utilising this technology or this option moving forward, does she have confidence that we will have the manpower and dedicated staff that can execute these requests? Kia ora.

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Minister for Courts): Thank you, Madam Chair, and thanks to that member for the questions. Again, really good questions.

We currently have available audiovisual technology in 136 of our courtrooms and 55 courts and tribunal buildings as well. That’s the audiovisual technology—some of it’s old, some of it’s on trolleys, some of it’s quite modern. This is why it’s so important that we introduce the audio side as well, because regardless of where we go, if we have that reception we can at least listen in if not always view.

Also, when it comes to our victims being able to watch—where they are spectators—it’s a one-way vision. Only they and their support person can see into the courtroom. The defendant cannot look out and watch them being watched, so to speak. They can still participate and be protected. What I really like about this bill is them having that ability—like you say—to be close to their whānau, to their own rohe or motu, and be able to have their support person directly with them. I think that’s going to be beneficial for everybody.

While we do not have everybody operating in an ideal way, this is what the first-principles review is going to be looking at: what is working, what’s not working, where do we need the upgrades.

In answer to your question about the court staff, they’re already utilising this. I just believe that more training will be required when we start implementing new technology, should that indeed occur after we’ve had the first-principles review.

MARK CAMERON (ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Minister, for joining us this afternoon. I’ve just got a couple of quick questions, and maybe you could tease it out a little bit further as to the cost of attending courts, and the member from the Greens illuminated that point just now, about how some of the geographical distances for people that have to go to a hearing are substantial. How do you see this teasing out in terms of the cost savings that would be afforded to participants in this process, and where do you see it landing in terms of accessing justice and natural justice, both for the victim and the offender, in this instance? I would ask what does that look like, given that there’s a significant backlog in the courts currently. Will this technology—the audio technology and the remote participation—expedite better outcomes and reduce the backlog in courts, as well?

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Minister for Courts): Thank you for the question. This is going to make a huge difference to participants, especially the victims. If they have to travel from Hokianga down to Auckland, as an example, that’s a lot of travel, and we have these huge backlogs in our courts at the moment. Not only are people on edge, especially our victims, about having to get to court, but actually being in the same room at the same time with the perpetrators—the cost is more than financial. The cost to them actually goes straight to their hearts and their wellbeing.

I believe that this is a way for those participants to be able to interact and feel like they are a part of the process, without being revictimised. So the costs to them are definitely relieved—and I’m sorry to you, but I’ve forgotten the rest of your question, so I’ll sit for now.

Part 1 agreed to.

Part 2 Amendments to Criminal Procedure Act 2011

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members, we now come to Part 2. Part 2 is the debate on clauses 9 to 11, “Amendments to Criminal Procedure Act 2011”. The question is that Part 2 stand part.

Part 2 agreed to.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Clauses 1 and 2

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members, we now come to our final debate: clauses 1 and 2. This is the debate on clauses 1 and 2, “Title” and “Commencement”. The question is that clauses 1 and 2 stand part.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Bill to be reported without amendment.

Bills

Corrections Amendment Bill

In Committee

Debate resumed from 20 August.

Part 1 Amendments to principal Act (continued)

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members, we now come to the Corrections Amendment Bill. When we were last considering the bill, we were debating Part 1. This is the debate on clauses 4 to 47A, “Amendments to principal Act”, and Schedules 1 and 2. Once again, the question is that Part 1 stand part.

The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 52 and tabled amendments to clause 43 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.

Ayes 68

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

Noes 48

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

Amendments agreed to.

CAMILLA BELICH (Junior Whip—Labour): Point of order. Madam Chair, I just wonder if you could, please, clarify the exact part of the bill that we’re up to, because we didn’t quite hear that.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): We are on Part 1, and this is clauses 4 to 47A, and Schedules 1 and 2.

The question is that Tamatha Paul’s amendments to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 81 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.

Ayes 48

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

Noes 68

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

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Tamatha Paul’s amendments to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 82 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.

Ayes 48

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

Noes 68

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

Amendments not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Dr Tracey McLellan’s six tabled amendments to Part 1 are out of order as being the same in substance as amendments previously not agreed to in Amendment Paper 81.

The question is that Tamatha Paul’s amendments to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 83 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.

Ayes 48

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

Noes 68

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

Amendments not agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 1 as amended be agreed to.

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.

Part 1 as amended agreed to.

Part 2 Amendments to Corrections Regulations 2005

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members, we now come to Part 2. This is the debate on clauses 48 to 57, “Amendments to Corrections Regulations 2005”. The question is that Part 2 stand part.

Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. As is the nature of this bill, there’s probably just a couple of quick questions—and I don’t expect that the Minister will have any problems being able to just kind of answer them back and forth—nothing terribly in depth, but around the theme of, I suppose, a collection of things that are, essentially, new duties or certainly require work, and I would just like to check with the Minister about what that means in a practical kind of arrangement.

If we look at clause 54, “Regulation 113 amended (Visits not to be recorded without necessary approvals)”—and I suppose just as an example, “Subclause (1) does not forbid the use of security surveillance cameras or other technology in a prison if—(a) the cameras or other technology—(i) record only visual images; or (ii) record sound and visual images for an intelligence purpose under subpart 4A of Part 2 of the Act; and (b) notices are predominantly displayed in visiting areas that inform visitors that they are in use [around] those areas.” That has a practical implication, certainly in terms of people performing duties and resources, but when I looked at the regulatory impact statement, which I know the Minister would have read, the Ombudsman, for one, and some submitters certainly looked at whether—given resource constraints that were there at the time, let alone now—a more targeted approach to that would have been appropriate.

The regulatory impact statement certainly says that “Corrections is currently unable to identify all mail that should be withheld due to a lack of resources” and goes on to say similar things about the ability to monitor all phone calls. By making this amendment to this bill and increasing the surveillance, the monitoring, and broadening the definition of communications for an intelligence purpose, did the Minister consider utilising that in a more targeted way or can he kind of just provide us with a little bit more clarity about the practical applications of how that might work?

I’m happy to go on to ask another quick question just whilst that percolates for a wee bit: if we sort of skip over and look at clause 55, “Regulation 119A”, there’s a suite of amendments related to, essentially, just changing the wording from “non-lethal” to “less-lethal”. That was something that was discussed in select committee as not only just kind of modernising it because the terminology has changed but also, as was discussed yesterday, it was descriptive rather than criticism. Because things can be lethal, we shouldn’t term anything that’s used in that environment fait accompli as being non-lethal. The suite of changes that go through those regulations—I just wondered, did the Minister have any thoughts or was there any discussion that we might not be privy to about whether that’s something that constantly needs to be updated or is that the sort of term du jour and are we kind of futureproofing it, therefore, if we choose to go down that path?

The third question that I had, just sort of off the top of my head, was if we look at clause 57, “Schedule 7 amended”, new clause 24A, “Clauses 23 and 24 are subject to sections 133A and 138A of the Act.”, that relates to amendments to privileges that can proceed without prisoners being present. Again, there’s a suite of sort of changes there, but I think it would be handy if the Minister had any kind of comment, again, on how that might relate to the ability to perform those duties given that a lot of that back-office staff have been cut. That’s where the cost savings really did hit, in so far as finding the bulk of those cost savings were, by definition, in back-office staff because most of the staff in Corrections are front-office staff. If the Minister had any comment along those lines in terms of being able to practically carry out these things in that environment, that would be much appreciated.

Hon MARK MITCHELL (Minister of Corrections): I thank the member for those questions. Look, the reality of it is, as you can see in the regulations, that the interception and monitoring of communications is taken really seriously by Corrections for both the safety of the staff, the safety of the prisoners, and also public safety. That’s why there’s got to be robust measures in place in terms of how that’s done. It’s got to be prescriptive, and it is. In terms of capacity, look, I agree with you that when the system is under stress, then of course you have to start prioritising, and this has been one of the big challenges without a doubt that Corrections has had to deal with and they’ve done a very good job of dealing with that.

The good news is that we’re now seeing some very good results. We’re well above the rate of attrition. I’ve visited many of the offices that actually deal with this work. They’re well staffed, they’re very professional, they’re outstanding and very efficient in the way that they approach their role.

In terms of the switch from “non-lethal” to “less-lethal”, I think the member herself did a very good job of explaining why we had to do that, because although we all know what we mean when we say “non-lethal”, the reality of it is this is not a perfect world we live in and we cannot guarantee that one of those non-lethal methods couldn’t result in a death. That has prompted, along with some recommendations that have come out of the UN, the change to “less-lethal”.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Tamatha Paul’s amendments to Part 2 set out on Amendment Paper 82 are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee—Amendment Paper 82, Part 1. Tamatha Paul’s amendments to Part 2 set out on Amendment Paper 83 are out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee—Amendment Paper 83, Part 1.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 2 be agreed to.

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.

Part 2 agreed to.

Schedule 1 New Schedule 1AA inserted

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): This is Schedule 1. The question is that the Minister’s amendment to Schedule 1 set out on Amendment Paper 52 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

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.

Amendment agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Schedule 1 as amended stand part.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Schedule 1 as amended be agreed to.

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.

Schedule 1 as amended agreed to.

Schedule 2 Consequential amendments

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): We now go to Schedule 2. The question is that Schedule 2 stand part.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Schedule 2 be agreed to.

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.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Clauses 1 to 3

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members, we now come to our final debate. This is clauses 1 to 3. This debate on clauses 1 to 3 is title, commencement, and principal Act. The question is that clauses 1 to 3 stand part.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 1 be agreed to.

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.

Clause 1 agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 2 be agreed to.

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.

Clause 2 agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 3 be agreed to.

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.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Bill to be reported with amendment.

Bills

Firearms Prohibition Orders Legislation Amendment Bill

In Committee

Part 1 Amendments to Arms Act 1983

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): We now come to the Firearms Prohibition Orders Legislation Amendment Bill. Members, we come first to Part 1. This is the debate on clauses 3 to 9, “Amendments to Arms Act 1983”. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m pleased to be here for this stage of the Firearms Prohibition Orders Legislation Amendment Bill. The bill progresses the Government’s commitment to reduce violent crime, restore law and order, and keep our community safe. It was developed as part of the Government’s 100-day plan and gives police the tools that they need to keep firearms out of the hands of gangs and other high-risk offenders. Firearms prohibition orders—or FPOs—are orders of the court made when offenders have committed serious violent offences. They last 10 years and prohibit the person from holding a firearms licence or from being around or accessing firearms. Breaching the conditions of an FPO is a criminal offence punishable with imprisonment for up to seven years.

This bill makes three key improvements to the existing FPO regime. First, the bill expands the qualifying criteria for the court to make an FPO, focusing the FPO regime on gang members and gang offending. It specifies additional offences for which a member or associate of a gang, if convicted, can be issued with an FPO. These are gang-related offences in the Crimes Act 1961, the Arms Act 1983, Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, and the Psychoactive Substances Act 2013. These are offences like assault, robbery, illicit drug manufacture, and unlawful possession of a firearm and illegal supply of prohibited firearms. This change responds to concerns from the public about the risks posed by gang members and associates using firearms.

Second, the bill establishes a process by which an FPO may be varied, modified, or revoked. An individual is subject to an FPO for a considerable length of time, but we recognise that within this time, their circumstances may change and they may no longer pose a risk to public safety. To address this, the bill means people with FPOs will be able to request the court to vary or revoke the FPO after five years, which is half the duration of the FPO, should their exemplary behaviour warrant a reduced time variation.

Third, the bill gives police a new search power to monitor compliance with an FPO. Currently, the FPO regime does not provide police any specific search powers to monitor an individual’s compliance with an FPO. Police rely on general search powers associated with firearms, set out in the Search and Surveillance Act 2012—the officer must suspect an offence involving a firearm has occurred. The bill amends the Search and Surveillance Act 2012, giving police the ability to search anyone with an FPO, to monitor compliance with that FPO. The officer must have reasonable grounds to believe that person is subject to an FPO. This bespoke search power means that police can proactively monitor compliance with FPOs to ensure those individuals who have been deemed a risk to public safety are not accessing firearms.

This bill addresses the unacceptable levels of gang-related violence, public intimidation, and crimes involving firearms that have so concerned New Zealanders. The changes will keep firearms out of the hands of gangs and other high-risk offenders. This is another initiative to advance the Government’s commitment to reduce violent crime and restore law and order, and, ultimately, to make our communities safer.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): I’d like to ask a couple of questions in relation to this Firearms Prohibition Orders Legislation Amendment Bill. I note that this is tranche one of four different elements of the overarching firearms reforms that have been part of the Government suite of changes.

Before I get into that, I would just like to have some feedback from the Minister, in relation to some of the issues that have been identified in the regulatory impact statement; in particular, the limitation and constraints on analysis that have been unable to be completed, given the short period of time. In particular, it does note that no public consultation has been conducted on these proposals and that Police relied on previous statements in 2020 consultations and the 2022 Justice Committee regarding firearms prohibition orders (FPOs) to indicate stakeholder views. From my understanding, and the Minister may want to clarify, that’s the previous FPO regime. The previous consultation on the last regime is what’s being applied to this one. Could the Minister explain why that has happened, given that this one is supposed to be different to the previous one. It’s also noted here that those “views may no longer be accurate and proposals previously consulted on have a number of key differences from current proposals.” Given it appears that there was no consultation undertaken with this regime, why was that the case?

I’d be interested to have some information from the Minister in relation to the fact that it states that “Police consider it is too early to properly assess how effectively the current FPO regime is achieving its objectives.” That would be the FPO regime introduced under the previous Government. The current regime only took effect from the end of 2022—that’s November 2022—and only comes into place at the point of sentencing for those offenders who would receive a firearms prohibition order. In addition to that, only coming into effect in November 2022 and at sentencing, many individuals had an FPO imposed on them, but they’re also in prison, because it’s at sentencing, and so they’re receiving an imprisonment term. The impact of that regime—I’d be interested to know how the Minister assesses that it’s ineffective enough to warrant it being changed or this new one coming on top of it, when there seems to be quite clear advice from Police that it’s not been in operation for long enough, given that it only came in in November 2022 and those it does apply to all largely received a custodial sentence so would still be largely serving time.

In the problem definition for the changes that we’re examining right now, it does appear that there’s limited evidence to support it and there’s very little baseline evidence to support future monitoring of where these changes have been effective. Given the fact that analysis has not been undertaken for the FPO regime in place now, how do we track whether this one’s actually making a difference or not? That would be interesting to understand from the Minister. There is still quite a lack of certainty regarding how many firearm prohibition orders will be issued under these new requirements, and that appears to be largely due to the fact, such as, that it’s a judge who is able to put one of these on somebody.

The Minister has provided some modelling of what she anticipates to be the number of FPOs and how that will increase. I’m interested to understand how she arrived at that modelling, given that there’s been no essential analysis of the existing regime. I’m interested to hear how the analysis will be undertaken, given the lack of consultation on this and also the lack of real, I guess, analysis of the existing regime and how it’s operating to date.

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice): I thank that member for her questions. There were quite a few there, so I’ve tried to capture as much as I can in order to answer.

The limitation on data that was produced in regard to giving the Police the ability to make sure that they can monitor the compliance of the regime—yes, the programme has only been in place since November 2022. We’re coming up close to two years of that but, at the end of the day, if the Police are unable to actually monitor the compliance of the regime, then it’s unknown how the regime is being effective as well. I think it’s great that we are introducing this at this stage, because it will help Police to know whether or not those individuals with a firearms prohibition order (FPO) are actually complying with the conditions of that FPO. The consultation that was held in 2021 actually addressed these issues, the requirements that we’re putting into law now, and we feel confident that there has not been that much of a change, if any, because it wasn’t that long ago when they were canvassed.

Further, the member is talking about people that are incarcerated. The FPOs do not take effect until a person is released from prison. One of the benefits of this bill, as it goes through, is the ability for those that have been rehabilitated to apply, after five years of having that FPO upon them, to have a variation or reduction in time. Those that do rehabilitate and do well when incarcerated, once released will have the possibility of a five-year reduction instead of having to go through a 10-year regime.

