Thursday, 29 August 2024

THURSDAY, 29 AUGUST 2024

THURSDAY, 29 AUGUST 2024

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Karakia/Prayers

Karakia/Prayers

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

Business Statement

Business Statement

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector) on behalf of the Leader of the House: Today, the House will adjourn until Tuesday, 10 September. In that week, the House will consider the second readings of the Education and Training Amendment Bill and the Contracts of Insurance Bill. It will also consider the third reading of the Corrections Amendment Bill. On Tuesday, there are the Estimates debates for the health, Māori development, and transport portfolios. Wednesday will be a members’ day.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): I thank the acting Leader of the House for that. The question that I have is around the extended sittings. If it happens, like it did this week, that it’s not required, would the Government consider using that scheduled extended sitting to fill the deficit in the outstanding members’ day during that time?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector): I know the members opposite are excited about the huge amount of work and legislation that the Government is progressing, and he’ll just have to wait and see.

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

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

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

CLERK: Petition of Social Justice Aotearoa, requesting that the House amend the End of Life Choice Act by removing the words “within 6 months” from section 5 and providing that people are eligible for assisted dying who suffer from a degenerative disease that will ultimately end their life.

SPEAKER: That petition stands referred to the Petitions Committee. No papers have been delivered. No select committee reports have been delivered for presentation. No bills have been introduced.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Social Development and Employment

1. Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Does she stand by her statement, “Our Government will not tolerate people who accept the Jobseeker Support benefit but refuse to uphold their obligation to seek a job—it is not fair on hardworking Kiwis who pay their taxes that go towards those benefit payments”; if not, why not?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Yes. Our Government believes that people on the jobseeker benefit who are supported by taxpayers have obligations in return for this support. That is why we are introducing a traffic light system to make clear to people whether they are complying with their work obligations and what steps they need to take to re-comply with their obligations if they have not fulfilled them.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: How many of the 202,000 people currently on jobseeker support have refused to uphold their obligations to seek a job?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I’m very pleased to announce to the House that of the job seekers currently on the jobseeker benefit, only 1 percent are in orange and 1 percent in red.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: How many of the 202,000 people currently on jobseeker support have a health condition or disability and are unable to work?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: The jobseeker benefit and the work obligations are clearly stated. Some job seekers who have health conditions and disabilities don’t have work obligations. None of that has changed.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Does she expect grandparents, raising grandchildren, who are on jobseeker support and also receive the unsupported child’s benefit to work full time?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I confirm again: none of the requirements that have existed prior, in terms of work obligations, have changed. The only thing that has changed is that this side of the House is actually making it really clear to those who are on the jobseeker benefit what their status is—are they in green and they’re complying; are they under a warning, which is orange; or have they failed their work obligations, which means they go to red.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: How could she expect a single grandmother on jobseeker support with her own 14-year-old and two grandchildren—one of whom has ADHD and fetal alcohol spectrum disorder and for whom she is receiving the unsupported child’s benefit—to work full-time?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I can only say it again, because it appears the member wasn’t listening to my answer: our Government has not changed any of the settings around what the work obligations are and who they apply to. All we have done is said that, actually, where there are responsibilities that are not fulfilled, we expect the Ministry of Social Development to take action.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: What has happened to the 1,500 people that have been sanctioned and lost their benefits since she took office?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I’m hoping that many of them have then re-complied and got their benefit reinstated, or, hopefully, more of them have got a job.

Question No. 2—Health

2. Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National—Ilam) to the Minister of Health: What actions has the Government taken to improve the lives of New Zealanders, and their families, affected by cancer?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI (Minister of Health): Tomorrow is Daffodil Day, so I’d like to start off by acknowledging our hard-working health staff and the volunteers helping those with cancer. Daffodil Day represents hope for many New Zealanders and their families who have been impacted by cancer. We know that many people will experience cancer in their lifetime, whether that’s personally or through a relative or a friend; we know the toll that it can take. That’s why this Government is committed to improving cancer outcomes for all New Zealanders. That’s why we have brought back targets, invested in cancer treatments, improved access to cancer services, and expanded cancer screening eligibility.

Dr Hamish Campbell: What investments has the Government made into cancer treatments?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: Since coming into Government, we’ve been very busy in the cancer space. We’ve made a transformative investment of $604 million into Pharmac, which will deliver up to 26 cancer treatments from October this year, increasing access to vital medicines for those impacted by cancer. We’re also building a new cancer radiotherapy machine at Whangārei Hospital, so 520 Northlanders a year will no longer have to travel to Auckland for treatment. For those New Zealanders who do still have to travel for their specialist treatment, we’ve boosted the National Travel Assistance scheme by $18 million a year.

Dr Hamish Campbell: How has the Government improved access to cancer screening?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: We know that improving access to screening and diagnostic services will save lives. That is why we have prioritised action in this area. You will have already seen that we are extending the breast cancer screening age from 70 to 74 years, which will save an estimated 65 lives per year at full uptake. This extension also means that around 120,000 additional women will be eligible for screening every two years. We’ve removed access barriers for positron emission tomography and computed tomography (PET-CT) scans by approving funding for an updated set of criteria, which allows for about 1,000 more publicly funded PET-CT scans per year—many of which will be for cancer, especially prostate cancer. New Zealanders deserve timely access to healthcare when they need it most.

Dr Hamish Campbell: What else is the Government doing to drive better cancer outcomes?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: There are many initiatives that we have got under way to improve cancer outcomes. Cancer touches thousands of Kiwi families each year, and although we have already made a number of significant advancements, we know there’s still a long way to go. In recent years, we’ve seen people experiencing longer delays in accessing cancer treatment. More patients are waiting longer than the 31 days for their cancer management to start, with those meeting the target dropping from over 90 percent a few years ago to around 82.7 percent now. This is unacceptable. That is why we’ve introduced a target to have 90 percent of patients receive cancer management within 31 days of the decision to treat. Having health targets back at the forefront of our decision making will help direct the attention and resources to make this happen. This target will also provide the accountability and transparency that the system needs to ensure it is delivering timely access to cancer treatment when New Zealanders are in their time of need.

Question No. 3—Police

3. TAMATHA PAUL (Green—Wellington Central) to the Minister of Police: Does he stand by his statement that he doesn’t “think there is systemic bias in the police at all”, and, if so, how does he explain findings released by the Police that being Māori makes you 11 percent more likely to be prosecuted compared to Pākehā for the same offence?

Hon MARK MITCHELL (Minister of Police): Yes, I do. Our police do outstanding work every day in holding offenders to account. I do not believe that there is systemic racism or bias in the New Zealand Police. It is not for me to explain the report she mentions. However, for the member’s benefit, I draw her attention to one of the conclusions of the authors of the report, which was that this is not conclusive evidence of conscious or unconscious bias against males or Māori. The member should also note that according to the New Zealand Crime & Victim Survey, in 2023, Māori adults were almost 60 percent more likely to experience violent crime than the national average and more than twice as likely to be highly victimised.

Tamatha Paul: If systemic bias or systemic racism doesn’t exist within the police, then why were the police systematically stopping rangatahi Māori and taking tens of thousands of illegal photos of them?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, I’m just going to restate for the member that we have got a world-class police service—men and women in our community that do an outstanding job, that stand up every day to protect the communities that they live in and that they serve. I don’t believe or accept for one minute that there is systemic racism or bias in our police service. Again, that report is the commissioner’s report, and he can speak to it.

Tamatha Paul: Can the Minister please explain what systemic bias is?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Sorry, can you repeat the question. Was it a question for me to—

SPEAKER: Well, just a moment—just hang on, sorry. With all due respect, the police Minister has got a lot of things in his portfolio, but giving an answer of that type is not one of them. The member should rephrase the question—without loss of it.

Steve Abel: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I believe the Minister’s saying there is no systemic bias, so surely he must know what systemic bias is. That seems like a pretty reasonable question.

SPEAKER: Yeah, that might be the case, but the question was asked on its own without any reference to the main question. I’m asking the member to redo the question, not lose the question.

Tamatha Paul: In response to the Minister’s comments that he doesn’t “think there is systemic bias in the police at all”, can the Minister please explain what systemic bias is?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, systemic bias is bias that’s systemic.

Tamatha Paul: How does he explain the fact that Māori are more likely to be exposed to police intervention throughout their life than non-Māori?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Look, all that I’d say to the member—and I’ve said this before—is that the police do not get to choose who they deal with in terms of offending. Society decides that. I’m extremely proud of our police service. I think that they do the best to respond to the very difficult circumstances they’re currently operating in, because they’re trying to get on top of a massive growth of violent crime in our country. In my view, there is not systemic bias or racism in our police. I think that if there was an individual case where it’s obvious that there is some bias or some racism, then I would expect the police to take swift action on that. But to suggest that there is systemic bias and racism in our police—I completely reject that.

Hon Nicole McKee: Does the Minister agree that people who commit crimes should face the consequences of their actions regardless of their ethnicity, and, if so, what actions has this Government taken to ensure that criminals face the consequences of their crimes?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Yes—yes, I do agree with that. The Government is working extremely hard to restore law and order and make sure that consequences match the seriousness of the offending. I’m pleased to see that the Minister is strengthening firearm prohibition orders to ensure police have more powers to get guns out of the hands of gang members, and bringing back three strikes. I’d also highlight the sentencing reforms being championed by the Minister of Justice.

Tamatha Paul: Why is he refusing to acknowledge the findings of the report when the Police Commissioner himself has accepted the findings and has committed to building that trust in the communities?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, I think the member just answered her own question. This was a report that was commissioned several years ago. It is the commissioner’s report—it’s not my report—and it’s for the commissioner to speak to.

Tamatha Paul: What actions will he take to eliminate systemic bias that was identified within the report, acknowledging that it is not a reflection on individual officers but on the system that they work within across New Zealand’s policing system?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: As the Minister of Police, I’ll continue to support our police service in making sure that they have got the resources, the support, the legislation, and the powers that they need to be able to keep our country safe.

Question No. 4—Social Development and Employment

4. Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: How are her employment policies going to support New Zealanders in to work, given that the Reserve Bank’s August Monetary Policy Statement predicts that unemployment will rise to 5.4 percent?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Because we already are. In July this year, there were 800 more exits from the jobseeker benefit into work compared with July last year, despite the challenging economic conditions, while we inherited a low-growth economy where unemployment was forecast to increase above 55 percent. Recently, we have announced an employment investment strategy which gets more support to young job seekers and more strongly targets those on benefit long-term. And yesterday, we released an employment action plan to ensure agencies are focused on ensuring more New Zealanders can enjoy the independence and opportunities that work provides.

Hon Willie Jackson: Does she stand by her statement that her Government will make early interventions to get people into work or training and prevent them from entering the benefit system; if so, why is she planning to reduce the number of non-beneficiaries who can access Mana in Mahi?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Because we need to do both, but what our Government is clearly prioritising is a beneficiary-first process. That means we are focusing on those who are swimming in the ocean, not rescuing those who are already in a lifeboat.

Hon Willie Jackson: Does she stand by her statement that her Government will make early interventions to get people into work or training and prevent them from entering the benefit system; if so, why is she planning to reduce the number of non-beneficiaries who can access Flexi-wage?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I’ve just answered that. I would remind the member that, in both instances, we have tilted the balance to beneficiaries first. We are still providing access to those programmes for those who are at risk of long-term welfare dependency, who may not have come on to the benefit first. But we must provide taxpayer support and taxpayer-funded programmes to those whom taxpayers are funding on welfare.

Hon Willie Jackson: Will preventing non-beneficiaries from accessing Mana in Mahi and Flexi-wage increase their chances of becoming beneficiaries; if so, how will this affect her 50,000 job seeker reduction target?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I’ve answered that question: because we must do both. We have seen, unfortunately, a 70,000 increase in the job seeker numbers under the previous Government at a time there were jobs everywhere. Our focus is to make sure—

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: 24,000 extra beneficiaries under her watch.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: —that we are supporting those who are on the jobseeker benefit now. And thanks to that previous Minister, who watched a period of time where 70,000 more people went on to the jobseeker benefit and 220,000 children grew up in benefit-dependent households—we’re not willing to accept that that’s as good as it gets.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can that Minister remember who was the Minister that introduced the Mana in Mahi policy but, apparently, doesn’t like the mahi anymore?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Absolutely—our Government is focused on getting more New Zealanders into mahi that is paid.

Hon Willie Jackson: Will the Minister commit to increased funding for Mana in Mahi and Flexi-wage in order to meet demand from the expected rise in unemployment to 5.4 percent, as predicted by the Reserve Bank?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: The $1.1 billion investment that goes into employment initiatives—we must ensure is delivering results. The Mana in Mahi programme that he refers to is expensive—$17,000 per participant—so we need to ensure we are targeting those expensive investment initiatives into those who are at risk of long-term welfare dependency. Our focus, unlike the previous member, was to focus those on 18- to 24-year-olds who are at risk of long-term welfare dependency.

Hon Willie Jackson: Why is the Minister content to be the ambulance at the bottom of the hill rather than supporting programmes that can intervene early and make a real difference in people’s lives, particularly Mana in Mahi?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I’m proud to be the Minister that set a target to reduce the number on the jobseeker benefit by 50,000, because our Government is clear that those who are in work have better lives and better outcomes. We’ve got to focus on those coming in, but, as I said, we’ve got large numbers and better exit rates than there were a year ago.

Question No. 5—Environment

5. MARK CAMERON (ACT) to the Associate Minister for the Environment: What recent announcements has he made relating to significant natural areas?

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD (Associate Minister for the Environment): Yesterday, I announced the scope of the Government’s planned review into rules that relate to significant natural areas (SNAs) in the National Policy Statement for Indigenous Biodiversity (NPSIB). The NPSIB was brought in by the previous Government in August last year and requires councils to map out so-called SNAs, which limit landowners’ ability to develop the land and use it to maximise its productivity. Officials will undertake the review over the coming months, which will take a good look at three areas: the criteria councils use to identify SNAs in their district, the processes that councils use, and the restrictions that are put on land identified as an SNA. Targeted consultation is under way with ecologists, landowners, and iwi, and full public consultation will follow.

Mark Cameron: How does this fit into Government policy?

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: Thank you. This Government made a firm commitment in the ACT Party coalition agreement: stop the implementation of new SNAs and review their operation. We have already introduced legislation to suspend the requirements the previous Government brought in for councils to identify SNAs under the NPSIB. That legislation is progressing in the House now and will be passed by the end of the year. This will give us time to do this review, and I expect that the outcome of the review will be implemented by the middle of next year.

Mark Cameron: Why is this review necessary?

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: Thank you. In their current form, SNAs are a rather blunt tool that doesn’t recognise all the good work that farm owners and landowners already do to protect the biodiversity on private land. I’ve heard from a huge number of landowners that this NPSIB will mean that they have areas of land that are, effectively, locked up, despite the fact that they are not all that significant. What is significant is the contribution our primary sector is making to getting the economy humming again. ACT wants to remove the unnecessary barriers for success and to create certainty for our primary sector. We do that by making sure that any measures sensibly protect the most unique and special environments while balancing private property rights and the ability to use land for its most productive purpose.

Mark Cameron: Are there other ways to protect biodiversity?

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: Well, yes, there are. We see it across the country all the time. Many farmers don’t need the council’s help to protect areas of natural beauty or biodiversity. They’re doing it already. All farmers want to leave the land in a better state than it was before. You only have to look at the number of voluntary entries into the Queen Elizabeth II National Trust, now up to 180,000 hectares. Over 5,000 landowners have voluntarily retired land into covenants for ever. This is the way forward—partnership. Another point that we need to remember is that a third of New Zealand is already under the Department of Conservation’s management. Surely we can find the significant biodiversity within that third. Why are we trying to grab 10 hectares off farmers here and there? We will recognise the good work farmers are doing, not strip away New Zealanders’ property rights and create fear in rural communities like the last Government did.

Question No. 6—Police

6. JAMES MEAGER (National—Rangitata) to the Minister of Police: By how much have Police foot patrols increased under this Government?

Hon MARK MITCHELL (Minister of Police): Before I answer the member’s question, I’d like to acknowledge the hard work of our police in Christchurch and Auckland who yesterday terminated Operation Avon, an eight-month investigation targeting the Comancheros in Christchurch. As a result of Operation Avon, every patched member of the Comancheros gang in Christchurch has been arrested by police. I want to acknowledge and thank those staff for the work they have done to rid Christchurch of the misery and violence that gang peddles.

SPEAKER: Good. Now, what about linking that to the primary question? It would be helpful.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, beat constables have got a very important role to play in that too, and, actually, they have prevented $50 million worth of crime harm and sent a clear signal that police are protecting and controlling our streets, not the gangs. In answer to the member’s question, he may not have seen a 1News report last night which identified that foot patrols have increased by 10 percent under this Government’s watch compared with the year prior. This is in part due to the community beat teams that police have stood up in Auckland, Wellington, and Christchurch, and an increased focus on visible presence throughout the country.

James Meager: Has he been asked about claims of a decrease in foot patrols?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Yesterday, I was asked about claims that foot patrols have decreased by 15 percent nationwide, despite this Government’s investment in 500 more police and the resulting community beat teams from police. Not only was that claim wrong; it was also misleading, and it undermined the front-line staff doing great work getting out on the beat. As I’ve said, Police data shows a 10 percent increase under this Government.

James Meager: By how much have foot patrols increased in Upper Hutt?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Alongside the claim of a nationwide decrease, there was a claim that foot patrols have dropped by 75 percent in Upper Hutt. The data shows that—comparing December 2023 to June 2024 with the year prior—there’s been a 250 percent increase of foot patrols in Upper Hutt. A 250 percent increase. This coincides with an increase of 84 percent in Lower Hutt, of 128 percent in Naenae, and of 450 percent in Wainuiōmata.

James Meager: Has he—

SPEAKER: Hang on. We’re just going to wait for your question to be heard in silence. Away you go.

James Meager: Has he had any feedback on the increased beat presence here in Wellington?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Yes. I’ve received very positive feedback on the outstanding work that our police beat constables are doing and the sense of safety and security that they’re bringing to Wellington’s CBD. The reassurance and preventative work that they do with an increased presence is outstanding. The feedback I’ve had from constables is that they are enjoying engaging with the public and getting to know their patches.

Question No. 7—Environment

7. LAN PHAM (Green) to the Minister for the Environment: Does she stand by her statement that “It’s getting that balance between the actions that we take, and environmental protection … we consider that the balance had swung too far towards environmental protection at the cost of not being able to get things done”?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS (Minister for the Environment): Yes.

Lan Pham: Does she think that cutting jobs at the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA), the Department of Conservation, the Ministry for the Environment, the Climate Change Commission, the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA), and GNS Science has now achieved balance through reducing environmental protection?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Well, obviously, I don’t have responsibility for NIWA, the Department of Conservation, and a number of the other entities that the member mentioned, but I can assure her that at the EPA, the work that is being done there is ensuring that the main operational part of the EPA is not being impacted and it is the peripheral support services that are being impacted.

Lan Pham: Does she consider reopening oil and gas drilling, rolling back freshwater protections, allowing coalmining on precious wetlands, and granting blanket extensions for every marine farm in the country to represent more of a so-called balance, or will she acknowledge that her Government has got the balance wrong?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: No, I certainly won’t acknowledge that. This country has a housing crisis, an infrastructure deficit, and an energy crisis, and much of this is because consenting major projects in New Zealand takes far too long and is far too expensive. This Government came in, in a cost of living crisis, with the most debt that this country has ever had. We are determined to get things built to enable economic growth and look after the environment.

Lan Pham: In her Government’s fast-track process, will she commit to delivering on her ministerial responsibility for environmental protection by recommending the declining of projects that significantly damage the environment or that have been previously declined by the courts due to unacceptable environmental harm?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: That bill is still in the process with the select committee and has not come back.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does the Minister accept that Māori were extremely involved in marine farming well before the arrival of Europeans and that they’d like to do so again into the future?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Well, I wasn’t here then. However, I’m quite sure they were, and they are very involved in fishing and aquaculture now.

Lan Pham: What assurances can she provide to the local Ōhinemuri River community who have seen their awa degraded as a result of heavy metal contamination from historical mining, and does she have any concerns that similar environmental damage could be her legacy as a result of her Government’s decisions?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: No. Also, I acknowledge that things that happened probably hundreds of years ago, or certainly decades ago, did not have the same level of environmental protection that is there now.

SPEAKER: Question No. 8, the Hon Deborah Russell—and we’ll just wait for the House to settle itself down, and we won’t have any calling out during questions.

Question No. 8—Tertiary Education and Skills

8. Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour) to the Minister for Tertiary Education and Skills: Does she stand by her statement that Te Pūkenga is a “financial mess, drowning in debt of over $250 million”; if so, why?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS (Minister for Tertiary Education and Skills): Yes, I do. Te Pūkenga has $8.426 million of commercial debt, $35.391 million of Crown debt, and $207.311 million of intercompany debt, amounting to a total debt of $251.128 million.

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Is Jeremy Morley—Te Pūkenga Council member, former director at PricewaterhouseCoopers, chair of the Te Pūkenga finance, audit, and risk committee—wrong, who, when asked, “Is Te Pūkenga $250 million in debt?”, replied “As a consolidated group, as a family group, no.”; if not, why not?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Because he is a member of Te Pūkenga Council and so, as Te Pūkenga stands, yes, they have taken reserves from some entities and applied it to debt of other entities. However, as Te Pūkenga is disestablished, that debt will have to lie where it was generated, and the reserves will have to go to where they are generated. However, I understand that the member and her party take a much more cavalier attitude to using other people’s money, and so they are possibly thinking that that doesn’t have to occur. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: That was a totally unacceptable level of noise. Just keep it down.

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Is Gus Gilmore, CEO of Te Pūkenga, wrong when he said, “We are a viable institution.”; if not, why not?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: No, he’s not wrong. It is a viable institution; I have never said it isn’t a viable institution.

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Is Tertiary Education Commission (TEC) deputy chief executive Gillian Dudgeon right when she said just last week that “there wouldn’t be a single ITP business division that could stand alone independently”; if so, why is the Minister proposing to dismantle a structure that supports them?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: She is correct, because of the actions of that previous Government that the member was a part of—first of all, bringing in the unified funding scheme, which took 20 percent of the funding away from the polytechnics. So, as it stands today, those individual business units have indeed been decimated by the actions of the previous Government, but we are working through a process with intervention by TEC to get the cost out of those institutions that should have been done four long years ago.

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Is the independent team of specialist advisers, appointed to give advice on the future structure of vocational education, wrong when they advised that any structure that splits institutes of technology and polytechnics (ITPs) into some independent ITPs and some grouped ITPs would continue to run deficits of tens of millions of dollars until 2028?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Those individual specialist advisers did not have the benefit of all the financial information that is being gathered now, and so they put a number of options with some estimates of the financial situation.