The FPO numbers are currently sitting between 80 and 100 per annum, which could relate to about 800 to 1,000 more people with an FPO placed upon them over 10 years. I think what’s important here is what the member herself actually alluded to, which is that an FPO is not placed on a person unless they are convicted of a serious violent assault—or crime, I should say, rather than assault. At the moment, those crimes are those that are considered serious violent crimes under the three-strikes regime. This regime will allow us to open it up to some other further violent and serious crimes. Again, if I come back to the fact that these people would already have been convicted of this, an FPO is additional to the conviction that they have; it’s not an incarceration. Ffurther to that, those numbers could actually reduce effectively if the five-year regime is implemented where somebody who has been convicted ends up applying and is successful in having their 10-year FPO reduced down to five years—those numbers actually have the ability to reduce.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Madam Chair. Firstly, a clarification from the Minister would be good on the offending that is required, because she seemed to suggest that serious—I think she said “serious, violent” and then backtracked a bit on that, but even the seriousness thing perhaps needs clarification. One of the concerns we have about this is the increase in scope, the kind of wide range of people that this can be kind of cast over.

I had an occasion to look at the Misuse of Drugs Act, and one of the offences that falls within the scope of this bill is possession of drug paraphernalia. That’s just happening to have at your home or on your person something like a bong. Now, that’s an offence—as it should be—under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, and that’s captured in clause 7 of this bill, as is any offence whatsoever under the Misuse of Drugs Act. Another offence under the Misuse of Drugs Act is misleading an officer who is engaging in an inquiry—so, just telling fibs. Now, that might be very, very serious, or it might be a minor matter. It’s just recognising, perhaps, that there’s some offences which some people would consider minor. It may be that the three strikes—not that I want to take too many pages out of that particular book—regime which uses the sentence imposed as the trigger rather than the offence itself would be more sensible. A bit a bit of clarification around that.

The other thing is a more practical point about the bill as a whole, because one of the real, critical factors is that this gives a significant limitation on the rights or the ability of people and their subject to search, and so on. My question is this: how can we be sure that when an officer is searching or exercising a power or doing something, that they will know that there is a firearms protection order in place? Can we be 100 percent certain, or certain beyond reasonable doubt, to use that phrase, that a person does have or doesn’t have a firearms protection order in place? If we make mistakes about that, they can be pretty significant mistakes.

Now, in the spirit of the committee of the whole House, I’m not going to do a five-minute speech. I’ve asked a couple of questions and perhaps the Minister would like to respond to those.

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice): Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you to the member for his question. The specific offences for a firearms protection order (FPO) under clause 7 of the bill: a person who is a member or an associate of a gang or an organised criminal group at the time that the offences committed may be issued with an FPO for offences under the Arms Act 1983, Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, Psychoactive Substances Act 2013, punishable by term of imprisonment of one year or more.

Minor offences such as being in possession of a pipe or a bomb that does not have an offence of more than one year—

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: It’s “one year or more”.

Hon NICOLE McKEE: —there’s more, there’s more, there is more—may not come under the regime if it is under that time. Some offences under the Crimes Act 1961, specifically crimes against the person, crimes against the rights of the property, and threatening, conspiring, and attempting to commit offences will also be captured.

What’s very important here is that a judge will not issue an FPO just because a person is convicted of an offence. The judge must be satisfied that the FPO is necessary, reasonable, and appropriate to manage the risk that that particular offender poses. How will the police know? There was good debate through the select committee process where we changed the words of “suspecting a person” to “believing that a person” is the subject of an FPO. I think this is really important, because if we do have an issue of mistaken identity, it could mean that an actual relevant case is then thrown out.

What has been put in place is the fact that we cannot have police constantly trying to search people, because that would be unreasonable. They need to make sure that they’re trying to search somebody in order to monitor the compliance with the regime, not just search them for the heck of it. They need to make sure that they are monitoring that compliance, not just pulling somebody over and then searching them for other reasons.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to start with just getting some clarification from the Minister, if it’s OK, regarding this particular bill.

My understanding, reading from Part 1, is we’re looking at adjustments to how the firearms prohibition orders (FPOs) are issued. One of the things that’s kind of really drawn my attention to this, and I couldn’t find it in the regulatory impact statement (RIS) as well, is it talks specifically—let’s say clause 7—around when an offender is sentenced and then the FPO is issued. But one of my questions is: if the intention of this bill is to provide for greater public safety, one of the things we hear a lot from migrant communities in general is about people who may not have had offended in the first place, but who may be on any form of watch list, etc.

Noting that the regulatory impact statement didn’t actually mention that there is any form of public consultation, and the previous consultation based on select committee and also previous things in 2020 may have been outdated as well, I was wondering if the Minister would mind clarifying or reassuring us that there has been some form of consultation or appropriate consultation that’s been done with the migrant community around other potential risks when it comes to something like this.

Again, when we’re looking at the issues of FPO specifically in the context of those who offended, what are some of the provisions around those who have not offended but should be issued or should have some form of FPO that’s kind of been put in place because of the idea of public safety? Again, in the regulatory impact statement (RIS), it talks about public safety in the context of gangs, and this is something we’ve discussed in previous bills, but again, I’m not seeing it from the perspective of genuine firearm safety in public.

Again, I would like to get some clarification from the Minister on what level of consultation they’ve done with the migrant population, and in this case, particularly I’m thinking of the Muslim population and our Muslim whānau. But, also in this case, when we’re looking at this not being included in the RIS, is there any other consideration around this idea of FPOs actually providing public safety? Thank you.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I’d just like to ask the Minister her views on some of the risks that have been highlighted as part of the—it’s not a regulatory impact statement; it’s a supplementary analysis report. I understand there was insufficient time to pull together a complete regulatory impact statement, but it’s still a brief outline of what some of the implementation risks are. It would be good to have a level of reassurance, in particular around human rights and litigation.

Changes regarding the search power, it’s been identified, are likely to limit section 26 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act (BORA), which is the right to be secure from unreasonable search and seizure, and I understand that the Attorney-General will provide a report into whether the bill implementing these changes is consistent with the NZ BORA, prior to its introduction. It would be good to have an update from the Minister as to when that section 17 report from the Attorney-General will be made available.

The supplementary analysis report has identified risks associated with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act being inconsistent, including that the courts may read down relevant legislation in order to be more rights consistent, and it’s important to note here that these firearms prohibition orders—the way they’re structured—are the same as the previous regime, that it’s still issued by a judge at sentencing. There may be some challenges in that space.

I’m interested to know from the Minister if she’s got a view whether individuals may submit claims for monetary damages either for breaches of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act or unreasonable search, and if that’s been factored into any of her calculations—it’s been identified here in the supplementary analysis paper—and whether there’s any calculation in the Government’s budget for the potential for damages, for breaches, of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act as a result of this. I’m sure there’s some ways in which there will be mitigations for those risks, but it would be really good to hear from the Minister what’s in place there, and also if there’s budget in place for that.

The other area that she might want to speak to is the fact that it’s still the judge who has the power to lay one of these, and I do note that when looking back over official information requests and looking at their earlier drafts, that initially it was, I think, the Commissioner of Police who was potentially the person who could determine a firearms prohibition order would be laid upon someone. Clearly there’s been a discussion about that and it’s decided that it’s best to remain with a judge issuing. But, with that, there is a risk that the imposition of new search powers may potentially have a negative effect if it results in the willingness of the courts or the unwillingness of the courts to issue these FPOs. You’re still reliant upon a judge to think that this is the best pathway for the offender before them.

I’m interested to know what views the Minister has on how you guess if a judge is going to put one of these on someone, and if it fails its bill of rights vet, will that potentially affect whether a judge considered that these expanded search powers are necessary in these circumstances, and if they in fact believe that the expanded search powers reduce the circumstances when a firearm prohibition order will be considered reasonable? There is potential there and I’ll be interested to know what the Minister thinks that this may result in fewer firearms prohibition orders being issued and therefore reduce public safety, which would be the antithesis of what this bill is aiming to achieve.

If the aim of the bill is to increase public safety benefits from this regime, the fact that there may be New Zealand Bill of Rights Act—we’ll find out—issues, it’s still being done by a judge, you could have even fewer firearms prohibition orders being issued as a result of that. I’m sure there’s a plan in place for police and for her officials to mitigate that risk, to ensure legislation—and the associated materials clearly indicate that there’s legislative intent behind these changes—but I would be interested to hear from the Minister as to how she intends to develop that guidance for how FPOs will apply. Thank you.

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’d like to respond first to the Green member’s comments, which I was a little confused on, so please feel free to stand up if I don’t answer in a way that answers your question.

The reason why I’m a little confused is because I had made mention already that there had been extensive consultation in 2021 regarding the search powers, so we feel that the consultation had taken place. You specifically mentioned the Muslim community. Where I’m confused is the firearms prohibition order is to actually stop people who should not be in possession or use firearms from being out on the streets and using them, and the way that you spoke didn’t speak to that. That’s why I just got a little bit confused, because I would think that any vulnerable community would be happy with the fact that we are looking at utilising the monitoring of compliance on those people with FPOs, to make sure that they don’t cause harm in any community whatsoever, regardless of ethnicity or race or religious belief; that anyone who should not be in possession of a firearm is able to be monitored for that compliance. I hope that addresses—and please feel free to stand up again if it doesn’t. Not right now, because I’m talking—

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Not right now? OK, all in good time.

Hon NICOLE McKEE: You’ll get another go. To the member from the Labour Party, regarding the human rights, the Attorney-General actually found that the bill was consistent or is consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. She concluded that the purpose of the proposed search power is not to locate evidence of offending but to ensure compliance with the FPOs. The Attorney-General also noted that searching to monitor compliance is generally reasonable where a person is subject to a community-based sentence or on bail or engaging in activities such as driving a car on a road when they shouldn’t be. We already have these sorts of things in place.

She also noted that administrative searching and surveillance to ensure compliance with the law is also common to some highly controlled industries, and she noted that the exercise of the power could still breach section 21—the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure—if it was used unreasonably; for example, through excessive searching, for searching at unreasonable times or searching for an ulterior purpose.

Also, the Auditor-General’s report has been published when the bill was introduced. It is already public, although the member is still looking for it. Another point that I would make is that licensed firearm owners are also restricted—they are open to being searched at any time whatsoever just for being a licensed firearm owner. The ability to actually monitor compliance and search them for the firearms prohibition order seems reasonable in this case.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’m going to call Lawrence Xu-Nan because I believe you’ve got a clarification?

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you so much, Madam Chair. This is going to be really quick. Thank you so much, Minister, for responding to my questions. Just on the two points, the first one is that the Minister is absolutely right that there has been consultation previously, and I’m looking at page 6 of the supplementary analysis report—sorry, it’s not the regulatory impact statement. In the supplementary analysis report, on page 6, right at the bottom, it does say that “No public consultation has been conducted on these proposals.”, and it mentions the views taken in 2020 and 2022, but it says that “these views may no longer be accurate”. I wanted to check with the Minister to see if there has been anything other than that that has been updated recently.

In terms of the second clarification, what I’m trying to—and I’m really glad to hear from the Minister that there is a high level of consideration for migrant communities, and particularly for our Muslim whānau. I guess what I’m trying to draw on is the fact that clause 7 talks about the firearms prohibition orders (FPOs) being in place or being issued once there is a conviction, but in the cases we’ve seen previously—like in terms of the Christchurch massacre—what happens if a person is at risk of harming the public or is endangering public safety, but has no prior criminal convictions? What are some of the considerations around that in terms of FPOs? That’s kind of what I was trying to ask. Thank you so much.

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice): Madam Chair, thank you, and thank you, Dr Xu-Nan, for clarifying your questions. In relation to question No. 1, I felt that I had answered it with the previous contribution, but also we’ve just gone through a select committee process. That’s part of consultation, and that’s getting the community to be aware. There were 40 written submissions, there were 11 oral submissions, we had 12 that supported the bill, and a number of these—14—raised matters that were outside of the scope of the bill. There were also substantial submissions that were received 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. With those submissions, I feel that we will have captured a few of those ideas.

In regard to a firearms prohibition order (FPO) being placed on conviction and the concerns that you might have about people who have not committed crimes, we’re not the mind police or the thought police. We have to act on what the criminals do at the time and the risk that they pose to society at that time, and that’s for a judge to decide whether or not an FPO fits within the criteria of being reasonable, being necessary, and, of course, being appropriate at the time on that individual. To actually say that we need to put FPOs on people who have never committed a crime—that would be a concern in itself in a democracy.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Kia ora, Madam Chair. Thank you for that. Three things: one is the nature of these orders. The Minister, the Hon Nicole McKee, made a comparison of these and community detention or community-based sentences—home detention, for example. I think it’s really important just to ground this discussion in what this is.

The Minister may want to comment on it and contradict me, but if we can agree that this is a protective order and not a punitive one—it’s not a sentence at all—it’s quite unusual in that sense; it sits in this kind of grey area. All of the burdens of proof, for example, are the civil standard—“on the balance of probabilities”, not “beyond reasonable doubt”—which points to it being a civil order of some sort which is of a protective nature, much more akin to a bail order than a home detention order. I think that’s important because, if we’re starting to say that it’s some sort of punitive order, the whole complexion of this discussion changes, because, whilst these people have been convicted of an offence—that’s one of the triggers—this isn’t part of the punishment; it’s just something put in place to make our community safer.

That, I guess, brings me to my second two related points, which is the kind of gang trigger. Under the Gangs Legislation Amendment Bill, we had a long discussion, and quite a useful one, about what a gang was and tidying up that area of the law in some respects, but we’ve got a couple of funny things going on. One is what an associate of a gang or organised criminal group is. The Parliamentary Counsel Office have done an amazing thing and they’ve said an associate of a gang is someone who associates with a gang, which is just a mindless reordering of words, to my mind. Now, previously, it said that it’s not a mere acquaintance of a gang member, which is meaningful, because I can associate but not be associated in a criminal way; I could be a social worker associating with a gang for very important and pro-social purposes. But, at the moment, it looks like I’m a gang associate if I associate with a gang or organised criminal group, and that’s just too loose. I’m really concerned. Once again, it’s about the breadth of this bill. We’re doing something a little bit later on in the bill, which we’ll get to, which is quite significant.

The other one is: a member of a gang is someone who demonstrates affiliation with a gang by wearing gang insignia. We’ve talked about insignia in another forum. My question, essentially, is this, because you could have, conceivably, people who are wearing gang insignia but aren’t actually affiliated. Is it simply the wearing of the gang insignia that makes them a gang member, or do they actually have to be affiliated? It’s almost presumptive evidence but not conclusive. Is the wearing of gang insignia absolutely conclusive that they’re a gang member for the purpose of this Act, or is it just evidence which is useful to prove that and which the judge can say, “Well, you’re wearing it. You can’t disprove it, therefore you are a gang associate”—or a member? Actually, that makes them a member of the gang.

The two questions, really, are: the nature of Firearms Prohibition Orders as being a civil and protective or criminal and punitive; and secondly, what it means to be part of this gang—the associates question and the affiliation question.

SCOTT WILLIS (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a number of questions. I may not be able to get through all of them straight away, but thank you for the opportunity. To the Minister, I know that we have canvassed the wider scope of this legislation. We’ve already talked about firearms prohibition orders and police search powers that exist currently that we could evaluate and that we could understand, rather than having gone through the select committee process to do something new when we already have something existing that functions and that we understand works well.

I think my colleague Duncan Webb has talked about the potential for harassment with this legislation—in particular, in relation to clause 7, where it mentions the Misuse of Drugs Act. As it stands, and I know we’ve talked about it previously, but this covers offences that are neither violent offences nor drug manufacturing offences, and, yes, we do require people to receive an imprisonment of more than one year. However, what this does is open up an opportunity for interpretation that could lead to not very supportive outcomes for our communities, for communities that, let’s say, are struggling with a whole range of issues. If we are reliant on the judge to decide what is appropriate for a firearms prohibition order or what is reasonable or what is necessary, that leaves a wide interpretation that could, depending on the judge and depending on the legal system, lead to more Māori and Pasifika people being imprisoned, and it could lead to more harassment of those populations.