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: Why is the Minister proposing to break up a viable institution, with little debt and sustainable finances, to replace it with independent institutes of technology and polytechnics, none of which can stand alone independently?

Hon PENNY SIMMONDS: Because we intend to ensure that they can and because the communities that have those institutions wish to have a say in the running of them and in how they operate, rather than a head office. It is localism.

Question No. 9—Forestry

9. DANA KIRKPATRICK (National—East Coast) to the Minister of Forestry: What action has the Government taken in respect of forestry and the clean-up of the East Coast?

Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Forestry): As everybody will know, last year the East Coast region was significantly impacted by severe weather events, including Cyclone Gabrielle, which left around 1 million tonnes of woody debris, including whole trees, scattered in the catchment along beaches and rivers, posing ongoing risk across the region. To date, the Government has provided $110 million for the treatment of woody debris and sediment in Tairāwhiti. This includes $27 million additionally that was announced in Budget 2024. Yesterday, I visited Gisborne to announce that the Government would establish the Tairāwhiti Forestry Action Group so the forestry sector and Gisborne District Council can work more closely together to clean up the East Coast.

Dana Kirkpatrick: What is the primary objective of the Tairāwhiti Forestry Action Group?

Hon TODD McCLAY: Well, the action group will focus on speeding up the clean-up of existing wood and slash, as well as action to reduce the risk of wood that is still likely to come down from the hills. The action group includes representatives from the Gisborne District Council, forestry companies and contractors, the farming sector, and iwi. It brings together the right expertise to accelerate clean-up and deliver ongoing positive outcomes for the region. This is an important next step to ensure work is done on practical initiatives to clean up more wood more quickly, reduce risk, and implement best practice for the forestry industry. It’s important that taxpayers can have confidence that Government funding is being used effectively. The action group will greatly assist Gisborne District Council in this.

Dana Kirkpatrick: What further work is the Government doing to speed up recovery from severe weather events?

Hon TODD McCLAY: Just last week, my colleague Minister Mitchell announced an allocation of $16.8 million of Budget 2024 funding to support 12 councils in accelerating recovery efforts following those severe weather events in 2023. Of this funding, an additional $5 million has been allocated to the Gisborne District Council for initiatives to accelerate roading, network recovery, speed up voluntary buyouts, and flood risk mitigation projects.

Dana Kirkpatrick: And how else does the Government intend to ensure safety in the region and to mitigate future risk?

Hon TODD McCLAY: Well, yesterday, I also announced the Government’s intention to review slash rules within the National Environmental Standards for Commercial Forestry to improve outcomes without adding unnecessary cost. The Government will help councils and industry better manage high-risk areas while supporting forestry’s contribution to jobs and regional economic growth. Forestry is an important part of New Zealand’s economy and a big contributor to meeting our climate change obligations. We now need to reduce cost and get the rules right to get Tairāwhiti and other parts of the economy back on track.

Question No. 10—Health

10. CUSHLA TANGAERE-MANUEL (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti) to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by his statement that there is a health “workforce crisis”, and, if so, how does he respond to senior medical officers of Tairāwhiti, who have said, “Recent national directives setting recruitment restrictions and hospital budget cuts make our situation even worse”?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI (Minister of Health): Yes, and on this side of the House, we acknowledge that there have been ongoing workforce issues. Regarding Tairāwhiti, Health New Zealand have advised me that recruitment issues are, unfortunately, nothing new. Over the past four years, the vacancy rate in Tairāwhiti has been running at around 30 percent. The botched merger of Health New Zealand certainly hasn’t helped resolve this ongoing issue. However, the recent move by Health New Zealand to a regionally based model is an important step in ensuring, for example, that Tairāwhiti can access support from other hospitals for specialist services as needed. Health New Zealand have also assigned HR resources to help Tairāwhiti develop a retention and recruitment plan specifically for the district.

Cushla Tangaere-Manuel: What actions will he take to reduce the vacancy rate of senior medical officers at Tairāwhiti hospital, where, according to those senior medical officers, “Staffing levels in all areas of our hospital are at critical levels.”?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: The Health New Zealand chief executive has met with senior staff. The local management team are working with the international recruitment team on critical vacancies that require a focused approach to swift onboarding. Health New Zealand is assigning HR resources to help Tairāwhiti develop a retention and recruitment plan specifically for the district, and Health New Zealand’s move to a more regionally based model will be an important step in ensuring Tairāwhiti can access support from other hospitals for specialist services as needed.

Cushla Tangaere-Manuel: Will he admit that recruitment restrictions that he has imposed across the motu have made the problem worse at Tairāwhiti hospital?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: What I admit is that as we move to a regional model, Tairāwhiti will benefit from a shorter line of decision making to a regional deputy chief executive; it will improve recruitment and retention.

Cushla Tangaere-Manuel: What is his response to the senior doctors in Tairāwhiti, an area with the highest proportion of Māori, the highest trauma rates per person, and the highest levels of deprivation, who wrote to Ministers, “You are failing to meet your obligations.”?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: My response is that we will fulfil action five of their request—that is, having senior regional leadership meet with heads of departments.

Cushla Tangaere-Manuel: Further to that, will he commit to undertake the minimum actions demanded by those senior medical officers, including lifting restrictions on recruitment, committing to reducing the senior medical officer vacancy rate to less than 10 percent, delivering on recruitment and retention allowances, appropriately staffing the hospital’s people and development office to enable recruitment, and, as you’ve said, having senior regional leadership meet with the head of each department to plan appropriately?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: As I said in my last answer, to those multiple arms to that question, I do commit to having senior regional leadership meet with heads of departments. 

Cushla Tangaere-Manuel: In the spirit of that response, will he accept my invitation to hui in Tairāwhiti, hearing the aspirations of the community, developing solutions together, and, of course, enjoying Tairāwhiti manaakitanga?

Hon Dr SHANE RETI: I thank the member for the invitation. I have already visited Tairāwhiti and Gisborne Hospital, but I look forward to doing so again. Thank you for the invitation.

Question No. 11—Revenue

11. CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour) to the Minister of Revenue: What announcements has he made on tax?

Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Revenue): This week, the Government tabled the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2024–25, Emergency Response, and Remedial Measures) Bill, which sets the tax rates for this year and makes changes to the tax system. The Government tables a bill like this every year, and this time we’re focused on boosting productivity and making the tax system simple and easy to use.

Cameron Brewer: How does this bill relate to the Government’s announcements on tax relief?

Hon SIMON WATTS: Well, after 14 long years, around 1.9 million households have now received the first of their promised tax relief. This bill will lock in those rates for the next year, lowering the tax rates for low and middle income New Zealanders. I hope all parties will support lower taxes for hard-working Kiwis when the bill has its first reading this afternoon.

Cameron Brewer: What other changes to the tax system are proposed?

Hon SIMON WATTS: Well, the bill proposes various changes to the tax system to make it function better. These include simplifying and shortening the process required to deliver tax relief during disasters, delivering on our commitments to change the tax treatment of employee stock options, and making it easier for young people to enrol in KiwiSaver to get them saving early. All these proposed changes underline the Government’s commitment to focus the tax system on simplicity, productivity, and growth.

Cameron Brewer: Does the bill propose any new taxes?

Hon SIMON WATTS: Well, I am happy to confirm that no such proposals are contained in this bill. This Government is focused on delivering lower taxes for hard-working Kiwis, not dreaming up new ways to tax them as some members are keen to do.

Question No. 12—Māori Development

TĀKUTA FERRIS (Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Tonga): Tēnā koe e te Pīka. Tēnā rā tātou. Taku pātai ki te reo Māori i te mea e kainamu mai ana Te Wiki o te Reo Māori, ā, ka mutu ko taku pātai ki te Minita Take Whakawhanake Kaupapa Māori, ki a Tama Pōtaka. Anei te pātai: e whakaae ana ia kāore anō te tahua pūtea ā-tau a Whakaata Māori kia piki ake mai i te tau 2008?

[Thank you, Mr Speaker. Greetings to us all. My question will be in te reo Māori because Māori Language Week is drawing closer, and furthermore my question is to the Minister of Māori Development, Tama Pōtaka. Here is the question: does he accept that Māori Television has not had an increase in annual baseline funding since 2008?]

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister): Point of order. The questioner is required to ask the question—either in English or Māori—that’s on the Order Paper. He has not. For the umpteenth time, I’m asking you to get him to address this House properly.

SPEAKER: Yeah, there is a small problem there that even I could pick up: there were more words—there was a reference in there to Tama Potaka, which is not appropriate. And so I’d ask the member to stick to as close a translation as is possible for the words that are on the Order Paper and to do that on future occasions as well; otherwise, the questions will be terminated.

12. TĀKUTA FERRIS (Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Tonga) to the Minister for Māori Development: E whakaae ana ia kāre anō te tahua pūtea ā-tau kia piki ake mai i te tau 2008?

[Does he accept that there has not been an increase in annual baseline funding since 2008?]

Hon SHANE JONES (Acting Minister for Māori Development): Hei whakautu i tēnei pātai, pai kē me hoki te kaipatapatai ki te kura kia mōhio ai ki te tatau. Te whakapae kei roto i tēnei pātai kāhore e tika ana. Kua oti noa atu te pūtea mai i te tau 2008 te whakaranea mā te 12 paiheneti.

[In response to the question, it would be better if the questioner went back to school so that he knows how to count. The claim within the question is incorrect. The funding has long since been increased from 2008 by 12 percent.]

Hon Willie Jackson: Who is correct: the Minister for Māori Development, who blamed the previous Government’s record investment into Māori media on the current job cuts at Whakaata Māori, or chief executive Shane Taurima, who said today that “shifting government policies” were the cause of the funding changes?

Hon SHANE JONES: Far be it for me to disagree with that individual who shares an illustrious name. The reality is from the time of 2008, there has been an increase in the total funding for Whakaata Māori. There has been additional funding allocated for a very short period of time. It fell off a cliff because the former Minister did not make it a permanent feature of the budget of this institution.

Tākuta Ferris: Does he accept that his refusal to support Whakaata Māori to a degree that enables Whakaata Māori to continue to be a beacon of indigenous language revitalisation both nationally and internationally has directly resulted in the loss of the only TV channel that broadcasts exclusively in te reo Māori?

Hon SHANE JONES: Ehara mā te kaihorohoro o te kaipātai tēnei take ka mārama. Me mātau tātou te Whare, e whā kē ngā poupou e hāpai ana i te reo Māori. Tōmua ko Te Taura Whiri; te mea tuarua ko Pouaka Māori; tua atu i tēnā ko Te Māngai Pāho; tua atu i tēnā ko Te Mātāwai. Ki te whakarauikatia te tatau o tēnā pūtea kei te takiwā o te kotahi $142 miriona. Kei pōhēhē te kaipātai mā runga i tana mātau papaku noa iho nei kei te hē wēnei whika.

[This issue will not be elucidated by the greed of this questioner. We, this House, should be aware there are four pillars supporting the Māori language. First and foremost is the Māori Language Commission; the second is Māori Television; the next is Te Māngai Pāho; and the next is Te Mātāwai. If the sum of all of that funding were to be brought together, it would be in the area of $142 million. Let the questioner not mistakenly believe that these figures are wrong due to the shallowness of his understanding.]

Hon Willie Jackson: Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: [Listens to translation] Well, you wouldn’t want me to start making rulings not knowing what’s going on. So thank you for waiting; I appreciate your patience—a rare thing in your case.

Hon Willie Jackson: Kia ora, no problem—thank you, no problem, Mr Speaker. Happy to accommodate. Does the Minister stand by his statement “I must be a strong advocate and contributor to Māori success”, when, under his watch, he has cut funding to Māori development, supported the repeal of Māori wards and the Māori Health Authority, and, with today’s announcement from CEO Shane Taurima, supported the funding cuts to Whakaata Māori?

Hon SHANE JONES: Times are a-changing. The entirety of the media is facing substantial pressures. Whakaata Māori was in receipt of short-term funding. Not unlike other elements of the media, it is having to cut its cloth. But, I repeat, there is $142 million which was not cut made available for the four pillars that uphold the strategy of the reo: Taura Whiri, Te Māngai Pāho, Whakaata Māori, and Te Mātāwai. They probably can be made to collaborate and work closer together, and we look forward to hearing from the Minister how that might be achieved.

Tākuta Ferris: Given Whakaata Māori exists to uphold the Crown’s duty to protect te reo Māori under the Māori Language Act 1987 and article 2 of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, does he accept that his decision to cut funding by 25 percent is a breach of the Māori Language Act 1987 and Te Tiriti o Waitangi?

Hon SHANE JONES: Me hoki anō ahau ki taku kupu tuatahi ki te Whare: kāhore e tika ana i tauporotia te tatau o te pūtea mō te Pouaka Whakaata Māori. Mai i te tau 2008 kua whakapikihia mā te 12 paihēneti. Nā, pēnā e turi ana ngā taringa o te kaipatapatai ki tēnei whakautu āku, me hoki anō ki te kura.

[I should return to my first statement to the House: it is not true that the total of funding for Māori Television has been reduced. Since 2008, it has increased by 12 percent. Now, if the ears of the questioner are deaf to this answer of mine, he should go back to school.]

Tākuta Ferris: What does he believe will be the intergenerational impact of belittling te reo Māori, reducing its prominence, visibility, and audibility as a result of his Government’s and his own actions?

Hon SHANE JONES: The figures that the member refers to do not lie at the heart of the salvation of the Māori language. The Māori language will endure when the adherents of the language commit every day to perpetuating it. When the language is weaponised by junior MPs, we all suffer as a consequence.

Tākuta Ferris: He pātai anō tāku. [I have another question.]

Hon Member: Junior.

Tākuta Ferris: Nau mai ki te marae, junior. [Welcome to the marae, junior.] What is his vision—

SPEAKER: Hang on—hang on a minute. That’s not part of the deal, right? You’re asking a question; you ask a supplementary.

Tākuta Ferris: He kōrero nō tērā taha. [It was a statement from that side.]

SPEAKER: Well, don’t respond to them—don’t respond to that.

Tākuta Ferris: Tēnā koe e te Pīka. What is his vision for the future of te reo Māori in broadcasting without a strong Whakaata Māori, and when will he stand up for his own tamariki and tell his coalition partners enough is enough?

Hon SHANE JONES: Me hoki anō ahau ki te whakamārama ki tā tātou tamaiti me pēhea tēnei kaupapa e whakatutukitia paitia ai. Ehara mā te pūtea anake te reo Māori e rangatira ai. Mā te ū o te ngākau. Ehara mā te whakatamariki kōrero pēnei me tāku e rongo nei i tērā pito o te Whare. Kua whakapikitia te tatau o ngā moni, kei te 12 paiheneti. Kāhore anō tō tātou reo kia whakapōharatia, ahakoa kei te whakaitingia te tatau o ngā kaimahi. He pēnā katoa te ao pāpāho.

[I should go back and explain to our child how this topic can be successfully achieved. It will not be due to funding alone that the Māori language will be honoured. It will be by the dedication of the heart. It will not be by childlike statements like I am hearing from that end of the House. The total of the money has been increased, in the order of 12 percent. Our language has not been impoverished, despite the reduction in the number of staff. The entire broadcasting sector is the same.]

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is the Minister concerned that someone could look at the 2008 figures and the current figures and yet say in this House that there’s no increase at all when that, dramatically, is not the case and there’s millions and millions of dollars out, on the negative, and he’s wrong?

Hon SHANE JONES: That question, related to the absence of understanding of financial matters, reflects the Prime Minister’s statement—utterly true. Too many young Māori can’t count.

Points of Order—Te Reo Māori,

Simultaneous Interpretation in Chamber

Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I waited until the end of question time because I didn’t want to interrupt, but, with the translations, there was often a lag. We were still trying to hear the end of the answer when the next question had been called. So, just for next time, if we could have a minor delay so that we could hear the entirety of the answer before the next question is called.

SPEAKER: That’s fair enough. Some of it, I was picking up, and probably you will recall I did say to Willie Jackson there was a need to wait for a few seconds. And I think, yeah, we can do that in the future if it is going to be more prominently used.

Privilege

Consideration of Report of Privileges Committee—Question of privilege concerning investigations of possible breaches of court suppression orders in parliamentary proceedings

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Attorney-General): I move, That the report of the Privileges Committee concerning investigations of possible breaches of court suppression orders in parliamentary proceedings be noted.

The Privileges Committee report on this issue has been presented to the House and is on the floor for members to see. On 29 August 2023, the Speaker referred a general question of privilege to the committee. This followed allegations that a member, Rawiri Waititi, may have breached a court suppression order during parliamentary question time earlier that day “by referring to potentially suppressed information in the House, which would be contrary to the Standing Orders. The Speaker noted that he did not intend to inquire into matters that might be suppressed, as doing so could be inconsistent with the principle of comity between the legislative and judicial branches of government. He noted that it was difficult to investigate whether the member had committed a contempt, as an investigation risked compounding any harm caused by potentially confirming the existence of a suppression order and possibly identifying the subject of it.”

The general question of privilege referred to the committee was how the House should deal with cases where a member may have referred to a matter in breach of a suppression order, but where investigating it could be inconsistent with the order if one exists. In the situation that led to this referral, the Speaker dealt with the member’s conduct as a matter of order. In the Speaker’s referral, he noted the requirements of Standing Order 116, which sets out a process by which a member must give the Speaker written notice of their intention to refer to a suppressed matter, so that the Speaker can consider whether to allow it. The Speaker stated that Mr Waititi did not give notice before referring to a matter that was apparently suppressed by a court and that he did not know whether Mr Waititi’s failure to give notice was because he chose not to or because there was no such order.

The Speaker noted that Mr Waititi’s comments “gave the reasonable impression that the member believed the matter was subject to suppression but referred to it anyway.” The Speaker concluded that the conduct was “grossly disorderly.” He named Mr Waititi and asked the House to suspend him, which was agreed to.

The Privileges Committee notes that “One of Parliament’s fundamental privileges is that of free speech in the House.”, which is there “to protect parliamentary proceedings from legal action. However, Parliament [also] has a responsibility to ensure that its privileges are not used in a manner that frustrates the courts’ jurisdiction or that undermines the relationship between the branches, as the relationship is of fundamental constitutional importance. The branches’ disposition towards each other’s jurisdiction is expressed in our system by the principle of comity. Comity is often understood as mutual respect and restraint, and the effort exerted by both branches to uphold the other’s privileges. The House, under Standing Order 116, has imposed an expectation that referring to matters before a court, or matters suppressed by a court order, should only be undertaken in accordance with that Standing Order as a reasonable limitation on the privilege of free speech in the House. This is an important expression of Parliament’s respect for the judicial branch’s jurisdiction; it is appropriate for the courts to be able to decide what information about their proceedings should be publicly available.”

On the day in question, the Speaker took time “to review the situation after it was raised during oral questions, and then raised it again as a matter of order at a subsequent sitting.” The Privileges Committee considered “that taking time to consider the matter, while also preventing ongoing discussion of the matter on the day, could reduce the exposure of potentially suppressed information. We consider that the approach adopted by the Speaker in this case was the most appropriate course of action, given that it was not clear that a suppression order existed and investigating the matter further might risk compromising any suppression that was in place. We encourage other presiding officers to consider taking this [action] if a similar situation arises in the future.” Thank you, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Motion agreed to.

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Can we stand to speak to it?

SPEAKER: Sorry?

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Are we able to speak to it?

SPEAKER: Well, yes—that’s why I called it, sorry. We’re in a difficult situation because we’ve just voted on it. So I think I don’t want to reverse things, but I don’t want to make things—it’s an important issue, and I’ll seek the House’s leave for there to be one speech on this matter. There appears to be leave for that.

DEBBIE NGAREWA-PACKER (Co-Leader—Te Pāti Māori): Thank you and my apologies for the misunderstanding, and I thank the House for their support.

First of all, ka tū ahau ki te mihi ki te kaupapa i mua i a tātou. [First of all, I stand to acknowledge the subject before us.]

Te Pāti Māori stands to acknowledge the Speaker’s decision at the time and to acknowledge the mahi of the Privileges Committee. We received that and have been more aware and respectful, obviously, of the decision of principle of comity and acknowledge the process for Standing Order 116. We acknowledge the decision and the reminder of the Parliament’s relationship with the court and the utmost constitutional importance of that respect. I guess—given the week that we’ve had, with the decisions or the comments with politicians calling judges communist—it’s probably a good, timely reminder for us all politically. We acknowledge that the public has the right to know. We acknowledge what suppression orders are about. We also acknowledge the decisions of needing to know now and the suppression orders used to protect victims. And also acknowledge the fact that suppression orders aren’t always used as the fact that a person is well-known is not lightly a reason why, I guess, suppression orders continue. We acknowledge also as Te Pāti Māori that if and when suppression orders are lifted, that is the appropriate time to talk about it. Ngā mihi, kia ora.

SPEAKER: I don’t think we need to put that vote again because the House has dealt with that. I thank the member for that contribution.

Bills

Courts (Remote Participation) Amendment Bill

Third Reading

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

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

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

I’m pleased to be here to speak to the third reading of the Courts (Remote Participation) Amendment Bill. This bill returning to the House signals another step towards fulfilling the Government’s commitment to enable more remote participation in court proceedings and achieves our target of passing the bill into law this quarter. This work forms part of the Government’s core priorities to restore law and order and to improve court performance and access to justice so that people can move on with their lives faster. The greater use of remote participation can help us achieve this goal.

As we know, our courts are under pressure, and delays in court processes have a significant impact on court participants—particularly those who are vulnerable, such as victims of crime. The drivers for these delays are complex and have been exacerbated by events such as the COVID-19 pandemic. The use of technologies makes courts more efficient and accessible and will play a key part in helping us to achieve our goals. This bill reflects one step in that direction.

In addition, remote participation can provide benefits such as reduced travel time and reduced costs for participants in the community. Remote participation of defendants who are in custody reduces the risk of violent incidents being perpetrated by high-risk defendants during transport to the court or in the court itself. Remote participation can also reduce transport and security costs for Corrections and Police.

To remind everyone, the bill makes three discreet changes to improve and clarify the legislation governing remote participation in court proceedings—two amendments are to the Courts (Remote Participation) Act 2010 and one is to the Criminal Procedure Act 2011. Firstly, the bill gives victims and their support people the option to observe criminal trials and sentencing remotely instead of in person, if suitable technology is available and a judicial officer or court registrar considers this to be appropriate. 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 the trial, they cannot hear the testimony of other witnesses before giving evidence themselves.