As we’ve talked about, the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act may allow the checking without warrants, but this certainly doesn’t give me comfort that we are going to do well by our communities and that this is going to make us any safer. So what I’ve proposed here is an amendment to the bill which will give some comfort, I think, to make sure that this isn’t simply a racist attack on our communities. The amendment that I’ve tabled moves “In clause 14 after new section 18AA(3), page 6, after line 25, insert ‘Any person who is subject to warrantless search under subsection (1) shall be entitled to reasonable compensation if it is subsequently found that they are not subject to a firearms prohibition order.’”

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Can I just make note, we’re still on Part 1. That paper should be in Part 2. Perhaps if you’ve got any questions on Part 1—because I’m starting to hear quite a bit of repetition in Part 1 and I know the Minister’s answered a number of questions that are still coming up. Questions on Part 1 are relevant. Thank you.

SCOTT WILLIS: Thank you, Madam Chair. To come back—and I’ll obviously have an opportunity to come back to my amendment later—the key part of the question that I have here is: how on earth are we going to avoid the prejudice that we know exists in our police? How on earth are we going to avoid harassment of communities who are already at risk under this new firearms prohibition order? This is the biggest question I had, because we already have firearms prohibition orders that we have not yet evaluated to see how well they’re functioning, and this is going a step beyond, and it risks splitting or giving further prejudice to communities that, really, we should be supporting instead. I’d like the Minister to address that question in particular, please.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Minister, how is this bill fundamentally stronger than the firearms prohibition legislation passed into law by the last Government? And are you confident, Minister, that this legislation will ensure firearms prohibition orders are complied with?

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ll start my way round through trying to answer some of these questions. To the member from Labour the Hon Duncan Webb: the nature of these orders—you asked me to confirm whether they’re protective and not punitive. What these orders are about is making sure that people comply. It’s not an extra punishment on them at all. It’s about compliance of the regime that’s already been placed upon them, the order that has been placed upon them, so it’s not punitive in any way. Of course, the ultimate outcome, as the member said, is about making our communities safer. We need to do that when we’re looking at the amount of unlicensed people in possession of illegally held firearms creating harm in our communities. This is allowing police to be able to actually, again, confirm that they can monitor on that compliance.

The definitions in regard to the gangs legislation—I’m really happy that the Justice Committee went through quite a process with that. In fact, we have now ensured that the definitions of “gang” and “associate” are the same as the definitions that are in the gangs legislation. Of course, picking people up who shouldn’t be picked up is not what this bill is about. We want to make sure that we do target the right people. The bill defines an associate as an individual who associates with a gang or an organised criminal group—as you mentioned—and association is based on the person’s connection to the gang or organised criminal group activities, rather than to any particular member of that gang. The intended target is people who associate with gangs—those who may not be patched members but are involved in the gang activities and their lifestyle. For example, this would include situations where a person frequently attends gang events, wears gang insignia, or participates in criminal offending with gang members. However, it’s not intended to target a gang member’s family, acquaintances, or even their colleagues.

To the Green member Scott Willis—a judge will not issue a firearms protection order. I’ve said this before, so I’m just repeating it: just because a person has been convicted of an offence of one year or more, the judge must be satisfied that a firearms protection order is necessary, is reasonable, and it’s appropriate to manage the risk that that offender poses to our communities and to our societies. When you talk of a range of issues, of certain people and members being affected, I’m thinking about the people who have been the innocent victims, who have been shot and killed as they’ve been caught up in gang warfare. I’m thinking about the grandmothers who open their doors. I’m thinking about the little kids who are asleep on the couches. I want to make sure that we are removing the ability for gang members and violent offenders to be in possession of firearms by, one, supporting what was a Labour bill to introduce firearms prohibition orders (FPOs), and, two, giving police the ability to monitor the compliance with those FPOs. You are correct that three-quarters of gang members are Māori, but over a third of victims in total are also Māori, and a lot of them are recidivist victims, and the offenders are often recidivist as well. I think it’s a win for our Māori communities who are affected by the illegal possession of firearms and crime.

To the member Simon Court: we needed to make this law stronger because, while we implemented the FPOs, we did not give police the ability to monitor that compliance. We’ve still had the drive-by shootings occurring and not had the ability for the police to be able to actually go in there and make a difference by checking whether or not these people are in possession of firearms. They are able to do that—to go into a firearm-licence owner’s home and do these sorts of checks. It makes sense that they’re able to do it on those people that have a firearms prohibition order placed upon them. I am confident that the changes that this Government, on this side of the House, are making to FPOs will contribute to public safety and will contribute to getting the guns out of the hands of the gangs.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yes, new questions, please, because I’ve got to the point where it is getting quite repetitive.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: Yes, Madam Chair. My question is in relation to Part 1, and in particular it’s around when a firearm prohibition order (FPO) is made. I would like to ask the Minister, what are the operational system capabilities for police to be able to make sure this is being done appropriately? This has been raised in some of the analysis we’ve seen—that, if you’re doing those check-ups, we need to make sure that the person actually has an FPO on them. There have been some issues raised that there is a risk that those capabilities are not, in fact, in place. I would like a level of reassurance from the Minister that front-line staff won’t be apprehensive about conducting searches in order to avoid the risk of conducting a potentially illegal search.

There’s also a risk there, that’s been outlined in the supplementary analysis paper, that there’s a risk of mistaken searches of individuals who are not subject to a firearms prohibition order being in place, meaning that a search would, potentially, be deemed in breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. And any—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): We’ve dealt with that. We’ve been down the bill of rights track.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: Well, I’m talking about police capability to be able to make sure that police have the confidence—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I got that bit. Now the next bit is repetitive.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: All right. I would be interested from the Minister just to know what’s in place and what police have to make sure that evidence obtained would not be ruled out as inadmissible because of those grounds.

I’d also like the Minister’s view in terms of the revocation provisions. This is a new addition to this regime. That enables a firearms prohibition order that would be in place for someone for a number of years to potentially be able to be revoked or done. Given the fact that no consultation was done on this, I’d be interested to know, because the Minister’s relying on the consultation from the first firearms prohibition regime, which was in place in November 2022. This is the new regime, which didn’t have any consultation, but this provision—new section 39FA: “Varying, modifying, or revoking FPOs”—I understand to be a completely new provision within the firearms prohibition orders regime. That provides that a person who’s subject to an FPO at any time after the FPO has been in force for five years—that the court can vary or modify the conditions or actually revoke that FPO.

I’d be interested into why this provision has been included in this new regime and also to understand what analysis, what consultation, has been undertaken to arrive at why this is a necessary pathway to have in the bill. Because it’s quite clear in the legislation that there’s a clear pathway in subsection (3) that “if it is satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the condition is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent the applicant from accessing, possessing, or using any firearms or related items”, then the judge can just take it off. I am really interested to understand why that new provision is in there and what the Minister did to identify that as a necessary addition to the previous regime.

It’s important to note, I think, that the varying provision—there’s not a lot of detail in the varying. From my understanding, judges can pretty much put on any conditions to an FPO. Are there any limits that a judge can put on an FPO? Do they have to be wearing their pyjamas or what are the types of conditions that a judge would be able to include in an FPO, and how would they be varied in order to provide additional public safety if anything had substantially changed over that period of time? Keeping in mind that public safety is paramount here, I am very interested to know how the Minister has undertaken the analysis or the consultation to understand how this provision would enhance public safety.

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice): Thank you, Madam Chair. In answer to the member’s question about police and operations, police are developing their operational guidance on the new powers that they receive, and police have a lot of experience in executing search powers in a reasonable manner. They are constantly updating their operational practice to ensure that they are exercised reasonably, because, of course, if they’re not then they can be in trouble for breaching the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. It’s in their interest to make sure that they do do it well.

With the five years, it’s an incentive, as this Government has said, for correcting bad behaviour, about allowing people to be rehabilitated, and giving them that incentive to come off the 10-year regime to five years if they can show, indeed, that they have rehabilitated. I mean, that is just common sense from our side of the House. We in the coalition Government will be making reforms in the corrections space, so we are all about making sure that people have the opportunity to rehabilitate. If they do rehabilitate in such a fashion that it is good for them and for society and they can show that, then there should be an incentive there for them.

The conditions on a firearms prohibition order—well, that’s up to a judge. And the varying conditions can actually talk to a person perhaps being in a workplace where firearms are and they are showing that they have rehabilitated in such a way that they can be around them. More importantly, it’s also about the operations of being around family members, say if there’s a tangi that’s taking place, they’re going home, and mum and dad have firearms in the home. As long as those firearms are locked up and the conditions are varied, then that person is able to go home for a couple of days, stay overnight, so that they can be around their family in certain times where there’s a need for them.

The variations will depend on the individual’s situation, the requirement that they’re seeking, what they’ve done in the past, what they may do in the future, and that really is going to be up to the judge at the time to consider all of the elements before they make or don’t make any variations to the firearms prohibition order.

SCOTT WILLIS (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. I certainly agree with the Associate Minister of Justice that we do need the space for rehabilitation, and I think the five-year review is a sensible approach. The thing I’m interested in learning about is how we are going to really reduce risk with this bill. If I think about one of the worst examples that we’ve had in recent times—I’m thinking about an individual with white skin, not brown skin, the Christchurch shooter, who would not, I believe, have been picked up through any other way. How is this firearms prohibition order going to diminish the risk from extremist political or racist—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): No, that’s not actually relevant to that particular piece of legislation that we’ve got in front of us.

SCOTT WILLIS: Thank you, Madam Chair—and I’m getting to my point. What we really do need to see is something that is going to be effective. I have heard that it’s not the intent to target gang members or their friends or family. That’s great, but what if that is the actual result of this bill? In that regard, I’m interested to hear about what the link might be—the link that the Minister sees between the firearms prohibition orders and housing, for example. Because there was a leaflet that was distributed most recently, that was put out by a member of the National Party, that says, “I know the cost of housing is a key issue in our community and country. It has been for the past two decades. Materially improving housing supply is the only solution to this challenge.”

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’m struggling to understand where this actually fits with the bill.

SCOTT WILLIS: Madam Chair, I think, if you’ll allow me just to finish, you’ll see.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Ask the question.

SCOTT WILLIS: It, essentially, says, “Giving police tougher powers to disrupt gangs and get guns out of the hands of criminals is one of the solutions to our housing supply.” My question is: is this bill really going to make us safer, or is it designed to do something completely other than that? Is it designed simply to target some of our most vulnerable, to imprison some of our most vulnerable? Because—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): This is actually a repeat of the member’s first speech, so I’d ask the member—[Gestures for member to sit]

TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): I move, That debate on this question now close.

A party vote was called for on the question, That debate on this question now close.

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.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Ginny Andersen’s tabled amendment to clause 8 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 49

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

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 1 be agreed to.

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.

Part 1 agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, it’s time for me to suspend the committee for the dinner break. The committee will resume at 7.30 p.m.

Sitting suspended from 5.57 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

Part 2

Amendments to other Acts

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, the committee has resumed. Before the dinner break, we were in the Firearms Prohibition Orders Legislation Amendment Bill. We had just completed Part 1, and now, members, we come to Part 2. This is the debate on clauses 10 to 14, “Amendments to other Acts”. The question is that Part 2 stand part.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to first ask the Minister for clarification around clause 14 and particularly the subsequent new section 18AA addition. Now, previously the Minister has mentioned, if I remember correctly, that there’s no violation in terms of the search and seizure when it comes to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. However, if I go to the Attorney-General’s report—and I want to draw attention to paragraph 30 of the Attorney-General’s report, where it says, “We consider the unfettered ability for police to search any other person present in a vehicle with the person suspected of being subject to an FPO amounts to an unreasonable search and therefore a breach of [section] 21 of the Bill of Rights”. I kind of want to get some clarification from the Minister regarding what she mentioned before—that it’s not a violation of section 21 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.

I think, in this particular case, I also want to draw attention to a few subsequent paragraphs in the Attorney-General’s report, which I’ve noticed aren’t part of the commentary on this particular bill. I think one of the things that really drew my attention is new section 18AA(1)(c)(i) and (ii), which is the big concern there, partly, for the first part, the first question. The concern there is we’ve seen this previously with an amendment that was added to 8A of the Gangs Legislation Amendment Bill where anyone at any stage could be going into a property if there is a firearms prohibition order (FPO)—I think, in that case, if there has been a gang insignia order, etc. My second question: I want to get some reassurance from the Minister that this new section 18AA(1)(c) isn’t going to be used as a way for police to unreasonably search gang members’ houses or property, particularly new section 18AA(1)(c)(ii), if a person has an FPO.

The third part is in new section 18AA(1), where it said, “A constable, who has reasonable grounds to believe that a person is subject to an FPO”. Now, this is very similar to the recommendation that was made in the Attorney-General’s report, paragraph 32, where it says, “As above, we understand this element of the search power may be qualified by Cabinet before the Bill is introduced, by introducing a requirement that the constable have ‘reasonable grounds to believe the person is concealing a firearm.’ ” Now, those two “reasonable grounds” are very different. One is around the reasonable grounds to believe that the person is subject to an FPO and one is reasonable grounds to believe that the person is concealing a firearm. I think this is with regards to, particularly, new section 18AA(1)(b) and (d). Oh, here we go—nope, I take that bit back. I think it’s now in new section 18AA(1)(d); I did see the second part of reasonable grounds.

Sorry, Madam Chair, and sorry, Minister, I did answer my questions for part of that, but I would still like the Minister to answer the question around 8A: what is the comparator to 8A of the Gangs Legislation Amendment Bill around “search any premises”; whether that’s going to be used as a tool to conduct unreasonable searches of premises for those who have an FPO. Thank you.

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice): Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you to the member for the Greens Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan for your questions. I’ll try to answer as clearly and with as much information as I can on that.

There were concerns through the select committee stage about the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act (BORA), specifically around the searching priorities. This is where the Justice Committee actually made the recommendation to make a higher threshold around when a search can be conducted. I have agreed with this amendment, where, instead of police suspecting a person, they need to have that belief that a person has a firearms prohibition order (FPO) upon them in order to initiate that search to monitor the compliance. The raising of that threshold from “suspect” to “believe”, I think, adequately meets—and the Attorney-General has also confirmed that it adequately meets—the section 21 BORA condition there.

Of course, it comes down to reasonableness of the searches. If police undertake these searches and do quite a lot of them and there’s no reasonableness in them, then that in itself holds the police to having a look at whether or not they are committing any offences themselves against section 21 of BORA. I think the select committee have done a really good job in being able to raise the threshold from “suspect” to “believe”, and they’ve actually made some key changes in regard to the search.

Of course, as you questioned—and I guess an example that I can give you—originally, as the bill was drafted, it meant that police could actually search anybody that was associated or around the person with the FPO. But the changes that have been made mean that they cannot, as an example, search passengers in a car without having reasonable cause to believe that they are hiding a firearm. That does not mean that they can search people in a vehicle because they suspect that they might have drugs on them or they suspect they might have a knife on them—this is about monitoring the compliance of a firearms prohibition order, so it’s about ensuring that the person with the firearms prohibition order is the one that is being monitored as to compliance.

If they’re, say, in a vehicle, and the police believe that there is a firearm in the vehicle that’s been moved away from the person with the FPO and they have reasonable belief that it’s actually moved to someone else in that vehicle, then they have the right to be able to search them. Ultimately, we want the same outcome, I believe, which is to get the illegal possession of firearms out of the hands of anybody that should not have possession of them in the first place. To enable police to do that, we’ve got to give them the power to be able to monitor that compliance. I think that that’s really essential, in that it’s reasonable.

We also made a change to make sure that not everybody, anywhere, can be searched. I think the select committee realised that, “Well, hey, wait, if somebody’s in a hotel—as an example—does that mean that the police have the ability to go through every room within that hotel?” And, of course, the answer is no, because the select committee made changes to ensure that that wouldn’t happen as well, because we don’t want innocent people being caught up in the regime and also being searched. We want to make sure that the target is the person with the FPO. This is about the monitoring of compliance of that FPO, not about going around searching for any other item that they may have, whether it be drugs or whether it be other weapons. This is about the monitoring of the compliance of the firearms prohibition orders, and we want to make sure that innocent people are not inadvertently caught up, because that, to the member, would then create issues with BORA in section 21.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s a good point, with that discussion from the Minister, the Hon Nicole McKee, about the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. She quite rightly observes that the committee had concerns at the threshold that would trigger a search, and certainly “reasonable grounds to suspect” that a person is subject to a firearms prohibition order was considered woefully inadequate. The committee—by majority, I think it was—replaced that with “reasonable grounds to believe”.

Now, my tabled amendment, marked “E”, suggests that the only people who should be subject to a warrantless search are people who are, in fact, subject to a firearms prohibition order. I think it’s really important to recognise and just state bluntly what this is. This is a right of the police to either stop a person at any time or to enter their premises at any time without warning. This is entering someone’s home at 3 o’clock in the morning. If the police are wrong about them having a firearms protection order, it should be recognised that the search is illegal. If the police make an error and think that I or someone in my house is subject to a firearms protection order, even if they have reasonable grounds to believe, that’s not good enough; the police need to be sure. Now, errors will be made, but let’s not think that that makes it a legal search; it’s an illegal search without authority in law, because there is no firearms protection order in place and it’s only the firearms protection order that warrants that entry into property.

My tabled amendment suggests that the wording of new section 18AA(1) as amended should read “that a person who is subject to a firearms protection order made before, on, or after the commencement of this section, may, without a warrant, be subject to any or all of the following for the purposes of checking”—and so on. The police have all of the tools at their disposal, and I asked the Minister earlier in this debate how we could be sure that the police wouldn’t make an error, and the tenor of her response was, “Don’t worry. The police get it right. They know what they’re doing.” I believe her, almost all of the time, but if they get it wrong, let’s not give it some colour of right; let’s not make it legal. Let’s recognise it for what it is: an illegal search, and all of the things that follow from a search being illegal and a home being invaded without cause should flow from that. We shouldn’t be authorising illegal warrantless search with no foundation in law.

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice): Thank you, and thank you to the member for his question. The member referred to a tabled amendment that he’s made marked “E”. I’ve not actually seen that paper myself just yet, but I do note—oh, sorry, it’s right here—that the member kept referring to “firearms protection orders” and they’re actually firearms prohibition orders (FPOs). We’re not protecting them; we’re trying to prohibit them.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Very substantial criticism.

Hon NICOLE McKEE: Well, it’s not a criticism. I actually wanted to correct—because I was going to ask whether or not you had the right wording on your tabled amendment, and I see that you do. That answers that one.

When we talk about entering a home at 3 a.m. to check on the compliance, I think we come back to the reasonableness again. Many of these people would have committed some serious crime; quite possibly a number of them would have had to have left prison before the (FPO) is placed upon them. They’re likely to be bailed, they’re likely to come under some of those conditions anyway, and, quite frankly, at the moment people on that regime are still getting door-knocked at 3 a.m. in regard to ensuring that they are where they’re meant to be.

Ensuring the compliance of having a firearms prohibition order, I think, is just. If it’s unreasonable, then there will be a New Zealand Bill of Rights Act (BORA) issue with that. We need to make sure that the police can comply with or can check on the compliance of individuals with an FPO, because the regime that was enacted back in 2022 didn’t allow that. We put the firearms prohibition orders on people, but we weren’t able to check whether or not there was compliance.

The reality is, and I’ve mentioned this before, licensed firearms owners are subject to a search at any time—and they hold licences. They have been deemed to be fit and proper by New Zealand Police and yet they can enter their homes when they want and search them when they want. I don’t understand why there’s an issue with searching somebody who’s deemed to be, or have, an issue around with or using firearms illegally, also not being able to be searched in case they do have continued possession of illegal firearms. I think, on the balance of whether or not we are utilising NZ BORA 21—section 21—in the right way is actually going to come down to New Zealand Police and the way that they implement it; and the reasonableness, the belief, about it as well. I think the Justice Committee have done a good job in trying to find that balance.

At the end of the day, we want our front-line police to be kept safe. We don’t want them having firearms presented at them. We do not want our police being shot at—and it’s not the licensed firearms owners that are doing it; it’s the criminals who the judges have decided to require have a firearms prohibition order placed upon them because they have deemed that they are a danger to society with firearms. It’s so important that we give police that ability to be able to go and search those people, but to do so reasonably, because they’ll be held to account if they’re not.

SCOTT WILLIS (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. It was reassuring to hear from the Minister that if there is an unreasonable search, then it will be subject to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. I would take issue, however, with the Minister’s statement that it isn’t licensed firearms owners who shoot at people, because, actually, it sometimes is licensed firearms owners who shoot at people, and the Christchurch shooter was a licensed firearms owner. I think we need to be careful not to condemn or assume that people who have licences may not also be criminals or dangerous. But, to my point, I think if we have checks on unfair searches or illegal searches, we do need to know what the consequences of those are. I’d be really interested to hear what the Minister thinks would be an appropriate consequence for the situation where things go wrong, when assumptions are made and an unreasonable attempt has been made to check on someone to prosecute through this bill, because I think it’s really important that we provide not just Police but everyone with assurance that there aren’t going to be biases and there isn’t going to be targeting of particular population groups with this bill.

Understanding what that process will look like is a really key part of my question, but also understanding what the consequences of an illegal search would be for those who undertake it, so what are we thinking of there? I’m interested in what the Minister might say on that, and this is where I could refer to—I think this is the right part that we’re discussing here—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): This is the right part, and I was just thinking it might lead to the changes that you’re recommending in here that you might like to discuss.

SCOTT WILLIS: Madam Chair, you’re reading my mind. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): It’s in my hand.

SCOTT WILLIS: Thank you. I believe I have a pathway that I can offer the Minister that will help and give people reassurance that we’re not going to simply screen for the most vulnerable communities but we are going to apply this fairly. That is the tabled amendment—and it’s numbered (i)—that says, “In clause 14 after new section 18AA(3), page 6, after line 25, insert ‘Any person who is subject to warrantless search under subsection (1) shall be entitled to reasonable compensation if it is subsequently found that they are not subject to a firearms prohibition order.’ ”

Now, this, to me, seems like a very reasonable amendment to make, because it gives a safeguard and it will ensure that a reasonable approach is taken and that there has to be evidence, some sort of belief, rather than just a suspicion. This is what I’ve heard from the Minister, that the bill has been strengthened. There has to be a demonstration of belief. So we do need to understand that if that is there, not just a suspicion, and if it is simply a suspicion, we need some recompense for people who have been targeted. I think this amendment does that very simply and clearly and should make a difference and should ensure that it is indeed acting on a belief rather than a suspicion that will enable police to use their powers.

I encourage the Minister to consider this amendment, and, well, in fact, I think it will help improve the bill and sharpen it from our perspective. I appreciate your thoughts on the matter, Minister, in the time that remains to us.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I’d just like to continue the discussion on new section 18AA, which is to be inserted in the Search and Surveillance Act by clause 14, which is the warrantless searches associated with firearms prohibition orders (FPOs). I would like to just ask the Minister: in terms of what was originally provided under the first firearms prohibition orders regime, from my recollection, that, basically, invoked section 18 of the Search and Surveillance Act, which enabled there to be—if someone had an FPO on them, it, basically, kicked in that search power. If the police suspected that someone had a firearm and that person had an FPO, that enabled the police to search, if I remember rightly.

What I’d really like to understand is this. Where this bill started off was with its search powers, and then after the select committee, where it ended up, it was looking quite close to where we were under the initial regime. It’s looking quite close, so I’d really like the Minister to spell out what the difference is between an FPO regime that invokes section 18 of the Search and Surveillance Act, and the somewhat watered-down provision now under new section 18AA, which now has the changed wording, which is “believe”. They can’t suspect that someone has an FPO; they must believe that the person has an FPO on them in order to legitimately search that person and their house, and we’re not sure about the car because the Attorney-General thinks that that might be out if there are people in the car.

I’m quite interested to know specifically what the difference is that this bill does, and I’m also really, really keen to understand how this is going to play out for operational information for police. How are we going to ensure that through operational instructions to front-line officers, we are able to make it clear to police officers where that line lies and where they’re able to act? As we’re aware, in the heat of the moment and when you’re in difficult situations on the front line, there’s a split-second decision that often gets made. While we are thankful and grateful for the great work police officers do and for that split-second decision that they need to make, I guess what I’d like to know is: what is the check when that doesn’t go well, and what is the check when there has been a search that’s not justified and there, in fact, wasn’t an FPO?

I know we’ve spoken about the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and where that kicks in, but I think it’s important that we understand that if a police officer did execute a search under new section 18AA and, in fact, the person didn’t have an FPO and we later on find that the police officer didn’t even have grounds to believe that the person had an FPO, what happens at that point in time? I think that that’s really important information to have.

Just to recap, my two main questions are: how is this new regime in terms of the warrantless search associated with FPOs—what is the material difference between that and the previous one, which invoked section 18 of the Search and Surveillance Act; and, secondly, if a police officer did execute a search without a warrant on someone and later on we find out that they did not have grounds to believe that the person had an FPO, what is the follow-up process in relation to that, I guess, wrong call, or that unwarranted search? Are there any repercussions or is there any information that would be able to be taken action on by the person who was unrightly subjected to that and wrongfully searched; and, secondly, what kind of reassurance can the Minister give us that police operational instructions will be giving a sufficient level of specificity to officers in training and on the front line to ensure that they are equipped with the right advice so that they’re not endangering themselves by executing a warrantless search without knowing where the line lies?

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ll address the two questions that have been asked by the member from the Greens and the member from the Labour Party.

To the first one, from the member from the Greens Scott Willis, when you initiated the five minutes that you had to talk about licensed firearms owners who also commit crimes and spoke of the heinous one that we all are aware of, that man did not have a firearms prohibition order (FPO) upon him, and this bill is about those that do have firearms prohibition orders. But what’s really, I think, quite important to note is that any licensed firearms owner that commits a crime—especially any of those 42 crimes that are within the old three-strikes regime and the new crimes that have been elected under the Misuse of Drugs Act, the Arms Act, the Psychoactive Substances Act, and, of course, the three under the Crimes Act as well—any licensed firearms owner that does commit a crime in that space is more than likely going to have a firearms prohibition order placed upon them, and then they will come under this regime.

I understand your concern and I’d just like to, I guess, advise the member that those that have current licences, licensed firearms owners, actually are kept abreast by police of the way that they behave. They come to the attention of police if they do things like get multiple speeding tickets, have a drink-driving conviction. I would argue that licensed firearms owners are actually more looked upon by New Zealand Police than any other member of society for their compliance with the law and every law in New Zealand, full stop, but once they break that law, and if they commit any serious crime punishable by one year or more, and any of those crimes that we’ve mentioned, then they are eligible for a firearms prohibition order. And, of course, that means that they cannot frequent ranges, they cannot go into retail stores that sell firearms, they can’t be around firearms or people with firearms. It would be unfortunate for them to get to that point, but that’s part of the conditions if they break those rules.

When it comes to the person that you mentioned, there’s an ongoing coronial inquiry at the moment as to how that person even obtained a licence in the first place. I think that is a completely different argument—or not even an argument, but discussion—to be had in the House in upcoming months as we look to rewrite the Arms Act. But, for the firearms prohibition orders, it’s of no relevance for this particular bill that’s going through. I just want to assure the member that should a licensed firearms owner actually break the law and commit any of those crimes, it is more than likely they will have an FPO placed upon them. And, more importantly, because they do know people with firearms and probably do have a whole lot of friend groups and associates, it is really important that we are able to allow police to monitor the compliance with that FPO on those particular people.

You ask, what is an appropriate consequence for an unreasonable search of somebody, what safeguards are in place? I’d just like to reassure the member that we currently do have some safeguards. As it mentions in the bill, the search must be for the purpose of monitoring compliance with the FPO. It’s not about looking for drugs or looking for other weapons; it’s about the compliance of the FPO. If the search is for another purpose, the search could be found to be unreasonable under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, which we have discussed. If this happened, the evidence could be deemed to be inadmissible in court and the Crown could be liable to pay damages to the person. Not only would the evidence be inadmissible for prosecution if deemed so, in circumstances where the Crown may have to pay damages—and there is already significant case law about this. The member’s tabled amendment, I believe, already reflects current law and opportunities to look for redress where it is deemed that the search has been unreasonable, or even breached the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act; we have case law already to allow for people to seek compensation.

Moving to the member from the Labour Party who was asking about section 18 and new section 18AA and the differences, people need to understand that when criminals have firearms, they tend to try and hide them; they’re not open with the fact that they have them. People with firearms prohibition orders have been identified, quite rightly, as posing a very high risk to public safety. This new search power allows for the proactive monitoring of their compliance with the conditions of the firearms prohibition orders, and those conditions can vary because the judge decides what those conditions are going to be on the individual. Under the current settings, the searches can only be conducted where police have reasonable grounds to suspect an offence has been, or is about to be, committed, and this late point of intervention limits the public safety benefits from the regime. We do not, as I mentioned earlier, want police to be getting into a situation where a firearm is being presented at them because they weren’t able to take it away when they were searching under compliance. It’s really important that we give police those tools.

When you asked about how the police are going to operate under this regime, they’re developing the guidance on how they’re going to use this new power. Police have a lot of experience in searching people, doing it in a reasonable manner, complying with the law when they do it, because if they don’t do it right in the first place, a lot of the evidence that they find will become inadmissible and we end up having criminals who were in possession of firearms potentially either using them against our front line, which is unacceptable, or getting away with it. We can’t be having that. We’ve got to support our front line here. The police will develop the operational guidance on how they will utilise this new power, new section 18AA. In all respects, I believe that we’re doing the right thing by allowing them to try and take the guns off the gangs before they’re used against our front line.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’m going to take a call from Arena Williams, but I am starting to hear some repeat questions from Part 1. Part 2 is actually really around the amendment to the Sentencing Act, and the amendments to the Search and Surveillance Act is most of it. I’m going to be listening very carefully now to questions on those two specific things rather than go over the some of the ground that we’ve already traversed.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Madam Chair, thank you for the opportunity to take my first call in this debate. I do have a few, but I want to traverse four questions in this call because I’m not confident of getting more calls with my very active spokespeople beside me who have got a number of amendments that have not yet been spoken to.

My question is about the amendments to the Search and Surveillance Act, but before I get on to that, I want to congratulate the Minister on her elevation to the role. We were colleagues on the Justice Committee that shepherded through the legislation the first time in 2021. That was a regime to introduce firearms prohibition orders. When, in fact, the previous National Government had not chosen to do so but had considered it, Labour instigated that move. Now, as my colleague Ginny Andersen has introduced, the new section 18AA amendments that the select committee have introduced bring it back to something that’s more similar to the work of the Justice Committee in the last Parliament on the firearms prohibition order (FPO) regime that Labour introduced.

The question that I have, and I’ll tease out over these four different parts, is we support on these benches law in this area which makes New Zealanders safer. I know that the Minister does too, because I have sat around the committee table where it’s been her expertise that has—she was able to come to that select committee room and raise a number of issues which were taken into account in that regime and we reported back to this House on. I want to ask her if we are moving to a situation which is more similar to Labour’s amendments to section 18 of the Arms Act; do these amendments in her view make New Zealanders safer? I think they do, but the Minister’s criticism—and this has been published as early as two days ago, on One News, I believe it was. She made the comment that Labour’s regime did not make New Zealanders safer. I want her to explain why now, with these amendments, new section 18AA will make New Zealanders safer.

I also want to ask her about her criticisms at the time of the 2021 regime about the way that the search powers given affect to in new section 18AA will affect legitimate gun owners. This is a new item here, because what I want the Minister to give us a sense of is—there were some very real concerns in 2021 about how legitimate gun owners might be subject to a warrantless search. I think the example that the Minister gave at the time was a father who is a legitimate gun owner invites his daughter and his son-in-law around for dinner, and the son-in-law is subject to an FPO. In that situation, I don’t think it would be reasonable, and we on this side of the House don’t think it would be reasonable, for a legitimate gun owner’s guns to be searched and then their entire property to be searched. Imagine that over a Sunday family dinner, especially if you’re the daughter and you’re introducing your new boyfriend to your parents for the first time. That is an incredibly invasive situation and it is an invasive situation for legitimate gun owners who do deserve protection under this bill. I want to ask her about the advice that she’s had and the moves that she has made, because she is an expert in this area, to protect the rights of legitimate gun owners in this situation that new section 18AA has introduced and has subjected them to.