This amendment will give victims a safer and easier option to attend criminal trials and sentencing as it will enable them to avoid the stress and the potential for revictimisation and intimidation from attending court in person. Victims may also benefit from reduced travelling time and associated costs. However, I anticipate that some victims will still want to attend in person, and, importantly, they are still able to do so if they wish. 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 appropriate criminal, civil, and Family Court proceedings. I’m confident that the existing safeguards in the Act and the new safeguards in the bill will ensure that the use of audio links is in line with the principles of natural justice and will uphold the rights of parties. For example, audio links will be able to be used only when the judicial officer or court registrar is satisfied that the parties will be able to effectively comprehend and participate in proceedings. This recognises that audio links would usually not be appropriate for participants who are vulnerable due to their age, cognitive ability, or language comprehension.

Further, the bill prohibits audio links being used in criminal proceedings that defendants attend, because it is critical to the delivery of justice that defendants can engage effectively in proceedings that affect them. Likewise, proceedings under mental health legislation that will determine whether a person needs to be compulsorily detained and treated will not be able to be held using audio links if the person is required to attend the hearing.

The use of audio links will increase the number of people that are able to participate remotely. The Act currently authorises the use of audiovisual technology only. Many people in the community who are involved in court proceedings may not have access to audiovisual technology, and with this change they will still be able to avoid the time, the cost, and the effort of travelling to court for short procedural hearings.

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

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

In conclusion, these three changes strike the important balance between providing more efficient and accessible ways to participate in court proceedings, fair trial rights, and the fundamental constitutional principles of judicial independence and the separation of powers. The bill maintains judicial control over the use of remote participation in courts and recognises that it will not always be appropriate or possible for technology to be used in some court proceedings. The Courts (Remote Participation) Amendment Bill is one step towards our wider goal of enabling more remote participation in court proceedings.

This is the first bill that I have taken through all stages in this House as a Minister of Government. It was pleasing to see this bill gain full support across the House yesterday, as all parties recognise the benefits it will bring to our under-pressure courts and victims impacted by delays in justice. I know a number of other bills I may bring to this House may not receive the same sort of support as they progress, but I am very glad that this one has. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Kia ora. Thank you, Mr Speaker, and a pleasure to speak on this bill. Before I do, might I just recognise Lucy Callaghan who’s made some of these daffodils that some of us are wearing today. I know her family’s been personally affected by cancer, and this is her way of contributing. So well done, Lucy.

SPEAKER: We perhaps should have recognised that earlier in the day—it’s a huge effort, and I’m very pleased to wear one as well. Would anyone else like to stand up and show they’re wearing them? [Members stand] That’s very good, thank you. That’ll cover that. And that all comes out of your time, of course.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Very happy—very happy for that because I’m not going to take long. It is good that the Minister is bringing a bill—her first bill to completion—that is supported across the House. I can confirm that that won’t be the case for a number of other bills in her name.

Look, this is a good bill. It’s a pragmatic bill. I do think, you know, I’ve expressed concerns in the committee stage of this House on this bill that the Minister responded to in a very fulsome way. The concerns about this bill are essentially that the technology won’t keep up with the demands. I was assured by the Minister that in her executive capacity, she’s going to make sure that that happens and that there are processes in place. Practically, we’re concerned that the rights of defendants; whilst written in the law, they’ve got a right to attend, in practice they might be encouraged not to attend court even if they want to. That’s another important consideration.

Also, and probably most importantly for victims, we want to make sure that this piece of legislation doesn’t erode the right of victims should they choose to do so, to essentially look the perpetrator, the offender in the eye and see them at the different stages of the criminal proceedings. Of course, importantly, sentencing—there’s no suggestion that sentencing will occur in the absence of the perpetrator, but other aspects of the proceedings as well.

The bill itself—and I won’t go through the details of it; that’s been done most ably by the Minister already. The bill itself does increase administrative efficiency, but more importantly in many ways, it increases the effectiveness and openness of the justice system so that more people can participate in it more easily. For that reason, we will be supporting this bill.

TAMATHA PAUL (Green—Wellington Central): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. Thank you for allowing us to get up and support this bill, which I understand has support across the House. I really just want to reaffirm the statements that we made last week on the second reading of this bill to say that, yep, the Greens support this bill. We think the key benefit from this bill is that it will allow people who have been victims of harm to be able to observe proceedings from a space that makes them feel safe, whether that’s at home or with their family or with their friends or anywhere that allows them to be safe and to prevent that physical contact between themselves and the perpetrators of the abuse.

We noted that this might improve the court backlogs that are currently being experienced by the courts. Repeating a fact that I made last week that when I looked into the court backlogs, I found that 142,000 court events have been delayed because of the pandemic since March 2020. That’s 142,000 court events out of 2.4 million appearances for sentencings, bail applications, and pretrial hearings. When I looked into the psychological impact on those backlogs for people who have been harmed and are awaiting their time in court, I found this quote from a survivor of sexual violence, Rosie Veldkamp, who said, “My mental health was getting worse. I was just always upset and honestly felt like it was never going to happen.” I know that waiting for the trial can be quite psychologically harmful for people who have been victims.

There’s not a whole lot more to add about this bill. I think it’s pretty straightforward. I guess the only thing we wanted to raise too is that, yep, this bill presents benefits for victims who are participating in the justice system and in the courts, and there have been many recommendations about other ways that we can improve our courtrooms to make them less traumatising, less triggering for people who have experienced harm. Some other suggestions that have been made to have a trauma-informed approach to courtrooms include lowering the judge’s bench to not have it towering over survivors, well-lit car parks, warm and welcoming artwork, making sure that there are safe blocked-off waiting areas for survivors, as well as having secure entrances and exits to courtrooms. Some survivors have even called on the courts to implement totally separate facilities for victims in the courthouse to keep them away from perpetrators.

There isn’t a whole lot more to add to this bill, except to say it’s great that we can have a moment of unity. We support the bill and kia ora koutou katoa.

JAMES MEAGER (National—Rangitata): Thank you, Mr Speaker. This bill represents a significant step forward in modernising our justice system. It improves access to justice and addresses many challenges that have long plagued our courts—challenges which were well laid out by the previous member, Tamatha Paul, in her contribution.

I wanted to state for the record my congratulations to the Minister for bringing her first bill, one of many I’m sure, through the House to near completion. And I just wanted to also acknowledge the Justice Committee for the hard work they did on this bill as well. It is the committee’s careful consideration, and this House’s careful consideration, which ensures that the bill we are presented with today is both robust and responsive to the needs of our justice system.

At its core, this bill is about three fundamental principles: efficiency, accessibility, and protection. Efficiency is paramount in our justice system. As we have said many times in this House, by many members, justice delayed is justice denied. We currently face a significant backlog in our courts. The member opposite referred to over 100,000 incidents of delays. Some cases in our courts take up to 500 days for a jury trial and some 18 months for victims of serious crimes to have their day in court. This is unacceptable. This bill will go some way to enable the greater use of remote participation, help streamline court processes, reduce unnecessary adjournments, and ultimately speed up the delivery of justice.

Accessibility is the second key principle of this bill. Our justice system must be accessible to all New Zealanders regardless of their geographic location, physical abilities, and personal circumstances. Remote participation opens up new avenues for engagement with the court system. It means witnesses in remote areas can more easily access the justice system. I’m aware that the Ministry of Justice is undertaking further programmes to improve the level of accessibility in our courts.

Thirdly, our principle of protection—one which is particularly important to this side of the House and is particularly crucial when it comes to protecting victims of crime. Now, this bill does give victims and their support persons the option to observe criminal trials and sentencing remotely. This is a significant step forward in victim protection and support. For many victims in our country, the prospect of turning up to court, facing their perpetrator in court, can be particularly re-traumatising. Providing that option of remote participation helps empower victims to engage with the justice process on their own terms in a way which feels safe and manageable to them.

Look, in conclusion, it’s been traversed quite often, quite regularly, in all stages of the House. It’s supported across the House today. The bill represents what we think is a very balanced and pragmatic approach to modernising the court system. It enhances efficiency without compromising fairness, it improves accessibility without undermining the gravity and importance of court proceedings in our legal system, and it provides additional protections for victims without infringing on the rights of victims.

I commend the bill to the House, and I urge all members to continue giving it their full support.

JAMIE ARBUCKLE (NZ First): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on the Courts (Remote Participation) Amendment Bill. New Zealand First, like all other parties in the House, supports this bill. It is common sense, and a bill that has been traversed through the Justice Committee. I am a member of that committee, and the support for that through submissions—it was well supported, with some minor concerns that were raised that I will touch on as I go through this speech.

The bill represents a targeted yet critical step towards modernising our court system and increasing access to justice in New Zealand. The court system faces significant delays, and those significant delays we know are something that we want to speed up in the court system, particularly in criminal and family jurisdictions within the District Court. These delays affect all participants in the justice system, especially victims. If we think about the victims, if we can make the court system move quicker and more efficiently, it is better for our victims getting a result through the courts.

New Zealand First is a champion of the victims in our justice system and we are willing to do whatever we can to help put them first. By expanding remote participation, this bill addresses several challenges by making the court process more efficient, accessible, and safer for all that are involved. We strongly support the victim-centred approach of this bill.

The first amendment that the chair of the Justice Committee has just outlined is the amendment that creates a presumption that victims can observe criminal trials and sentencings remotely. This is a vital step in supporting victims’ rights, offering them more control over how they participate in the justice process. Victims who wish to observe proceedings remotely can do so when suitable technology is available, while preserving judicial discretion to ensure the integrity of the court process. For many people, this will reduce stress, travel costs—as we know, travelling to courts across the country is not cheap—and it’s also around safety risks for victims.

The second amendment allows for the use of audio links such as teleconferences for remote proceedings in certain circumstances. This flexibility is essential for participants who may have to access audiovisual technology. Importantly, in criminal cases, defendants will still be required to appear, and I think that is really important to stress. There is the ability for judicial discretion over when this technology is used, but there are the cases where defendants will need to still appear, to ensure fairness, while in civil matters, remote participation will be allowed only if all parties can effectively participate.

The third amendment clarifies the relationship between remote participation and open justice, ensuring that the courts remain transparent, even when proceedings are conducted remotely. This amendment makes permanent a temporary change enacted during the pandemic, enforcing the principle that justice must be seen to be done.

New Zealand First supports this bill as it balances innovation with the need to protect the rights and interests of all participants in the justice system. The bill brings our courts into the modern era, making them more accessible, efficient, and fairer for everyone. By enabling more remote participation, we are not only improving court performance but also upholding the fundamental principles of justice and fairness that define the New Zealand legal system. On that basis, I commend this bill to the House.

STEVE ABEL (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I just want to echo some of the sentiments around the House this afternoon. I also want to acknowledge Lucy for the beautiful brooch. My mother died of melanoma also, and I was 40 years old, and to lose your father at 14 is a cruel fate in life. I wish I’d thought of something as meaningful to do at the time as you have thought of in producing these beautiful daffodils.

One thing I want to acknowledge is that the quality of the technology is really important. As we well know in this House, bad audio is a problem. The audio in this House is excellent, and it’s challenging to consider that for both defendants and victims and the whole courtroom process it’s very important that there is proper investment in the actual audio technology so that people can hear what’s going on in this remote audio legislation. I would urge the Minister to consider that because that is a thing that risks harming the justice for all parties in the court process.

We support, very much, further supporting victims from worsening exacerbation of the trauma that they have suffered in being the victims of crime, from their perpetrators. I’ve been before the courts myself a few times, not for crimes of moral turpitude, but I’ve always been struck by what it must be like for victims to have to actually share a room with the person who has committed harm against them. To have to get out of bed that morning and think about it for weeks to come and turn up in court and walk into the same little room and have to look in the face the person who’s harmed them. There are many people who rightly do not want to do that and should not have to do that. For that reason, we commend this legislation.