The two other questions that I have are about necessary changes to two different Acts. New section 18AA introduces a new power into the Search and Surveillance Act. I want to ask the Minister whether the Intelligence and Security Act and the Privacy Act were part of her considerations and whether subsequent amendments were considered to those. The Intelligence and Security Act was something that around the same time this was introduced in 2021 Labour Ministers of the time also considered changes to, and the Justice Committee of that time considered at once things like police protection orders, which might have been what my colleague the Hon Duncan Webb was referring to there, because they are an important part of this regime—they were also considered at the time.

It’s relevant because, when you have overlapping powers of a Government, a State, whatever department it’s so exercising its powers through, reaching into the lives of individuals—and many of these individuals will not have committed any crime, will never have contemplated committing any crime—what are the powers that are engaged in the Intelligence and Security Act in the situation where new section 18AA changes the rules for police to do so, and is it necessary for the intelligence framework to take that into account?

The next question is about the Privacy Act. In 2021 the Privacy Commissioner—[Time expired] Madam Chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Really quickly—not a full call.

ARENA WILLIAMS: Thank you, Madam Chair. In 2021, the Privacy Act was something the committee considered really carefully, and amendments were considered around whether new powers for, say, a Privacy Commissioner or a reporting body might be required in a situation where you’ve got, again, people who have never committed a crime, never contemplated committing a crime; their privacy is being breached in this way.

I wanted to ask you specifically two questions which the committee that we were on considered. How will private information that has been obtained wrongfully by police when they are engaging their powers that are new under new section 18AA be dealt with? That’s private information. How will the agencies hold that? What uses will it be put to and at what point will it be deleted? Then, I also want her to consider legitimately discovered information; that’s information which is discovered in the process which is completely compliant with 18AA. How will private information of individuals be treated in that situation? I thank the Minister. I have some more questions but accept she’s got plenty to answer.

FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ (Green): Thank you for giving me my first and probably last call on this bill, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): You’ve been very patient, I must add.

FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ: Ha, ha! My contribution might seem a little bit pedantic, but I think this is the purpose of this stage of legislation. I’m a bit concerned about new section 18AA(d): “search any [vehicles] in which the person is present and any other persons present in the vehicle whom the constable has reasonable grounds to believe are in possession of arms:”, and (f) “seize and detain any arms found.”

I’ve looked back—and I do appreciate, Madam Chair, that I’m straying a little bit into Part 1—but Part 1 defines “firearms” but it doesn’t define “arms”. Are we to take that the definition for “firearms” stands for the arms here? I think that is definitely important to get clarified, because otherwise the definition for “arms” might be overly expansive. For example, a baseball bat might in some context be considered arms, and then that could be grounds—I mean, I know we are talking about firearms, here, so I think it’d be good to have a little bit more specificity and clarification from the Minister that it is “firearms” that’s meant here.

I don’t want to ask about scenarios where it actually meant “firearms”. I noticed that the definition covers imitation firearms and any part of a firearm. For example, if there was a makeshift firearm and a component of that was a steel pipe or a trigger, would that be grounds for activating the provisions for the search under this? It does seem like a little bit of a pedantic contribution, but I do want some clarification around whether “arms” does mean firearms and whether the Minister might be open to clarify or to an amendment that kind of explicitly states that it actually does just mean “firearms”. Thank you.

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice): Thank you, Madam Chair. To the member Arena Williams from Labour: I will try my best to answer—there was quite a lot in there. Feel free to come back if I don’t get everything. Thank you for your kind words, too—it is appreciated, because, at the end of the day, what we are trying to do is promote public safety and the safety and welfare of our front-liners as well.

You asked me why I say Labour’s regime didn’t make New Zealand safer. I only have five minutes, so I won’t go into full detail, but in relation to the firearms prohibition orders (FPOs), I think that, collectively, as a Government, we actually went about introducing a regime that has started to make New Zealand safer and that these changes just advance that even more. It’s safety for our front-liners. It’s safety for our elderly that are in their homes, answering the door, and the children that are asleep on their couches, that are being shot at by these people committing drive-by shootings, of whom my understanding is they don’t have licences and they’re in illegal possession of firearms.

You mentioned the legitimate owners and how I had queried about legitimate owners being caught up in the regime and felt satisfied at where we came to in 2021, after having those discussions and making the small amendments that we did. Keeping in mind, as I’ve mentioned earlier, the fact that licensed firearms owners are able to be searched at any time as well, under section 18 of the Search and Surveillance Act, I’m really inclined to make sure that those firearms prohibition orders placed upon them come to a similar level, if not more, of a regime of being able to be searched, because they do not have the same requirements placed upon them as the licensed firearms owners do—so getting them up there.

In regard to what happens with the information that’s being captured, that’s not covered in here. It’s not an answer that I can give you, because it’s not covered in the FPO. However, what it does say is that New Zealand Police have a regime in place anyway, about what they do with the collection of information. I would expect that they would adhere to their own operation matters in that regard.

I’ll just move to the Green member Francisco Hernandez—you asked about the firearms definition and arms definition. We have the Arms Act 1983 currently in place. We don’t call it the Firearms Act 1983. You yourself mentioned—and this is why it’s arms—that it encompasses so much. There is a definition for what is a firearm, but we also have collector items that have been made inert, for example, so they’re still arms but they’re not capable of firing. That’s a very crude way of me trying to explain, but they are still arms and the definitions are contained within the Arms Act. The Arms Act also puts controls over restricted weapons as well, so the definition is fine. When we call it “arms”, it relates to firearms, but it also relates to different types of parts, it relates to restricted weapons, it relates to things like grenades, if you like—you know, things that you wouldn’t normally think of as just being a firearm. That’s why we call it “arms” and that’s why we currently have the Arms Act 1983 instead of the Firearms Act 1983. It just encompasses a lot more, so I hope that answers that question.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to talk to another one of my tabled amendments. It’s, really, around the searching of premises. It’s marked “D”. The Minister, the Hon Nicole McKee, alluded to the fact that it is the intention of this legislation that any search exercised on premises is really only of that part of the premises that is relevant, but there’s no real test for that. This is in new section 18AA(1)(c), and once you trigger the right to search, they can search any premises in which the person is present or that the person occupies or controls. They don’t have to be there, if it’s their house—they don’t have to be there; they can just bust in. Or their business—that would be “controls” as well, or “occupies”—just bust in and have a look around. But even if it’s where they’re present—and if you think about it, there are all kinds of situations.

I think the Minister referred to a hotel or motel situation, but there are others. One which is quite common, certainly in my electorate, is boarding houses, where people have control over a small area—they might occupy common areas. You could probably, at a stretch, say they occupy common areas and they occupy and control their bedroom area. On a straight-out reading—and we can always say, “Oh, but the Bill of Rights…”, and, “You’ve got to limit the words”, but it’s really important, for someone who’s reading it, that it does what it says. That would suggest that, if there is a person with a firearms protection order in a boarding house, the police can enter the premises—and the premises is clearly the whole boarding house—and search the premises. It’s pretty much there in black and white. That’s why, in my tabled amendment, after that subsection (c)(ii), I’ve suggested we add in “may only search that part of the premises under the control of the person subject to an FPO”, because it’s only that area under the control of the person where the breach of the Arms Act, of the firearms protection order, is likely to occur.

What we don’t want—and I’m kind of cautious about saying this—is overly enthusiastic officers to think, “Well, they might have put it in their mate’s room, so let’s have a look there anyway.” I appreciate the evidence point, and just returning to the Minister’s comments on the Evidence Act and that, if evidence is illegally obtained, it can’t be used, that’s not what the Evidence Act says. The Evidence Act, in section 30, is very clear that illegally obtained evidence can be used if its probative value outweighs the prejudice of the illegal search. That’s quite unusual in many jurisdictions. New Zealand isn’t thought very highly of for that particular provision, but that’s what it says.

We know the police, by and large, do a very good job, but every so often we can have a police officer thinking, “I can search the premises, so I’ll look in this locked room of another resident of the boarding house as well.”—what do you know, they’re growing some marijuana or they’ve got a stash of meth, or whatever it might be. It’s evidence, and I am very concerned that, if we have a culture of expansive search powers that are greater than are necessary, that’s kind of giving a tacit licence for that kind of behaviour. So I suggest that we amend that to say that you can only search the area in respect of which that person has control, either immediate control if they’re there or general control if they’re absent, as in a home, their boarding house room, or whatever the case may be. I’d welcome the Minister’s comments.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I’d like to ask a question under Part 2 under new section 111A, “Firearms prohibition order”. There’s two subsections—(1) and (2)—and it provides that “(1) When sentencing a specified offender, the court may make a firearms prohibition order against the offender under Part 7A of the Arms Act”. I did have an amendment up under Part 1, which I didn’t have the opportunity to speak to—but I’d just be interested, because I think it also fits here. I don’t have it here, but I’d like the Minister’s view as to whether this would strengthen the current provision in terms of public safety. My amendment was in relation to the fact that, down the line, we potentially in New Zealand could see those more high-calibre weapons, those military-style semi-automatic (MSSA) weapons. The Minister might have another term because she knows more than I do around technicalities around firearms. She may have another term, apart from MSSAs, that she prefers.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I think we’re getting into future pieces of legislation. Please relate it to the FPOs—firearms prohibition orders.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: It does relate to this. I’m tying it back to this. My question would be: if there was an offender who had one of those, is there any provision, or does she think it would be a provision, of making it more stringent? When a firearms prohibition order is being made against the offender and they have had access to or fired or—whatever—got their hands on one of those weapons which is more deadly, as we know in New Zealand, has she considered there being additional provisions?

This is the first tranche of four tranches of firearms reforms, the fourth being the rewriting of the Arms Act. There must be cognisance within the Government of what the later tranches will mean when we’re writing this. What I’d like to understand from the Minister is: given the potential that there’ll be changes to the firearms registry and also changes to what weapons are able to be used on ranges down the line, what does this mean in terms of how we can make this firearms prohibition order as strong for public safety as it possibly can be? Therefore, has she taken into consideration any additional safety protections for those criminals or offenders who have accessed those more high-calibre military-style semi-automatic weapons? One possibility would be for them to be able to have harsher conditions, or they would be able to not be revoked, or they were entrenched for 10 years. Have any of those concerns or any of those potential things being raised?

I’d also like to speak to the tabled amendment proposed as “G”, which is under the name of my learned colleague the Hon Duncan Webb, and that’s to amend clause 14, new section 18AA(2). This provision proposes that it would remove the text that says “may exercise the power in subsection (1) without having reasonable grounds to suspect that any offence has been, is being, or will be committed by the person.” and replace that with “must suspect that an offence against section 42A of the Arms Act has been or is being committed by the person in order to exercise the power in subsection (1).” It’s important to note that the select committee—and it’s been acknowledged by the Minister, and I thank her for that—made some really good changes in terms of that threshold of when you suspect that someone might have an FPO. Instead of just thinking that they could have one, we’ve now moved on to say that the police officer has to believe that they’ve got some pretty good grounds that they’ve got one on them already. This amendment is really taking that vein of reasoning to say: let’s raise that as well and replace it with “must suspect that an offence against section 42A of the Arms Act has in fact has been or is being committed by the person in order to exercise the power in subsection (1).”

Just finally, I’d also just like to ask that—we know that a lot of the weapons that we’re going to be putting firearms prohibition orders on under this do come from that A category of weapons. We know that, as a weapon of choice, quite often people are accessing those alpha-carbine weapons. They’re easily cut off. They’re quite popular with the criminal fraternity. So my question would be: is there anything, in addition to what we’re doing here for public safety, that can provide for the fact that A category weapons potentially could be, in tranches down the line—[Time expired]

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): James Meager. Oh, he just ceded to the Hon Ginny Andersen.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): That’s nice. Thank you. My question was that those A category weapons, which do include Alfa Carbines, are often around about 70 percent of the firearms seized by police which criminals are accessing.

There are views, I know—from the Minister—that those A category weapons would be excluded potentially from the firearms registry down the line. Has she taken into account that if A category firearms were excluded from the firearms registry, what the impact of that would be to this firearms prohibition order regime? And are there any additional protections for public safety that we should be considering in order to give our police that front-line safety—police have been quite vocal on this one—to make sure that the provision for those weapons that criminals are accessing are also able to be—I guess my question is: how is this working in conjunction with the firearms registry? How is this working to ensure that front-line safety is given the maximised potential, and has she taken into consideration those latter changes in the further tranches the firearms reform she’s proposing when we’re passing this legislation in relation to firearms prohibition orders?

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ve got a few there to answer, but I’m just going to come back to the Green member’s question, the Green member that—oh, I can’t speak to people who aren’t here, but perhaps it could be passed on. I have a more fulsome reply. The definition of “firearm or related item” in the firearms prohibition orders (FPOs) regime is the same as the definition of “arms item” covered in the whole of the Arms Act, except “firearm or related item” also includes ammunition and imitation firearms. I suspect, once we look to do a rewrite, you might have to add 3D-printed in there somewhere as well. That sort of speaks to all of that, if you wouldn’t mind passing that on.

To the member the Hon Duncan Webb, who talked about the intention to search—and gave the example of boarding houses being occupied and controlled by an individual, and spoke of boarding rooms being occupied by other individuals who are not under the control of the person with the firearms prohibition order and was worried about them also being searched—I think that we’ve made it very clear within the legislation that it’s actually unable to happen or should not happen. In fact, it would be grounds for an unreasonable search, if indeed that did happen, because police need to specify that the search is for checking for compliance. They also need to make sure that they are only entering into the areas where that individual is. It may be their boarding room, it may be the bathroom, it may be the kitchen. I don’t think I’ve aware of many criminals who blatantly show that they are in possession of illegally held firearms—they rather go about trying to hide them—but we do need to respect the privacy of individuals that are not caught up within that regime.

Now, there could be a difference if that individual is associating with someone else in the boarding house who is part of an organised crime group or part of a gang and is known to be associating with that person and meets the criteria within the regime. That will come down to New Zealand Police at the time that they instigate their search, as to what that relationship may be and whether or not the person with the FPO is able to have quick access to that individual’s room. I’ll also note that the member the Hon Duncan Webb said that I referred to the Evidence Act. I did not refer to the Evidence Act, so I’m not taking on board what the member said there because I didn’t refer to that.

To the member the Hon Ginny Andersen, who asked questions about the amendments for public safety and an offender with what we now call prohibited firearms—they come under many categories now, quite a number of them. They’re not just what was previously noted as military-style semi-automatics but they also encompass a whole lot of other firearm types as well, so we’ll just call them prohibited firearms.

I was asked about the regime for people breaking the rules with regard to firearms. What we currently have in the legislation is that there is a penalty or an offence that could have a person imprisoned for five years, if they were indeed in possession of an illegally held firearm. If that firearm happened to be a prohibited firearm, it goes up to seven years of potential imprisonment. If there are other offences—say, they’re in possession of other types of prohibited weapons or ammunition—they face a penalty of up to two years. Now, if a licensed firearms owner sells a firearm to a person who has an FPO upon them and they’re aware that an FPO is upon them—if that firearm is a category firearm, it would be a five-year offence of potential imprisonment, and if that person sells a prohibited firearm to a person with an FPO, that is a seven-year jailable offence for that person as well.

When I’m looking at section “G”, which is about 42A—just going off the top of my head, and I might be wrong here—I think that’s what I refer to as the drive-by shooting clause. Looking at what the member’s saying about, you know, wanting to insert the word “must”, I don’t want to have our front line get to the point where they are really waiting until the last minute to try and take firearms away from these people. If they reasonably suspect that there is a firearm in a vehicle and an event’s about to take place, I don’t want them to get to the point of “Let’s wait till we get to that point.” If they think that a crime is about to be undertaken or is being planned, I’d like the police to have the ability to go and search that person with an FPO, to monitor their compliance to make sure that they are not in possession of a firearm. If anything, that also protects the person with the FPO, because it will be shown that they don’t have a firearm upon them.

At the end of the day, this is about the monitoring of the compliance of the firearms prohibition order and everything that’s placed upon them. The member the Hon Ginny Andersen also spoke to Alfa Carbines in category A, and I’ve made a very good point of notifying the committee that we have four phases that are going through. I have not spoken to what would be ruled in or ruled out at this stage, because I really want the people of New Zealand to be able to have a conversation about this. There were 250,000 people who were restricted in their time to be able to have a debate, and I think it would not be good of me to rule things in or rule things out. I think it’s a discussion that needs to be had, and that will come at the time that we produce the Arms Act rewrite for consultation.

I do understand the member’s concern around those particular types of firearms and how they are being utilised, and perhaps we need to look at how we address those ones, particularly, but I also think we need to have a look at technology advances in New Zealand and also really just modernise the Arms Act overall, so that public safety is adhered to but we also have the tools in the toolbox to make sure that the Arms Act is fit for purpose as things, technology, etc., modernise around us. I look forward to having that discussion when we go through the Arms Act rewrite, and, ultimately, look at the public safety outcomes that we can achieve together across the House.

JAMES MEAGER (National—Rangitata): I think that we need to clarify a couple of points that have been made in this debate because there’s been a bit of back and forth on clause 14 and new section 18AA(c). Now, I wanted to state a number of points for the Minister and just see if the Minister can seek some advice and make sure I’ve got this clear. If the members recall, we actually had a very, very detailed back and forth on this during the Justice Committee and we actually sought some specific advice on the “premises” question.

I wanted to state my understanding of it and seek the Minister’s clarification as to whether that’s correct, because I’m not sure whether we are confused because the section states that you may “search any premises—” and then it goes on to say “that the person occupies or controls.” It’s not a blanket allowance to be able to search any premises. The two subsections are tied together. It’s “search any premises that the person occupies,” “search any premises that the person controls”, and that in itself puts a limiting factor in it. I wanted to clarify that that understanding is correct.

The second point was—and this was raised in the Justice Committee as well—the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act (BORA) does require a general rights-compliant interpretation of the section. I recall when we had that conversation—Dr Webb will recall this—we went back and forth as to whether or not we could specify and get granular as to what could or couldn’t be searched. We came to the conclusion that the combination of the terms we had here in the bill combined with the reasonable search requirements in NZ BORA would have been sufficient to limit it to places that the individual actually occupies or controls. I want to clarify whether that is correct and still the understanding.

The third part is a part that Dr Webb raised and it’s a part that’s been missed out. It’s about ownership of the property. The Justice Committee removed that because we didn’t want the situation where an individual owned a property but perhaps rented it out, and simply by fact of ownership that property was able to be searched. I said, “Scott, so I can’t”—I don’t know if I can refer to Scott, but he’s getting up and sorting that. We removed that because we didn’t want to have the ability for any property that the individual owns to be searched, but they actually have to exert some sort of occupation or control over it.

The fourth point on that—and, again, sorry to labour it but to clarify—is the boarding house example and the hotel example; that’s why it’s “occupies or controls” or “is present”. We wanted to have the ability, if you are in a hotel but you’re not physically in the room, to still be able to search that room because you have, in effect, occupied the room but you don’t have control over the room, because the hotel maintains ultimate control over the room. That was my understanding of how that section works, and I think it would be helpful if that’s clarified—and I’m getting some quizzical looks, so it might not be the case.

Further to that point, I would like to know the Minister’s view on NZ BORA and whether or not these limits are reasonably justified limits. I know I can’t seek a legal opinion or a legal view from the Minister, but I have long held the view that should legislation like this pass through the House, that is in itself a demonstrable step by the democratically elected branch of government that those limits are justified. I would like to be able to place on the record views of members—and perhaps of Government—whether or not that is a reasonable approach to take.

They were my main points. The one final point is a little bit of history revision for Arena Williams. Yes, the National Government in 2017 did propose these orders. The reason they didn’t go in was because the Government changed and then the Labour Government of the time shot down the member’s bill from the National Party and voted against firearms prohibition orders and then were pressured into bringing them in themselves. If we’re going to revise history, let’s revise it correctly.

If the Minister can address those initial points—just to clarify that particular passage to the committee. I know we went back and forth on it for a long, long time in the Justice Committee, and I think it would be worth having it stated for the record—finally—what the position is. Thank you.

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice): Thank you, Madam Chair. To the member, the chair of the Justice Committee, you summed it up very, very well and also quite correctly, especially the point around the fact that the ownership of a property had been removed from the original draft for reasons that you just suggested, which is a person may own a property and be actually renting it out to somebody else; it does not mean that they should be able to go in there and search for firearms. This is about the person with the firearms prohibition order, not their property but the ability for New Zealand Police to be able to search their premises where they occupy and control certain areas. I may have actually been misrepresenting there, on reflection, a person who could be staying in the boarding house, that is an associate of a gang member, also being searched. That would only occur if they actually had a firearms prohibition order upon them as well. My apologies for the error in what I suggested there and my thanks to the chair of the Justice Committee for seeking clarification on those points.

While I’m on my feet, I’ve just been given some information for the member Arena Williams, who asked me some questions earlier about the Privacy Act and the collection of information and what happens to that information. I’m advised that the interplay of the Privacy Act, in regards to information that is obtained by police when searching and how long that information can be kept, is actually already within legislation. Information privacy principle number 9 in the Privacy Act provides that an agency “must not keep that information for [any] longer than is required for the purposes for which the information may lawfully be used.” They must get rid of the information if it’s no longer required in order for them to make their prosecution.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair. Minister, looking at new section 18AA(1)(a), (b), (c)—particularly (c) provides for a constable without a warrant who has reasonable grounds to search any premises. Now, thinking about the type of premises that police may be concerned about where people are possessing firearms and are the type of people that these firearms prohibition orders (FPOs) are intended to control, in the past 24 hours, a judge has ordered the Head Hunters to forfeit cash and property, including the Head Hunters’ prized pad in Marua Road, Ellerslie, in Auckland.

Minister, I would hope that a constable who has reasonable grounds to believe a person is subject to an FPO or who meets the test—say, for example, if they were visiting the Head Hunters’ former pad now, in Marua Road, Ellerslie, or their new branch that they’ve opened in Glenfield on the North Shore—a constable who has reasonable grounds to believe a person is subject to an FPO made before, on, or after the commencement of the section may search those premises without a warrant, may search any people they find there, and may search anything in that person’s possession or under that person’s control. One thing I do know about these gang pads: that’s where they accumulate a whole lot of big flash utes; very, very expensive motorcycles and parts; and that sounds just like the kind of place where people would want to secrete firearms, particularly those people involved in organised crime.

I’m interested, Minister, would that type of premises—a known Head Hunters gang pad—be the kind of premises which a constable would have reasonable grounds to go and search? And a further question, Minister: what would be the options available to police should they be searching the gang pad, find a person there who was subject to an FPO, and while searching for weapons turned up some of the other things that Head Hunters and these gang members are often known to be storing or possessing or using in the gang pad? Minister, what options would be available to the police if they were to find drug-using paraphernalia like the old glass pipe or a glass bong, I think, as was raised earlier in the Chamber this evening, or drugs themselves, Minister?

I’m wondering, firstly, would that type of premises be one of the premises that a constable who had reasonable grounds would be able to search without a warrant, and what options would be available to the officers should they find other contraband or other materials that people there were not lawfully entitled to possess, Minister?

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice): Thank you, Mr Chair. Thank you to the member for your question, and I guess it’s one that everybody at home really wants to know: what happens when a gang pad has been searched, and if a person with the FPO happens to be there? Well, that’s going to be determined upon why the gang pad is being searched in the first place, because there’s a difference here from being searched, looking for certain things, and monitoring the compliance of a person with a firearms prohibition order. If the police decide that they are going to turn up to the gang pad because there is a person with them in residence at that gang pad, then they have the ability to go in there and to search that gang pad. Should they find firearms there, then the person with the FPO placed upon them has committed an offence, even if there happens to be a legitimate licensed owner also residing at that pad. One of the main conditions about an FPO is a person should not be anywhere near firearms, including around firearms where there are legitimate owners and those firearms are not locked up or there’s not been a variation to the firearms prohibition order in the first place.

In answer to the second part of the member’s question around what if police go in there and they find other things, they find drugs—they might find stolen vehicles—the reality is police do have the ability to seize such items and also consider prosecution of such items when they’re carrying out that search. What’s really important is that they’re not there to look for those things; they’re there to monitor compliance with the FPO that has been placed on that person and the conditions that have been placed on that person. But, if they happen upon other illegally held substances, as the case may be, then they can seize and they can prosecute for that as well. In fact, there is a process within the regime where a person with an FPO, having committed further offences, can have that FPO changed, where it may start again—the 10 years may start again—or there could be other variants placed on that person such as not being able to reside at that certain place.

The options are there, and at the end of the day, I think what it’s important to remember is that it’s not going to be New Zealand Police that place the firearms prohibition orders on individuals; they need to apply to the court and a judge will place it, along with variations. I actually recall the member Arena Williams asking me what about somebody going home, for example, and they’re around family members that have firearms. There is the ability for a variation to be made in the firearms prohibition orders so that, say, anybody that has one—maybe it’s a gang member—who needs to attend a tangi of a loved one or a close one, they can actually apply to the court for a variation. They can spend up to two days in a residence—it could be a family member who has a firearms licence—as long as they adhere to the conditions such as the securing of their firearms. That person may be able to attend at that house for two days as well as overnight, if need be, so that we do ensure that families are not pulled apart by the regime, but there is the ability to ensure that they don’t have easy access to firearms as well.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you, Mr Chair. Minister, the Hon Nicole McKee, thank you. That was a very helpful and enlightening explanation about how this is likely to work.

Just coming back to new section 18AA, warrantless searches associated with a firearms protection order, I’m interested, when you got to that point in describing, in terms of new section 18AA(1)(f), whether any arms found that were seized and detained, given the fact that somebody who is under a firearms protection order may be visiting the home of or premises of somebody who has firearms legitimately and the police do have the power to seize and detain any arms found—

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Is this in scope?

SIMON COURT: Well, in fact, to the member of the Green Party who’s asking whether this is in scope, I’d just like to refer the member to new section 18AA(1)(f), which says, “A constable, who has reasonable grounds to believe”—not “suspect”; that’s been lined through—“that a person is subject to an FPO made before, on, or after the commencement of this section, may, without a warrant”—for the member’s benefit—“do any or all of the following”—new content added here—“for the purpose of checking whether the person is complying with the conditions of the FPO:”, they may, if they do discover arms, in terms of new section 18AA(1)(f), “seize and detain any arms found.”

What I’m interested in, and it may well be of interest to members of Labour and the Green Party in the Chamber tonight who may be licensed firearms owners, who may possess their own firearms for lawful purposes like hunting—I don’t know about you, Mr Chair, but I have a good friend who used to work for Forest & Bird and when I said, “What is it that Forest & Bird does? What kind of conservation work do you do?”, she told me that conservation is all about killing, and I’m assuming she means, in large parts, by licensed firearms owners using their firearms lawfully with the right permits.

Steve Abel: That’s certainly the Government’s view of conservation, isn’t it?

SIMON COURT: I don’t know how the member Steve Abel thinks he’s ever going to control pests and enhance and restore New Zealand biodiversity without killing some of the pests.

For the enlightenment of the committee, for those members of the public listening, maybe on 882AM or watching on Parliament TV, I’m wondering, would the Minister be able to explain, for the benefit of all of us, what might happen to firearms that were seized and detained if somebody under a firearms protection order was on a premises and those firearms that were seized and detained were held by a licensed firearms owner, and may well even be stored, we would hope, in a safe manner? I am sure that the licensed firearms owner, whether they knew or didn’t know that the person on their property was under a firearms protection order, would want to know that they can get their firearms back at some point after police have satisfied themselves of the licensed firearms owner’s bona fides and that they were still a fit and proper person, and so on.

Minister, I am sure that many people, particularly licensed firearms owners and those who know that conservation is all about killing—and that’s one of the things firearms are used for—would really love to hear what the Minister might be able to enlighten the committee with. Thank you, Minister.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): I move, That debate on this question now close.

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice): Thank you. In answer to the ACT member’s question, a licensed firearms owner has certain obligations, and one of the main obligations is to keep their firearms secured. A question that—

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: You can’t filibuster your own bill, Minister.

Hon NICOLE McKEE: I actually think it’s quite an important question that he’s asked, which is: if a person with a firearms prohibition order (FPO) attends at a firearms owner’s home and the firearms owner does not know that they have an FPO, could their firearms be seized?

Now, that’s going to become an operational issue for New Zealand Police at the time, but the reality is, if those firearms are not secured at the time that police attend the home where the person with an FPO is, I would suggest it’s more than likely that a firearm would be seized. The onus would also be on police to determine that that individual knew or was aware that an FPO was placed on the individual that was in their home. Now, the same could be said if a person attended a retail shop. How does the retailer know that a person with a FPO has walked into their premises if they don’t know that that person actually has an FPO?

That’s going to come down, again, to the operational manner of New Zealand Police and the investigation as to the knowledge of the other individual—whether they knew that that person had an FPO or not. Now, if it’s determined that they did know, then I think there would be dire consequences for the licensed firearms owner, but we need to make sure that, if a person did not have any knowledge that there was an FPO on the person that’s come into the premises, there should be a way of police being able to determine that knowledge or not. If they did know and they had unsecured firearms in their premises, then I expect that they would feel the full force of the law.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): I move, That debate on this question now close.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you, Mr Chair. I note that there have been a number of amendments moved—

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Point of order, Mr Chairperson. Thank you, Mr Chair. I would like to get some clarification from the Chair and just some guidance, because this is my first time doing something like this. Previously, if we were doing something like this, it would be considered to be repetition or out of scope, so I just want to get some clarification from the Chair on how to balance that.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Dr Xu-Nan, I realise that it would appear that the world has tipped itself upside down in the Chamber, as it stands. However, I am prepared that the questions being asked by the member are new-ish—

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Thank you, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): —but I’ll be looking carefully.

SIMON COURT: Thank you, Mr Chair. I think it’s important that the committee does have a chance to debate this, and I do invite the member Lawrence from Te Pāti Kākāriki to participate in the debate—

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Lawrence Xu-Nan.

SIMON COURT: —thank you, Dr Webb—and maybe offer some constructive criticism on the bill, because we’re here to improve the legislation. Is that not right, members? We’re here to improve the legislation.

I want to get to the next clause, Minister. We’re still on Part 2, “Amendments to other Acts”, but this one to the Search and Surveillance Act 2012 is a proposed change under clause 14, which is inserting new section 18AA, “Warrantless searches associated with firearms prohibition orders”. It says that “(1) A constable, who has reasonable grounds to believe that a person is subject to an FPO”, and, coming down to subclause (2), it says that “A constable may exercise the power in subsection (1) without having reasonable grounds to suspect that any offence has been, … or will be committed by the person.”

Minister, I’m assuming that that means that simply by virtue of the fact that a person subject to a firearms prohibition order who is otherwise going about their lawful business is regarded by the authority that issues the FPO—firearms prohibition order—that person is such a risk that they shouldn’t be allowed near firearms, whether or not they’re committing any other offence at the time, and I’m wondering if some of these people that the FPOs are meant to apply to are perhaps people that we might be afraid to walk down a dark alley at night and meet them. I’m wondering if some of these people may be—to quote Kahurangi Carter from Te Pāti Kākāriki, who would agree. Some of the people that we might need to be afraid of—just to quote the member. I want you to ask yourself: would you rather be walking down—

Laura Trask: It was Hūhana.

SIMON COURT: Well, actually, I’m just seeking clarification from my colleague here—and maybe the member would like to reply. I want you to ask yourself: would you rather be walking down a dark alley and see a patched member or a police officer? For many people in New Zealand, they’d feel safer alone with a patched member than with the police, and we need to ask ourselves why. Well, we certainly need to ask ourselves why a member of the New Zealand Parliament would think that New Zealanders need to feel unsafe around police officers when compared to the level of unsafety that a patched gang member might present to a member of the public.