There are others who will want to do that, and they should retain the right to do that. Likewise, I think the other risk is for defendants who may want to appear in court. Many may not also want to appear in court, and that is fair enough. I think my colleague here made a legitimate point that the defendants need to be protected from the risk that they will come under pressure to not appear in court. If we are to have natural justice, if we are to have a thorough process where we recognise the principle that all accused are innocent until proven guilty, then we need to make sure defendants know that they have that right to appear in court should they wish to—even though we know that will cost the justice system more in practical terms and effort to get people to court. That is something that I think needs to be watched and scrutinised to make sure that defendants are not coming under pressure to not appear in court.

Justice delayed is justice denied; I echo the sentiments of my colleague James Meager. Justice delayed is justice denied for all parties, for both victims and for defendants. I happened to be involved in a matter that was before the court during the COVID time, when the courts shut down for a prolonged period. And when I heard from lawyers of their clients—in their language—“rotting on remand” because they were waiting for weeks and weeks and months and months for their hearings to come up, it was an example of where justice delayed is justice denied for both the accused and for the victims. I echo those sentiments that, if we can deal with that backlog, if we can speed up the process by which these issues come to the court, that is a good thing for all and that is a good thing for justice in this country. We will be, as the Green Party, supporting this bill. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini): Thanks, Mr Speaker. I rise, also, to add my support to this bill, the Courts (Remote Participation) Amendment Bill. I’d also love to start by congratulating the Minister for Courts, the Hon Nicole McKee, for this being your first bill which you’ve taken through from genesis to now, hopefully, the end.

James Meager: Oh, Genesis again!

RIMA NAKHLE: Yes, the genesis. Thank you for shepherding this bill. To our listeners at home, including my beautiful husband—well, he’s at work—what we’re doing here today is, essentially, the third reading where we’re allowing more remote participation to take place in our courts. [Change in presiding officer] Welcome, Madam Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you.

RIMA NAKHLE: In essence, this amendment bill is what we call an “omnibus bill”, where it’s a combination of more than one bill and where the effect, the ultimate goal, is the single broad policy. In this situation, it’s implementing these amendments in this bill to increase remote participation in court proceedings.

Now, there’s a lot that has been said about this bill. Here, I’d like to acknowledge our very able and excellent chair of the Justice Committee, James Meager.

Before I wrap up the third speech on this bill, I would like to highlight the Disabled Persons Assembly (New Zealand) submission, which I didn’t get to highlight last time, in the second reading. What they said is: “Covid has highlighted the importance of remote participation … Remote participation also allows disabled people to participate more effectively in multiple avenues that have previously been inaccessible to them.” I’m glad that they feel this way about this amendment. I’m looking forward to this becoming enacted into law. We commend this bill to the House.

Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m more than happy to take a very quick call on the Courts (Remote Participation) Amendment Bill. Labour supports this bill, as has already been said, mainly because it’s a relatively simple and straightforward way to modernise our judicial system. It lends itself to the pilot, so to speak, that was done via the COVID-19 pandemic, which, like in various other sectors, provided us with some genuine innovation and some examples of things that we could do better in the future. Therefore, I commend the Minister for Courts and all those involved in ensuring that this is one of those areas.

Having said that though, as has been mentioned by several other speakers, there’s obviously some things to keep our eye on, not the least of which is to make sure that it doesn’t just get used conveniently and as the default, and when it is contrary to the best interests of all those involved, but particularly those victims who may want to have their day in court, so to speak, and not wish to utilise this process. One of the risks that we’ve heard other people talk about, as I said, is that it would become the default. It is incumbent upon us to watch that process quite closely and to ensure that it doesn’t just end up being a bit of a cost saving measure. We also have to be cautious, as my Green Party colleague Steve Abel has just said, that the suitable resources are invested in this domain to make sure that the tech is available, to make sure that it’s well maintained, that it’s capable of doing what it needs to do to meet that demand. Having said that, I commend this bill to the House.

CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour): I’m very pleased to rise in support of the third reading of the Courts (Remote Participation) Amendment Bill and want to join the chorus of congratulating our Minister for Courts, the Hon Nicole McKee, who is also our associate justice Minister and is doing a terrific job with her portfolios right across her brief, and she’s not bad on Q+A either.

It’s remarkable that here on the last day of winter—as far as our sitting goes, our parliamentary last day of winter—we come together as a House.

Hon Dr Deborah Russell: It’s always winter when you lot are in power.

CAMERON BREWER: We come together, Deborah, in this House as one. And, Deborah Russell, I’m hoping with other legislation that the Hon Nicole McKee puts through the House that we’ll also come together with unanimous support. I hope this is the beginning of something great.

I also want to note that this is also a reflection of a positive aspect that came out—possibly one of the few—of the COVID-19 pandemic and lockdowns, which we saw as a society: faster enablement and enactment of remote participation, whether it be in education, in business, in Parliament, in community organisations, and indeed now in the courts. This amendment, as has been alluded to, makes permanent a temporary change that we saw in 2020 with the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act. That will be repealed and this will be in place, enabling, as others have well canvassed, more virtual participation in court proceedings, which is the Government’s objective of improving court performance generally. I commend the bill, thank you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon Willow-Jean Prime; this is a split call.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker—just a short contribution on the third reading of the Courts (Remote Participation) Amendment Bill. I have listened to the entire debate, and while the last speaker, Cameron Brewer, got quite excited and a bit carried away assuming, or hoping, that we might support some of the other legislation that the Minister for Courts is going to bring through, that won’t be the case.

In terms of this one, I do want to acknowledge that there are good reasons for this bill being introduced—the improvements in efficiencies and access to justice, and so on, that we’ve heard. I do really want to also add my caution to this House, and to us all—that this doesn’t become the default for our justice system, that we don’t see this being used more and more as a cost savings exercise, that we don’t see that this is a justification for any under-investment into our facilities and so on. So, with that, I just want to add my voice to the cautious support that we have for aspects of this bill. I commend it to the House.

TIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki): Good afternoon, Madam Speaker. Well, cautious support or wholehearted support, I think it’s something that the whole House should be doing. Look, this is about improving the performance of our courts more generally, and that’s why I’m supporting it. We’ve heard from the other side. We heard from the Greens about the backlog in the courts. I think we’ve hit the bingo card of “justice delayed is justice denied”, but, of course, it’s true, and we do need to work our way through that.

I do hear the concerns that were raised just before about the quality of audiovisual (AV) and the use of technology. Actually, I think the considerations are a little broader than that. It’s about how we use this appropriately, and there will be instances where it’s not appropriate, or, in fact, it may not even be possible to use AV technology. It’s important that we bring these tools in, that we continue to modernise, that we continue to innovate and give our courts the tools that they need to do the job, and as I read through this bill, that’s what I see. I see this as a great way of giving courts the option to use it where appropriate, and that’s why I commend this bill to the House.

TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. It gives me great pleasure to stand as the final speaker on this bill on the Courts (Remote Participation) Amendment Bill third reading, just prior to it coming into law.

I wanted to say that the court system is currently experiencing massive delays, particularly in the criminal and family jurisdictions of the District Court. These delays are felt by all participants in the justice system, but particularly the victims. Enabling more virtual participation in court proceedings contributes to the Government’s objective of improving court performance generally. Virtual or remote participation, when used appropriately, can increase access to justice and support the efficient and timely resolution of court proceedings. We’ve heard about “justice delayed is justice denied”. I say to my colleagues, to delay justice is injustice. It gives me great pleasure to be the final speaker on this bill, and I commend the bill to the House and into law.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Taxation (Annual Rates for 2024–25, Emergency Response, and Remedial Measures) Bill

First Reading

Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister of Revenue): I seek leave to present a legislative statement on the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2024–25, Emergency Response, and Remedial Measures) Bill.

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

Hon SIMON WATTS: I move, That the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2024–25, Emergency Response, and Remedial Measures) Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Finance and Expenditure Committee to consider the bill.

This is a bill that deals with the 21st century issues and the reality of life in New Zealand today. It recognises the role that the tax system and Inland Revenue play in the lives of our citizens and the economy. The bill also recognises the role of New Zealand on the world stage. The Government and I, as revenue Minister, have been focused on ensuring we continue to strengthen and rebuild the economy to ensure New Zealand businesses and individuals have a secure future. We know times have been challenging for New Zealanders, which is why this bill includes a number and a range of proposals aimed at enhancing the tax system to make life easier.

I want to highlight some of the key features of the bill. First, the bill proposes that certain tax relief measures be activated through an Order in Council so people affected by an emergency event can receive relief sooner. In recent times, New Zealand has suffered a series of emergency events, ranging from the Canterbury earthquakes to M. bovis outbreaks, to devastating floods, and, of course, the COVID-19 pandemic. Each time, the tax system has played its role by providing tax relief to those affected, and each time that relief was provided, the Government had to make changes by way of parliamentary Acts to allow aspects of that relief to flow to affected parties. Working through primary legislation is far more speedy and we need to make the necessary changes to provide greater certainty and get affected people relief faster. That’s why the Government is making this proposal for certain tax relief measures to be activated through an Order in Council instead. This would not be automatic because Ministers would retain the discretion to determine which measures should apply, and when, for any given future emergency event.

The bill also proposes to allow Inland Revenue to share information with other agencies upon request, to help them carry out their roles in providing emergency assistance, such as the Ministry of Health. Overall, this set of proposals would help streamline the Government-wide emergency response to ensure that we are more prepared to deal with the impacts of climate change and other emergency events.

The bill also proposes to address issues with KiwiSaver so that it can better support New Zealanders trying to secure their economic future. Future Kiwis, or people moving to New Zealand, who are wanting to bring their overseas pension funds with them often face a financial obstacle. They may incur New Zealand tax on the transfer. This causes problems for people who have relocated to New Zealand and are unable to pay New Zealand tax. If they can withdraw these funds from their scheme, this can also result in tax charges from their home country. This Government wants future Kiwis to invest here, which is why we are proposing a “schemes pay” option. This would allow a migrant to elect for their New Zealand provider to pay the New Zealand tax due on the transfer at a flat rate of 28 percent directly to Inland Revenue.

The bill also proposes to address another issue relating to the transfer of pension funds. In 2015, a change in UK legislation meant that KiwiSaver schemes ceased to meet certain requirements. Some migrants who transferred their pensions from the UK to KiwiSaver schemes in New Zealand prior to that change cannot now transfer them from KiwiSaver to another scheme without incurring UK tax charges—this locks the funds into those KiwiSaver schemes. To simplify this, this bill proposes to allow KiwiSaver providers and individuals to be able to move locked-in funds from their scheme into one that meets the UK criteria, meaning that there will be no ongoing UK tax implications.

Young New Zealanders who are wanting to secure their economic future here in New Zealand should be able to do so. At present, a person aged under 16 who wishes to join KiwiSaver requires the consent of all guardians or parents. This means that a sole parent wishing to enrol a child under the age of 16 in KiwiSaver may face difficulty getting agreement from a former partner. In today’s society, there are many more sole parents than there were when the scheme was introduced in 2007, and our tax system must reflect the modern reality of our country. We are proposing that people under the age of 16 be allowed to enrol in KiwiSaver with the agreement of just one parent or guardian.