Minister, given that some of the people subject to an FPO may well be patched members, is it likely that a patched member subject to an FPO, whether or not they’re committing an offence, will in fact be committing an offence by being in a premises, in a vehicle, or in a place where firearms are present and they might have access to them? If that’s the case, who is more dangerous, Minister: a patched gang member who might be subject to an FPO or a police officer doing their duty; and if that police officer was walking down a dark alley and there was a patched gang member there who was subject to an FPO and there were firearms present in that dark alley, who should the many people in New Zealand be more afraid of: the patched gang member who is subject to an FPO and is in the presence of firearms—

Steve Abel: Is this serious?

SIMON COURT: —or the police officer? Well, I’m just interrogating, Mr Steve Abel from Te Pāti Kākāriki, this concept, as proposed by Kahurangi Carter of the Green Party, that New Zealanders would feel safer alone with a patched member than with police. If this scenario occurred, where there was a patched member subject to an FPO in a dark alley with firearms available to them—not necessarily in their possession, but available to them—and a police officer went to carry out a warrantless search under the updated, new section 18AA, would that gang member be committing an offence, Minister, if they were in the dark alley with the firearms and were subject to an FPO?

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice): I intend to answer only the question that related to this bill, and it was a question at the beginning, where the member asked about whether or not the police were able to search a person based on whether or not they thought an offence had been committed.

The whole purpose of this particular regime is to give police the tools to be able to monitor the compliance of the firearms prohibition order that’s been placed on an individual. It’s not about looking for other crimes, it’s not about looking for other offences, and it’s not about looking for drug paraphernalia. It’s about looking to ensure that the person with the FPO is complying with the regime that’s been placed upon them, and that is the only reason why police can use these search powers as designed in new section 18AA. It’s to be able to monitor the compliance of the FPO, regardless of whether a person is down an alleyway or not.

STEVE ABEL (Green): I move that debate on this matter be brought to a close.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that debate on this question—[Interruption] Actually, I’m sorry—just to point out, that’s not quite the right words.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Assistant Whip—Labour): I move, That debate on this question now close.

A party vote was called for on the question, That debate on this question now close.

Ayes 59

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; ACT New Zealand 11; Tana.

Noes 57

New Zealand National 49; New Zealand First 8.

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to delete clause 14 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 48

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Tana.

Noes 68

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 14 inserting new section 18AA(1)(ca) be agreed to.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 14 replacing words in new section 18AA(1) be agreed to.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 14 amending new section 18AA(2) be agreed to.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Scott Willis’ tabled amendment to clause 14 inserting new section 18AA(4) be agreed to.

Amendment not agreed to.

Part 2 agreed to.

Simon Court: The Ayes have it—let’s have a party vote.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): A party vote is called for. Please conduct a party vote.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): I raise a point of order, Mr Chair. You can’t be given the vote and call for a party vote. It’s well established to be in breach of the Standing Orders to call for a vote when the Chair has given you the question.

Hon Members: Speaking to the point of order.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): I’ll take a little advice on this before I speak to any points. There is a Speakers’ ruling that if you’ve voted for an amendment or for a vote question, then you can’t call for a party vote.

Simon Court: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Well—

Simon Court: I’m not seeking to challenge your ruling.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): What has been explained to me is the fact that, if I’ve called the vote for the Ayes, which the member voted for—you can only ask for a party vote if you disagree with that. But I’ll hear your point.

SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you, Mr Chair. It’s a point of order. I seek leave to make a personal explanation.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection.

James Meager: Point of order.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Is it a full moon tonight?

JAMES MEAGER (National—Rangitata): Point of order, Mr Chair. I wondered whether the personal explanation was to do with some of the proxy votes that ACT carried and whether they can call for party votes on behalf of proxies.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Well, I’m sorry, but leave has been sought and leave has been denied, so we’ll carry on.

Clauses 1 and 2

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Members, we come now to our final debate: clauses 1 and 2. This is the debate on clauses 1 and 2, “Title” and “Commencement”.

JAMES MEAGER (National—Rangitata): I won’t take too long on this part, because the Justice Committee did not suggest any amendments to the title of this bill. I thought it’d be worth raising the fact that the bill’s title is the Firearms Prohibition Orders Legislation Amendment Bill, and a number of members tonight have incorrectly tried to label the bill as a “protection order” rather than a “prohibition order”. I think that we should get it clear and on the record that the title of the bill—

Hon Ginny Andersen: It’s on the bill, James. It’s pretty clear on the bill.

JAMES MEAGER: —is the “prohibition orders” legislation bill. It is clear on the bill—the member is right: it’s absolutely clear on the bill. Member after member after member tonight has referred to these orders as “firearms protections orders”, so I just thought it would be very, very clear to put on the record that these are firearms prohibition orders. They’re the same firearms prohibition orders as brought in by the Labour Government in 2022; same firearms prohibition orders that they voted against in 2017 as well.

I just wanted to make that point very, very clear, and I wanted to make the second point that the commencement date is not the day on which it receives Royal assent but it’s six months after the date on which it receives Royal assent.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: So insightful!

JAMES MEAGER: There’s very good reason for that, and despite the interjections and the heckling from the Opposition members who steadfastly oppose this bill—or want to see it rapidly passed into law for some reason unknown to me—the bill does come into force six months after the date on which it receives the Royal assent. The purpose of this is, I think, very clear. It hasn’t been properly explained or announced by the Minister and it’s likely to do with the fact that these will take time to implement, and you’ll need to operationalise the new processes with the police.

I’m wondering if the Minister can just address that point for the commencement date and any other further comments and thoughts she might have.

Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice): I thank the member for clarifying the name of the bill. It has been misrepresented continuously through this evening. I think the people that we need to protect is on the minds of all members of this House—and that’s why it’s incorrectly referred to so often across both sides—because, ultimately, that’s the goal that we want. It is the “firearms prohibition bill”.

The member is quite right in regard to the commencement being six months away. We want to make sure that New Zealand Police are trained well in the operational instigation of how they’re going to go about enforcing the new search—the bespoke search—powers that they’ve been given. We don’t want them to come up against the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and section 21. We want to make sure that when they do this, they do it right because it is a power that they’ve not had before. The training needs to be there for them, and that is ultimately the main reason why there is a six-month delay from Royal assent to implementation.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The Hon Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 1 is out of order as being merely an attempt to criticise the bill.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Bill to be reported without amendment.

House resumed.

Report of Committee of the Whole House

Report of Committee of the Whole House

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Madam Speaker, the committee has considered the Courts (Remote Participation) Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment. The committee has also further considered the Corrections Amendment Bill and reports it with amendment. The committee has also considered the Firearms Prohibition Orders Legislation Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

Bills

Victims of Family Violence (Strengthening Legal Protections) Legislation Bill

Second Reading

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): I present a legislative statement on the Victims of Family Violence (Strengthening Legal Protections) Legislation Bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: I move, That the Victims of Family Violence (Strengthening Legal Protections) Legislation Bill be now read a second time.

This bill will strengthen the courts’ statutory powers to protect victims of litigation abuse in family proceedings. The bill was introduced by the previous Government in August 2023, and this Government, in the spirit of bipartisanship, has adopted it. The bill has been considered by the Justice Committee and it recommends that it be passed with amendments to a number of clauses, which I support in full. I thank the members of the committee for their thorough consideration; a committee led by my colleague James Meager who’s done a great job. I understand that the Justice Committee received 21 written submissions on the bill and heard seven oral submissions. These submissions were from people and organisations with valuable and varied experience related to family violence and the court system. I thank them for their insights and for taking the time to submit to the committee. The resulting changes have, I believe, strengthened the bill in line with its purpose.

I’d like to briefly talk about what litigation abuse is, the harm it causes, and the objectives of the bill. Litigation abuse is where someone uses the court system to harass, contact, and control their victim rather than to resolve legitimate disputes. This can include making false allegations and filing excessive documents with the intention to hurt their victim in some way. For example, they may seek to control their victim’s time through responding to court applications or cause financial harm through incurring legal costs. They may intend to humiliate, to hurt, or to continue to force contact with them.

The Government is committed to ensuring the proper and effective use of the court system. The courts are there to resolve disputes when parties are unable to, and to uphold the rule of law. The misuse of the courts process to deliberately prolong a dispute, to harass, to harm or to otherwise abuse somebody is the absolute antithesis of this purpose. This misuse is even more disturbing when it impacts children, which is often the case in the context of family proceedings. I think everybody in the House in their interactions with their constituents and their community will be aware of cases such as this where it’s happened, where our families have been torn asunder and proceedings have been dragged out to the detriment of one party and those close to them.

The purpose of the Victims of Family Violence (Strengthening Legal Protections) Legislation Bill is to strengthen the courts’ ability to respond to litigation abuse. It does this by amending the Family Court Act, District Court Act, and Senior Courts Act to include new provisions targeting litigant abuse in family proceedings. The new provisions will allow the court to make an order where a broad view of the conduct both in and out of court proceedings shows someone is engaging in litigant abuse in a family proceeding. If an order is made, the court will require a party to obtain leave of the court to take any further steps in existing or, indeed, in new family proceedings. This will give the courts a tool to protect victims from being abused through the court process. An order will last for a period of up to three years and may last for up to five years in extraordinary circumstances.

I’ll come now to the recommendations of the select committee. The select committee has recommended refinements to the bill to ensure the new provision better recognises the impact of litigation abuse on victims. In response to submitters’ comments, the revised bill focuses on the harm to the targeted party rather than focusing on this behaviour for being an abuse of the court’s process. I just want to reiterate that: the bill focuses on the harm to the targeted party rather than focusing on the behaviour being an abuse of the court’s process. While litigation abuse will often amount to an abuse of the court, the focus on the victim better reflects the intention of the bill: to protect people from abuse in the context of court proceedings.

The revised bill provides protections that are accessible to victims while also signalling the serious nature of litigation abuse. Submitters told the committee that requiring the behaviour in court to be intended to “harass and annoy” the party may trivialise the serious nature of litigation abuse experienced by victims. The benefits of defining the behaviour narrowly to indicate the serious nature needs to be balanced against the risk that it will become more difficult for the victim to assess the new protection. The changes recommended by the committee respond to this by (1) expanding the definition of litigant abuse to include behaviour intended to harass, annoy, or to harm another party to the proceeding or that amounts to psychological abuse; and (2) including further clarification that conduct is intended to capture situations where a pattern of behaviour amounts to litigant abuse. Together these changes better reflect the intention of the bill. The amended language allows for a broad range of behaviour to be captured while also recognising the seriousness of the abuse experienced by victims. They also clarify that the wellbeing and best interests of the child are paramount where they may be affected.

Finally, technical changes make it clear the bill provides an additional process in cases of litigation abuse, but other processes that relate to vexatious litigation remain. A party may engage in conduct that is vexatious—for example, because they are a self-represented litigant with limited knowledge of the process—without intending to abuse another party to the proceedings. Subsequent to the select committee reporting back, a minor and technical amendment has been made to be clear of that to clarify the policy intent and simplify the references used throughout the bill. This is contained in an Amendment Paper that was tabled on 9 August.

I want to come finally to protections in the bill. I want to address the concerns the select committee heard about the provisions in the bill being used to limit access to the courts by victims. To ensure access to justice and natural justice rights are preserved and that the new provision is used properly, there are a number of safeguards in the bill. These are (1) for an order to be made, the judge must be satisfied that conduct within the proceedings is litigant abuse; (2) a judge retains discretion about whether to make an order; (3) an order does not prevent a party from taking further steps and proceedings, it requires that the courts review any further steps that person takes in the family proceeding or any new family proceedings they initiate to ensure that they are appropriate before allowing them to proceed; and (4) the decision to grant an order is itself able to be appealed.

I want to thank the organisations and people who took the time to share their experiences with litigant abuse. Their insights informed the changes made to this bill which have improved it considerably. I acknowledge that many submissions related to substantial or general changes to the family justice system were beyond this bill’s scope. The Ministry of Justice has a multi-year work programme under way that aims to ensure people affected by family violence and sexual violence feel safe, supported, and are well-informed in their interactions with the ministry. To protect the core purpose and prevent misuse, our courts need appropriate statutory powers to prevent victims being forced into ongoing relationship with their abuser through court proceedings and this bill supports that. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I recommend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Labour supports this bill because it was ours, and we’re pleased that the Government is continuing to support this bill.

It’s been an interesting process to hear the submissions on this bill and it’s really important that we’ve made some changes in relation to some of the views that we heard. The idea behind the Victims of Family Violence (Strengthening Legal Protections) Legislation Bill is really to prevent someone who is the victim of ongoing abuse—whether that be stalking, physical violence, psychological pressure, so that the court system is not used as an additional tool to continually make their life insufferable; it can be quite debilitating. We saw some instances of that through Justice Committee submissions where partners had made their former partner’s life, and their children as well, a misery through prolonged litigation, prolonged court processes.

This bill, which was actually one of the issues initially raised by a former member of Parliament: Emily Henderson—it was one of her views, after being a Family Court lawyer and working in this space, seeing how specifically women are often targeted through the court system and had various types of different processes through the courts laid upon them to make life almost intolerable.

It’s really good to see under the new provisions that the court must take a broad view of conduct both in and out of court proceedings to determine whether someone is in fact abusing the court’s processes in a family proceeding. If an order is made, any further attempts by the abuser to engage the victim in family proceedings will be reviewed by the court before it can progress. Of course, there needs to be some careful weighing up of instances such as these. We know that the Family Court is a problematic place. When people reach the Family Court, it is usually a pretty traumatic experience all round.

This bill is one of the many changes that Labour made in order to strengthen the rights of victims and also strengthen the courts process for victims, particularly for family violence, for sexual violence, and to give victims of family or sexual violence more of a voice through our court process, which is typically quite an adversarial process in general.

The committee heard through the process that stalkers are increasingly using litigation abuse to target their victims. It’s also encouraging to see that the Government’s made a commitment just this year to pass legislation specifically making stalking a criminal offence. I know that the sector of advocates in this space—for women’s rights and who work in the family violence space—are particularly pleased to have that, and we’re eagerly awaiting that on this side of the House. The Minister does know that there’s a bill in my name in the ballot ready to go—if you just wanted to pull that one out and vote for that, we could do that one even quicker than his own Government bill.

We are satisfied that the amended bill would minimise some of the risks that were raised by submitters. Several submitters expressed concern that the bill would provide abusers with a tool to engage intimate partner violence in using the courts to prevent victims from raising safety concerns. We see that that is a possibility and we think that we’ve got the balance about right for the judge to be able to make those determinations, given the evidence that comes before them. It’s really encouraging to see that the Government is taking a positive stance on this and voting for a bill that does good things for family violence, particularly in the face of the fact that the family violence track record under this Government has, to date, not been fantastic. It’s good to see some progress.

We have seen, as we all know, in New Zealand, around about 20 percent of family violence is currently reported to police. Research from the Ministry of Justice and from NGOs, such as The Backbone Collective, showed that the reason why people in New Zealand don’t report family violence is that they’ve previously either called police and had no response or called police and had a poor response or reached out for help and not had a positive experience. That’s the main reason why people don’t report family violence.

If, now, we’re in a position where a decision is being taken by this Government to only send police if it’s a threat to life, that that doesn’t meet that threshold of high-level family violence, all of those people who are ringing up and calling up and asking for help and not receiving it because it doesn’t meet the threshold—my question is: what does that do for the reporting rate of family violence in New Zealand? It would be great if we did have teams that were able to go out and take up that work, I agree, if we want to get on top of family violence. Police aren’t specifically trained in that space, but there is no additional funding for Women’s Refuges or other counselling services or those family support providers to go and take up that work and to fill that space that has been left. That is a real concern for the reporting rate of family violence.

This bill is really a drop in the bucket in terms of getting on top of the issues of family violence that New Zealand faces right now. The big problem is not just reporting rates but it’s the next generation of young people in New Zealand who grow up in homes where violence is normalised as part of their daily lives. This contributes, we know, to negative factors in their development, their ability to be whole, cooperating, happy, functioning members of society and to live full lives. We have, I think, an obligation to make sure we’re doing everything we can.