New Zealand needs its tax system to be able to deal with the issues of the 21st century, including the emergence of crypto-assets. Since the first crypto-asset, Bitcoin, was introduced in 2009, the market for crypto-assets worldwide has grown significantly. Between 6 percent and 10 percent of New Zealanders own some of the cryptocurrency, with most of their transactions undertaken through offshore exchanges. The current market capitalisation for crypto-assets worldwide is in the region of NZ$4 trillion. That figure will only grow as more people enter the trade, attracted in part because tax authorities have limited visibility of income derived through crypto-assets. This means that people trading in crypto may not be paying their fair share of tax. The OECD therefore developed a reporting framework to address this data gap, ensuring an automatic exchange of this tax-relevant information on crypto-assets between countries. This bill will incorporate the OECD’s framework proposal into New Zealand law and be effective from the 2026-27 tax year. This is a sensible measure, as it supports the integrity of our tax system; people must pay their fair share of tax even as they invest and grow their wealth.

Growth is something that this Government wants to encourage, and we are committed to supporting the tech sector and start-ups. An existing way to be able to do that is through encouraging the use of employee share schemes, which makes it easier for companies to attract and retain that talent. We recognise these schemes are an important way for paying employees in New Zealand. We want to make sure that the exempt scheme, which allows employers to provide tax-exempt benefits, remains fit for purpose. The bill proposes that thresholds relating to exempt employee share schemes are increased to recognise the effect of past inflation but also to buffer against future inflation. The proposal would apply to offers of shares made under exempt employee share schemes on or after 1 April 2025.

To round off, these are only some of the features of this taxation bill today at first reading. All proposed changes in the bill, whether outlined today or not, will play an important role in ensuring our tax system strengthens the economy, with businesses and individuals having a secure future ahead. This is important now more than ever, as although we have seen positive impacts to the economy, there is still more work to be done. I therefore commend this bill to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Hon Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour): I wish to make a few comments on this tax bill and some of the issues that the Minister has outlined. First up, I wish to speak to the annual rates. As the Minister said, this is an annual bill that has to go through the House. The tax rates have to be confirmed. It’s a constitutional matter. If they are not confirmed by 31 March, then tax can’t be charged and the Government has an issue, so it’s an important thing that we do.

However, notably, this particular bill does not make any changes to the actual rates of tax, although there are some very minor amendments to Schedule 1 of the Income Tax Act. In terms of the tax rates that have been set for this current year, they were actually changed in the Budget night legislation. There’s no particular debate on the tax rates themselves in this bill, and the constitutional requirement is sitting there for the annual tax rates. I just wish to make it clear that, although Labour is supporting this bill at the first reading, that is not to do with the tax rates themselves per se; it is just to do with the fact that by and large, these are pretty sensible tax measures and the actual debate on the tax rates will come in the committee stage of this bill. We do have some issues with them; it’s just not worth debating in the context of this particular bill.

I want to talk about the crypto-assets legislation and, in particular, the way that is being incorporated into the Income Tax Act. Now, in the previous year, in 2023, one of the pieces of tax legislation that went through the House was the legislation incorporating the Global Anti-Base Erosion Model rules, which are to do with minimum tax rates for large multinationals and so on, incorporating them into our tax legislation. At the time, it was chosen to do that by reference to the OECD rules rather than by incorporating those rules directly into our own legislation. It was for the reasons of the complexity of the rules.

At that time, the members of the National Party had a tremendous sort of alarm around talking about how we were surrendering our sovereignty and it was terrible that we were outsourcing our tax legislation to a foreign entity, and lo and behold, it’s happening again. I want to examine the extent to which that is happening at the select committee stage to have a look at the exact way that these new rules for crypto-assets are incorporated into our legislation. Tax legislation is a little complex. We’ve had this bill in front of us for just a few days, so this is not going to be a reason to speak against the bill or for it or whatever; I just want to understand that particular bit of the legislation, how those rules are going to be incorporated into our Income Tax Act, so that will be, I’m sure, an exciting part of the select committee process.

I also want to refer to the off-the-shelf measures that have been put in place for dealing with emergencies. This was something that was discussed under the previous Government, and indeed it is a sensible thing to do. I know that as we were dealing with Cyclone Gabrielle and the Auckland anniversary weekend floods that around those was proposed a set of tax measures that gave sort of some short-term temporary relief to individuals and businesses that were affected by those events. At the time we said, “Hang on a second. We’re just recreating some of the stuff we had in place during COVID-19, during the pandemic.” We reached the conclusion that it would be pretty helpful to have a set of off-the-shelf measures that were pretty standard that could be put in place when emergencies occurred, so it’s good to see that that set of measures is sitting in this legislation.

Again, we’ll want to look at the exact measures and whether they do achieve the end they are supposed to. I am particularly concerned about the information sharing which is put in place as a measure that the commissioner can put into place, so I want to have a look at how that is going to work and whether, again, it is worth having that as something that can be done at the commissioner’s discretion rather than, say, at a Minister’s discretion. Again, let’s see how that goes.

There is a number of things to work through on this bill. Of course, that is what the select committee process is for. I’m looking forward to working through it with my colleagues from the other side of the House and of course with the experts who will come in to advise us, and we’ll see where this bill goes. In the meantime, as I said, the Labour Party at this stage will be voting in favour of sending this bill to select committee.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai): Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. I’m rising to speak, on behalf of the Green Party, on the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2024–2025, Emergency Response, and Remedial Measures) Bill.

Now, just referring to the Minister’s speech, there were a number of things he said that I agree with in terms of it being incredibly important that we have a tax system that’s fit for the 21st century, that it’s really important that we address the issues facing our country right now, and the difficulty and hardship being faced by so many New Zealanders, particularly all those plunged into unemployment now that the Government has taken a series of steps that has resulted in a lot of job losses and a massive recession, because that’s the reality of what we’re facing right now. Of course, changing the tax thresholds and rates doesn’t benefit anyone who’s lost their job, especially not when the Government is also, in other parts of the system, making it harder to access the social safety net for unemployment by kicking people off benefits and bragging about how they’re kicking people off benefits.

The Minister referred, in his speech, to tax relief, almost like a bumper sticker that the Government uses all the time. Government MPs use this term “tax relief”. I just want to speak to what that is really referring to. It’s a type of framing that is trying to imply that tiny changes to the tax system that give very small benefits to the average New Zealander—like in the order of $2 a week, for many of them, or even less if they’re on low incomes; maybe up to $20 a week if you’re on a high income—are somehow massively improving the life and the wellbeing of people in New Zealand, when, in reality, the cost of these sorts of tax changes is enormous in terms of pressure on our incredibly important public services. The Green Party cannot agree with the tax changes, obviously, that we voted against in the Budget—that were signalled in the Budget—some of which are legislatively brought into by this bill, but this is like an administrative process, as the previous speaker referred to.

The reality is, we do need a tax system for the 20th century. We need a tax system that ensures that the wealthiest New Zealanders are paying their fair share, that everyone in New Zealand has access to a decent, livable income, and that we have the revenue we need as a country to pool together our resources to invest in the infrastructure and social services that benefit all New Zealanders. The reality is that we can’t, as individuals, pay for certain things. That’s why we have Government. That’s how we work together to pay for things that we can’t buy on our own, and we are all in this together. I know that goes against the dominant ideology of the 1980s and 1990s, which many of these members currently in the Government are totally stuck in—the 1980s and 1990s. We have enough information to know now that letting the rich get richer and accumulate wealth doesn’t make everyone else wealthier. It doesn’t make us richer as a country. It doesn’t lead to economic prosperity.

We only have to look to the economic conditions that ordinary New Zealanders are facing right now—increased precarity. In fact, I was at the infrastructure conference Building Nations last night and people in the infrastructure sector, many of whom probably voted for this Government, were suddenly realising what these policies mean—huge amounts of public infrastructure like public housing and other projects put on hold, no longer being invested in, resulting in the construction sector laying off people, massively laying off people. [Interruption]

The members opposite are getting very irate because they know that I’m speaking the truth. It doesn’t match their little version of reality, but that’s OK, because ordinary New Zealanders at home know, and they’ve been talking about what an incredible disappointment it is, how the National Party basically, you know, through their campaign implying that people would receive hundreds of dollars a week when the vast majority are barely receiving anything and are having to pay more in terms of higher public transport costs, higher prescription fees, no longer able to access health services, and many, many people out of a job now—and that’s going to continue to have ongoing detrimental consequences for this Government.

That’s why the Green Party is not voting for this bill. We do have a positive story to tell about what New Zealanders could achieve as a country when we leave behind the failed ideology of the 1980s and 1990s, which only benefits the very wealthy.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. Just before I call the next speaker, there were a lot of calls from one side of the House asking what this has got to do with the bill. It does say Taxation (Annual Rates for 2024–25, Emergency Response, Remedial Measures) Bill. It’s very broad—generally broader at a first reading because it hasn’t been through select committee. I did hear a lot about the annual rates of tax, so I deem that to be in scope.

TODD STEPHENSON (ACT): Well, thank you, Madam Speaker, and thank you for that clarification, because I’m actually going to make a few comments in response to our friend from the Greens as we discuss the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2024–25, Emergency Response, and Remedial Measures) Bill.

I’m happy to stand here on behalf of ACT. Obviously, we will be supporting this to select committee. While the Hon Deborah Russell is correct that this constitutionally locks in the tax relief that we have delivered to New Zealanders, I do want to talk about that briefly, because what this Government has done, this side of the House, is actually deliver tax relief for New Zealanders after a number of years of not having more money in their pockets. That is what we’re doing.

In parallel to that—and this is really what I want to say to my colleague Julie Anne Genter—what we’re actually doing is also interrogating Government spending, making sure that every dollar that this Government spends is actually worthwhile so you actually can ensure that public services are being delivered and that the tax money that a bill like this is collecting is actually being done effectively. So, yes, we do have a totally different view of the world, where we think the Government actually can be responsible, not increase spending—some 80 percent, actually, we saw, increase in spending with no increase in services actually delivered.

I am pleased that we will be supporting this bill to the select committee, where it will get a rigorous going over. I’m a member of the Finance and Expenditure Committee, and I know people like the Hon Deborah Russell, who’s got a lot of experience in taxation, will be very thorough in her examination of this bill, and I welcome that. Also, this does make a number of other small changes which will actually be useful, as the Minister of Revenue outlined.

I also quite like, on the explanatory note—it says that some of the proposals are “aimed at improving [the] current settings within a broad-base, low-rate framework. This framework helps … ensure the tax system is fair and efficient” and, really, is trying to not impede economic growth. Obviously, in ACT, we would like a much lower, flatter tax rate, but we’re happy to work within the Government to try and deliver that over time, because, obviously—

Cameron Brewer: Under your leadership—under your leadership.

TODD STEPHENSON: Ha! Thank you, Mr Brewer. But, you know, we are very happy to support this bill, and we will continue to work constructively as we actually work towards a lower, simpler tax system for New Zealand. So, with that, I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

ANDY FOSTER (NZ First): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Look, I rise for New Zealand First to support this bill. Actually, it was an interesting read. A lot of people might see it as a dry read, but I thought it was actually quite interesting, and also to see how it fits into the—[Interruption] The Minister’s feeling offended, but it was also very interesting to reflect both on the Minister’s speech and the Hon Deborah Russell’s speech just on where this fits in the legislative framework but also the tax framework in terms of legitimising the tax regime.