It’s for that reason, if we’re serious about family violence, that the roles of a lot of the Oranga Tamariki providers who have now had funding cut because the Minister will only fund kids in State care—nothing more, nothing less. That’s her words: nothing more, nothing less. If they’re in State care, they get funded, but if they’re not in State care, there’s no help and there’s no prevention services now going on. North Shore Women’s Centre is closing, and Kōkiri services in the Hutt. We can list some more. They’re all services that go into those homes and that support whānau who are going through tough times. Through counselling, through support, and through budgeting advice, they enable whānau who are experiencing family violence to deal with their own problems and to keep their children within the family and to have a home that has a hope of living without violence.

My concern is that, with a police service that is stepping back, with front-line NGOs that have been cut, and family who are calling out for help and are not receiving it—it’s great the Government is voting for this bill—long term, it’s a bleak future for New Zealand families if we’re going to try and have a violence-free Aotearoa.

KAHURANGI CARTER (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Today, I rise in support of the Victims of Family Violence (Strengthening Legal Protections) Legislation Bill. I want to mihi to the mahi of many across both sides of this House to ensure we are collectively centred on the real issue at hand. Our shared vision is clear: we can prevent family violence and sexual violence. We shouldn’t accept these issues as inevitable. Our mokopuna and future generations deserve our commitment to this goal. Together, we can and must create a world where everyone can live free from violence, with dignity and peace and respect.

This bill amends the Family Court Act 1980, the District Court Act 2016, and the Senior Courts Act 2016, which will strengthen the courts’ statutory powers to protect victims of litigation abuse in family proceedings. It specifically addresses the needs of victims of family violence, enhancing their protection within our legal system. I want to acknowledge that this bill will take significant steps to address the issue of using the court system to harass victims and survivors of abuse, which has been a persistent problem for far too long.

In the first reading of this bill, the Hon Marama Davidson spoke of the need to balance the rights of victims to be free from abuse in our justice system with maintaining fair process and, as such, strongly recommended the scrutiny of the select committee on this bill. When we speak on behalf of victims and survivors, our goal is to uphold justice and fairness, not to undermine them, as victims and survivors are the ones who truly benefit from these principles. It’s clear that there have been instances where the court has been misused in a disruptive way without any real intervention of seeking justice. I want to thank the work of the Justice Committee, along with those who submitted on this bill to ensure we struck that balance and that the justice system would be safe for those who have experienced domestic and sexual assault in their family.

Whilst the select committee report reads “and unanimously recommends all amendments”, I want to draw attention to key amendments. Firstly, the committee heard a common theme by submitters that the phrasing and definition of “abuse of the court” did not appropriately reflect the serious nature of the harm suffered by abuse victims. As such, it is vital that the House introduce proposed new section 12B(8) to change the definition from “abuse of the court” to “litigant abuse”, which more precisely describes this behaviour. This amendment ensures that we place the survivors at the centre of a strengths-based system, which is in line with Te Aorerekura. I cannot stand here without highlighting and holding Te Aorerekura, the first ever nationwide intergenerational strategy to eliminate family violence and sexual violence.

These legislative efforts alone won’t completely reform the system. There is widespread acknowledgment that they represent a deliberate shift towards centring the voices, expertise, and experience of victim survivors, validating them as they rightfully should be. As highlighted by the Chief Victims Advisor, our current adversarial system often leaves victims and survivors without true justice, perpetuating a cycle of winners and losers. We must reform the system while concurrently striving to establish a more accountable justice framework, one that prioritises victims and survivors and offers effective support and intervention to perpetrators to change their behaviour and take responsibility for the harm they’ve caused.

I also want to draw attention to the themes of some submitters, including that of Community Law and The Backbone Collective. Whilst they spoke in favour of the intent of the bill, they did raise a valid concern that some victims often need to make multiple applications to the Family Court before their case is heard. Their concern was that the introduction of this legislation would prevent victims from being able to use the court systems to bring proceedings. Whilst the committee notes the amendment specifically to clause 5 and around new section 12B, the committee is satisfied that it would protect these circumstances.

I also want to acknowledge the point of monitoring and reporting, which was brought up by many members in the first speech of this bill. Tragically, we know that in Aotearoa, most violence is not reported. Nearly all sexual violence is not reported at all, and it takes an average of seven times for someone to leave an abusive relationship for good. We aim to increase reporting while reducing the prevalence of violence. Decreasing the occurrence of violence is harder, gruntier work, but it’s worth having that goal and is essential—and I’m pleased we have our pathway forward provided by Te Aorerekura, which the Hon Marama Davidson worked so hard to champion.

Whilst we are talking about this bill in the House today—which is directly related to our collective shared vision of preventing family violence and sexual violence present for our future mokopuna—I can’t help but put this into context of what this very House received with heavy hearts just last month: the royal commission of inquiry into abuse in care. Words cannot adequately convey the systemic failures and injustices continually perpetuated for decades by the State.

If we do not confront the systemic injustice and recognise that the State continues to be the largest perpetrator of violence and abuse towards tamariki, the stain on our national character will be permanent. As such, I take this opportunity in the House, whilst we are debating family and sexual violence legislation, to implore the Government in the strongest terms possible to fully implement all 138 recommendations of the royal inquiry into abuse in care in full.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I recommend this bill to the House and look forward to working across the aisle to continue its progress.

TODD STEPHENSON (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT to speak tonight in the second reading of the Victims of Family Violence (Strengthening Legal Protections) Legislation Bill. I do want to acknowledge that this bill has traversed two Parliaments, the 53rd and the 54th. I was lucky enough to be on the Justice Committee who actually looked at this bill and did the commentary and the report, which I’ll talk about in a few moments.

I do also want to acknowledge the Hon Marama Davidson—her Green colleagues did just talk about her, but Marama Davidson actually did come along to the Justice Committee and make a very valuable contribution. In fact, it was one of the last times she was actually active in a select committee or in a parliamentary process before she took leave for her cancer treatment. I wish her all the best on that journey and I hope she is back soon. I do want to acknowledge her great contribution.

What I want to say about litigation abuse—and we’ve heard a little bit already, but this is where the court system or litigation is being used by the perpetrator of family violence to really harass, kind of control, their victim. Really, they’re not trying to resolve the conflicts or the issues they’re having between parties; they’re actually just using the court system to cause further harm and damage. That really is quite upsetting and despicable. I actually had a brief legal career and have been to court a number of times, and going to court is actually quite a stressful process in itself, particularly in the family court. It can be resource-intensive, time-intensive—and that’s just if you’re actually trying to resolve your dispute. Imagine when the court system is actually being used to punish you or harass and further victimise you—that’s just adding another level of stress to your life.

What we see with litigation abuse is multiple filings, and, of course, courts, and lawyers in particular—we love to file motions and put things before the courts. I mean, there’s always avenues to do that, but if that’s being done inappropriately, to just continue to victimise and control and harm the other person, the other party to that proceeding, that actually is not a proper use of the court’s time. That’s what we see, you know: excessive filings, making people respond to those filings, file affidavits, have to turn up to court sessions. Again, if you’re actually having to take time off work, disrupt your life, instruct lawyers—this is all actually very emotionally draining but also resource-draining, and can cause a lot of additional harms to victims.

I do want to acknowledge the Hon Ginny Andersen for bringing this bill forward. What we saw there is a bit of a gap in the law. Look, judges do have considerable powers at the moment to actually deal with proceedings, but some of those powers may not have been sufficient to actually stop this type of abuse, particularly in these family proceedings and when we’re seeing violence. We wanted to make sure—well, what this bill does try to make sure—is that there are additional provisions for judges to be able to actually deal with this abuse

We did, here—and I think it’s already been touched on. We had 21 submissions, and I do want to thank all the submitters to the select committee. Again, I’ll talk a little bit about what some of the submitters said, but we were, by listening to those submitters, actually able, I think, to make some improvements to this bill. Five key themes came through from the submissions we heard. One was that this kind of litigation abuse occurs more frequently in these family violence and family court settings, and maybe a bit more frequently than we had actually anticipated. It was good to hear that firsthand.

There were several, obviously, comments making sure that while we were making these changes, there was still a right to justice, and, again, I think this bill has struck the right balance. We’re trying to stop this abuse but also making sure that the right to justice and actually being heard is retained. We want to make sure that all parties continue to have that, but make sure that both parties to proceedings and the court’s resources were not being used inappropriately.

Again, about a quarter of the submitters raised various concerns about the bill’s impacts on children, and, again, we made a specific recommendation around applicability to the Care of Children Act—I can come back to that in a little minute. Submitters expressed concerns that victims could still be harmed and wanted to make sure that this bill does actually minimise that risk. I think, again, I want to thank the Green member Kahurangi Carter. Really, this issue is about systemic change, and we actually need to make sure that we’re actually changing the justice system, particularly in the Family Court setting, I should say—particularly in the Family Court setting—to actually make that process deliver results and not be detrimental to the parties involved, particularly when you’ve got children involved in those Family Court cases.

I know the Minister has already outlined some of the changes that the select committee made, but I will just touch on those again briefly. There was, again, this definition around “abuse” which was changed, while, again, not wanting to minimise it by using terms like just “harass” and “annoy”, because “annoy” doesn’t really sound that serious. What we are actually talking about is things that are far more than an annoyance; they’re abusive and re-harming people. That was kind of dealt with.

Again, there was a lot of discussion in the select committee around conduct outside of proceedings and just wanting to make sure we’re actually reflecting that. We wanted the judge to be able to consider what a party might be doing outside of the proceedings but also how that interplayed with the proceedings that were before that judge or before the courts.

Another couple of quick things I did want to mention was, really, that ACT sees this—and the Government’s been very happy to pick up this bill—as adding to the suite of policies that we’re putting forward as a Government, actually, to strengthen the overall criminal justice system. I know we’ve, tonight, heard some criticism about what we might be doing in various areas, including Oranga Tamariki, but I can assure you that we are actually doing those changes with the best of intentions. Minister Chhour has said, many times in this House, that her focus is actually on the care and protection of children and she actually wants Oranga Tamariki to focus on that and deliver results, which it hasn’t been doing.

We see the opportunity to support this as going alongside a lot of the other changes we’re making in the criminal justice area—whether that’s to strengthen gang legislation to strengthen a punishment for gang members and whether, earlier tonight, we were talking about firearms and prevention orders around them. We’d see this as complementing a whole bunch of things that we are doing in this space.

I appreciate it was introduced by the last Labour Government, and, as I said, I think we should pick up good ideas where we see them. I very much think that this is going to add to the overall strength of our criminal justice system by really dealing with an area we heard that submitters were very keen for us to address.

I do note in the commentary from the select committee that we did raise this issue of stalking. Again, as the Hon Ginny Andersen said, it was outside the scope of this bill, but it was important that it was noted that people still saw that as an area where more could be done. I do believe Minister Goldsmith has committed to doing that. So I really just want to leave it there and say, obviously, ACT is very happy to support this bill, and I commend it to the House. Thank you.

JAMIE ARBUCKLE (NZ First): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on the Victims of Family Violence (Strengthening Legal Protections) Legislation Bill. Like many things in the Justice Committee, being a first-time member being exposed to some of the stuff that does go on in our legal system, this has been quite a learning for me actually going through this bill and actually learning some of the difficulties people face in our court system.

It’s important, if we just go to the purpose around the bill, and it gave some examples around filing excess documents with the courts that requires a response from a party to a proceeding and how that can become intense for someone—a victim who is trying to get justice and having to go through that process, and also forcing victims to attend multiple court sessions to respond to an application. For many of us, probably the last place we want to find ourselves is in a courtroom. Unfortunately, some people force people multiple times under duress into the courts.

What I would like to say is we did hear from 21 submitters; seven of them were oral submitters. Some of those submissions that we did hear from were quite powerful and I’ve got a few of them here that I’m just going to touch on briefly. One was from the Victim Support, and they talked about the number of cases that they deal with, but they made a very powerful statement in their submission that courts become playgrounds. That is something that we do not want to see in our courts, where they become playgrounds and people become further victims because of the use of the court.

Ruth Money was another submitter we heard from. She said the court is often used against victims, and that is, again, something here we don’t want to be seen repeated. We heard from other submitters—the Federation of Business and Professional Women New Zealand—and they talked about a number of different examples, and especially the abuse in the wider community, but also going through the court system. Anna Baxter had a very well-sought-out submission where she talked about family violence having devastating impacts on the physical, mental, and emotional wellbeing of victims and their children as well as the wider society. She also talked around filing with further steps if they have to file two or more proceedings under the current legislation where you would have to actually go through multiple stages of this. She was actually saying—Anna Baxter in her submission—that under this bill the judge would be able to make an order a lot more quickly.

Those submissions really helped the committee as we knuckled down. New Zealand First finds that the Victims of Family Violence (Strengthening Legal Protections) Legislation Bill was designed to combat the misuse of the legal system by abusers to further victimise individuals involved in family proceedings. Litigation abuse involves tactics such as filing those excess documents or forcing multiple court appearances; thereby harassing, annoying, or harming another party. The bill aims to provide the courts with the statutory powers needed to address and prevent such misuse, ensuring that the legal process cannot be weaponised against victims of family violence.

Now, New Zealand First’s position and our principles around this bill are New Zealand First is committed to protecting victims of family violence and ensuring that the legal system is not used as a tool for further abuse. We believe in upholding the integrity of the judicial process and safeguarding the welfare of individuals, especially the vulnerable. Our principles emphasise justice, fairness, and the protection of those who are most at risk. By supporting this bill—and it’s great that all parties across this House will be supporting this bill—we reaffirm our dedication to creating a safer and more just society for New Zealanders.

When we looked at this bill, we picked out three major areas: the protection for the victims, the judicial efficiency, and alignments with our values. I’m just going to go through each one of those. The protection for victims. The bill provides essential protections for victims of family violence, preventing abuse and misusing the court system; empowers judges to identify and stop litigation abuse, ensuring that the legal process cannot be exploited to inflict further harm on victims. This protection is crucial for reducing the emotional and financial burdens placed on victims, allowing them to navigate the legal system without fear of additional harassment or intimidation.

Around judicial efficiency, by addressing litigation abuse, the bill enhances the efficiency and the fairness of Family Court proceedings. It helps streamline the judicial process by reducing unnecessary and malicious legal actions, allowing the courts to focus on the genuine cases—and we know that there are many of those cases that are genuine that require attention. This not only benefits the victims but also improves the overall functioning of the legal system, making it more responsive and effective.

The alignment with the New Zealand First values. This bill aligns with New Zealand First’s values of justice, fairness, and protection of the vulnerable. It ensures that the legal system serves its intended purpose of delivering justice and upholding the rights of individuals without being manipulated by the malicious intent. By supporting this bill, New Zealand First demonstrates its commitment to maintaining a just and equitable society where the rights and wellbeing of victims of family violence are prioritised and protected.

Going through the bill, we did make those changes—and there was a major change that we did make around litigation abuse of a party to the proceedings rather than the court. That was a major change from when the bill was first introduced—that it is about the victim rather than the abuse or things happening in the court, but it’s actually to the party or the victim that the litigation abuse is happening to.

Around the definitions, we replaced “abuse of court” and changed it to “a litigation abuse”. Importantly, section 12B(4)(b) was around the outside things happening outside the court. Often we know of the attempts inside a court, but it’s also what’s happening on the outside and it’s around that harassment or being annoying or harm. What the committee did do after hearing submissions, we wanted to keep that term from being on the outside—litigation abuse—keep that quite broad, and we have done that.

Our last member from ACT who spoke, we also talked about the protections of children and how this Act interacts with the section 4 of the Children’s Act. Importantly, we did hear submissions about stalking, and this bill does not deal with stalking issues, but there is a bill in the member’s tin that will deal with that, so, hopefully, that gets pulled out soon. That is a major concern for a number of the submitters who did submit to the bill.

On that, New Zealand First supports the bill. It is common sense, and it is good that all parties across the House support this. I commend the bill to the House. Thank you.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): This debate is interrupted and set down for resumption next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow. Good night.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 10 p.m.