Basically, it’s a regular housekeeping bill. As an omnibus bill, it amends some 10 Acts. There’s actually a lot in there, and the first part of that is it embeds the tax rates for the 2024-2025 tax year. We had the Hon Julie Anne Genter complaining about those tax rates and saying, “It’s only $2. It’s only $20.”—whatever it might be—“Those things matter.”, and talking about the incredible pressure on public services, but I’d like you to look later on in the bill. There’s some reference to the exempt employee share schemes. What’s done there is that not only is this a scheme that supports startups—it incentivises employees and says to employees they’re part of it and it gives a sense of ownership in those start-ups—it also changes the dollar numbers there. It says that inflation’s happened since 2018, the last time that those numbers were set in place, and it moves those up. And that’s a good thing.

I guess the question I would say is: why don’t we do that every year? Why do we have to legislate on the odd occasion when we get round to it? Why do we legislate to change those numbers? Then you go back to the argument that Julie Anne Genter was having. That is: how long is it since the tax thresholds will move for income tax? It’s not five or six years; it’s 14 years. As a matter of course—as a matter of course—those numbers should have been changed year after year. They should be automatically changed, because otherwise the Government is putting its hand deeper and deeper into people’s pockets, because the amount of money they have got left, the value of that money they’ve got left, goes down and down and down with inflation. I think it’s a very important response to those issues there. Of course, on this side of the House, we’re saying to people they should be rewarded for their hard work, not the Government be rewarded for the hard work of other people all the time.

The second thing I wanted to mention is that also this bill gives us a much better way of responding to emergencies. Of course, during an emergency, if you are under pressure—and I look at Catherine Wedd over there, at the areas that were affected by the cyclone damage—if you’re under pressure or your business is under pressure, the last thing you want to do is say, “Well, I’m not quite sure where I’m going to be at. I’ve got to wait for the Government to pass some legislation to give me some certainty that maybe I’m not going to be in quite as dire a situation from the tax system on top of the damage being done by the weather or by the earthquake or whatever it might be.” This gives the ability for Orders in Council to be able to respond to those kind of emergencies, and that makes absolute sense.

It’s good to hear the Hon Dr Deborah Russell also saying that work was being done by the last Government. It kind of makes sense because we’ve had a rather large number of very large emergencies over the last, what, 15 years or so since the Canterbury earthquakes. That’s a very common-sense response, as most of this bill—or all of this bill—is.

The other thing I wanted just to mention is just the response to the Crypto-asset Reporting Framework, which is an international framework, as the Minister said. The idea here is it just simply brings us in line with all of our OECD partners before this regime is to be brought into place, which is going to be in 2026-27. That is a very sensible move, and this is just reflective of this bill as a whole, a sensible common-sense bill. It might be a bit dry. There’ll be a lot of work to be done in looking through this. I think the other thing to say is there’ll be some real benefit in going through the process with submitters who know things about tax and those sorts of issues that will provide a lot of value, I’m sure, to the process. I commend this bill to the House.

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s always good to talk about tax, particularly when you’re not, at that moment, contemplating your tax bill. Everyone wants to minimise their taxes and only pay what they need to, but we do need to pay tax. I take the Minister of Revenue’s point about recognising the very important role that Inland Revenue play in New Zealand. This bill is an attempt to make life easier for New Zealanders to meet their tax obligations. That’s a very good thing.

The previous member spoke about the emergency provisions in this for emergency events. I wasn’t here in Parliament in 2011, after the Christchurch earthquake, but then in 2016 I was, when we passed a lot of the legislation that had been passed in 2011 in response to the Canterbury earthquake all over again for that emergency in 2016. It was late-2016, 2017 that that legislation went through. And then, again, we had to react with the Cyclone Gabrielle event. It seems nonsensical to keep doing these over and over again. While we won’t get it right with this framework for every event, we’re giving so much discretion to the Minister, but with good guardrails around that to make sure that it is responsible and meets the need of the moment. It’s really important that we do respond quickly and appropriately. That is a very good piece in this bill.

The KiwiSaver changes that are going to be made, I think, are fantastic. I’ve had a few complaints about that from constituents both ways—those coming into New Zealand and those trying to transfer out. It is overly complicated and very difficult at a stressful time for people, anyway, to make it much more simple. To have that flat rate of 28 percent, I think, is a fair result. They have to pay something on it, and let’s get it all out there so people know what they’re doing. Goodness knows, we need good, skilled people coming into New Zealand, and we don’t want to discourage that as well.

I do also want to talk about cryptocurrency. Actually, Madam Speaker, as you’d be aware, I hosted Binance, a crypto-trading platform, in Parliament on Tuesday night. They are very keen to get regulation in this area. While these tax provisions are for entities trading in and platforms providing services into the crypto-area, I think that a misconception about cryptocurrencies is that it’s the place for illegal transactions, and so on.

I’d like to point out that cryptocurrencies are based on a public ledger. Let’s say that someone did misrepresent their tax return, the Inland Revenue actually can go all the way back to your very first transaction in the public ledger and assess the liability for the tax you should have paid—much easier than it would be otherwise. Cryptocurrency is going to play an important part in the global economy at some point over time. It’s important that we get our legislation right and in a fit and proper state for that.

I look forward to working with Dr Deborah Russell on the Finance and Expenditure Committee on this. Deborah always has very thoughtful contributions to make about tax. I’m very pleased that they are supporting the bill through first reading. I think that’s a great sign of cooperation and collaboration on the other side of the House. I welcome this bill. I look very much forward to the submissions and going through select committee. I commend the bill to the House.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m pleased to take a very short call on this. My colleague the Hon Dr Deborah Russell has already set out Labour’s position on this. We are supporting this bill to select committee. It is largely an administrative bill. Obviously, the debate has been had around some of the tax rates that are contained in the bill, and that was a debate that happened immediately post-Budget, and clearly we didn’t support those measures. But, in terms of this bill, what we are debating here, there’s a largely administrative set of measures that have been through a tax policy consultation process.

I do want to pick up on one of those measures and one of the things that we are very keen to see progress on. The speaker who’s just taken his seat, Stuart Smith, referred to some of this in his contribution, and that is work that Labour started when in Government around having that off-the-shelf set of tax measures that we put in place post-disaster. We had seen a series of events after the Canterbury earthquake sequence, then another earthquake, and then a cyclone, that we had to come back for each event and, basically, reinvent the wheel and put in place the kinds of tax measures that would allow businesses to get through a period of time where they simply in many cases weren’t either able to trade or were trading under very diminished circumstances.

What are the things that through the tax system, in a package of measures, you can wrap around communities, and in this part the business community, to ensure they can get through? Is it around a deferral of when tax needs to be paid and a whole raft of measures to, basically, smooth the way? I think that us having a more centralised approach to that—something that after an event like this we can just pull off the shelf. Actually, it also then gives businesses some sense that after a disaster they can know what to expect. It’s not a “Will they or won’t they legislate a bespoke set of measures to help my region or to help our area?” What they can do is they can have a sense of what the expectation would be when something really interrupted the ability of a business to trade, and when assistance was needed.

As we’ve indicated, there is much that we need to discuss at select committee, and we look forward to that discussion. There are many things that we need to go over, but on that note, I am happy to commend this bill to the House.

CATHERINE WEDD (National—Tukituki): Look, thank you for this opportunity to rise in support of this bill, because on this side of the House we were always about less tax and ensuring that hard-working New Zealanders can keep more of what they earn. Of course, after 14 years, finally we have a Government which will be providing hard-working New Zealanders with tax relief.

The area of this bill that I’m really interested in talking about, in this short call and contribution that I will make today, is those clauses in relation to emergency responses and providing tax relief really quickly and efficiently in an emergency. Of course, we saw this over a year ago with Cyclone Gabrielle, where my region was absolutely devastated. In a situation where we have a natural disaster like that, it is really important that we get support out quickly and efficiently. We don’t want to have to keep on coming back to the House here to legislate to ensure that we’re getting that relief out. This will ensure that we have tax relief quickly for businesses in an emergency. Of course, whether it is the Christchurch earthquakes or Kaikōura or Cyclone Gabrielle, I think it is good that we are acting now to ensure that we do have a piece of legislation that can work so that we can act quickly in these situations.

I commend the Minister of Revenue for his quick moves to ensure that, within just 10 months, our Government is putting this tax legislation through and ensuring that we do have these mechanisms in place to enable tax relief quickly in an emergency. Well done to the Hon Simon Watts for identifying that.

So, without any further ado, I would like to commend this bill to the House, and I look forward to the select committee process where we will be able to deep dive into some of these issues a little further. Thank you.

RACHEL BOYACK (Labour—Nelson): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a pleasure to take a short call on the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2024–25, Emergency Response, and Remedial Measures) Bill. Before I begin my contribution, can I just indulge the House by welcoming to Parliament this afternoon the Avondale College gospel choir and their director, Seumanu Simon Matāfai. They are here for this weekend’s Big Sing Finale choral competition. It is the first time they have made it to the finale, one of 24 choirs from 250 who entered across Aotearoa, and they have just sung for us in the west gallery. Welcome to Parliament to all of you today.

Now I’ll talk to the bill. Thank you, Madam Speaker, for indulging me briefly. This bill is very important because it does clarify our taxation arrangements for the country as they currently stand. We have noted through a number of speeches today that it is at its first reading and so this will go to select committee. There will be a number of things for the select committee to work through, but as many speakers have noted today, the piece that I am most interested in is that part around emergency response. We in Nelson, where I am the MP, have also had a number of civil defence emergencies in terms of fires, in terms of floods, where people’s lives and livelihoods have been significantly disrupted.

One of the things that occurred during the last Parliament following the cyclones was in the Governance and Administration Committee, which I now have the pleasure of chairing. We did do a lot of emergency legislation. Now, that wasn’t specifically related to tax—not all of it—but one of the things that we have acknowledged in this Parliament, I think, is that every time we have a disaster, we need to do bespoke legislation, whether it be about tax, whether it be about environmental measures or resource management measures. We do need to move to a system where we have legislation that is already sitting there that doesn’t need to go through a select committee process every single time we have an actual disaster.

In terms of taxation measures, for small businesses, for sole traders, for people who are interacting with the IRD who have tax obligations throughout that time, it can be an incredibly stressful time when your business may have suffered a loss in revenue, your business may have been flooded, your business may have suffered from some other form of loss or disruption—so to have measures in place to ensure that the Government doesn’t add to that stress, essentially. What Government needs to do during that time is support and enable people, organisations, businesses to be able to continue operating and to have as much normalcy in what is a chaotic and stressful time.

We started that work as a Labour Government. It’s really good to see it continue in this bill. I think that the select committee will obviously take a good look at the bill and make the necessary changes. Labour is supporting it at this point to select committee, and I commend it to the House.

CARL BATES (National—Whanganui): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s my absolute privilege to stand this afternoon and speak to the first reading of the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2024–25, Emergency Response, and Remedial Measures) Bill.

Not only did we campaign hard to ensure that we were in a position here this afternoon to be able to introduce this legislation to the House, and ensure that after 14 long years New Zealanders get the tax relief that they deserve, as a chartered accountant myself I’m particularly pleased that we are addressing this fundamental issue following the last opportunity we had to provide tax relief to New Zealanders that the Opposition got rid of a couple of years ago.

This bill also allows the opportunity for under-16-year-olds to enrol in KiwiSaver with a single guardian’s consent. Now, when I started working at McDonald’s, a few years back, I must say—probably more than it looks like—back then we started when we were 15, and to have started saving at that point would have been of benefit. We need to create the opportunity for more New Zealanders to plan for their future, provide for their superannuation through building their KiwiSaver, building those habits early on, and we support them to do that through this component of the bill.

Finally, I’d just like to note the opportunity the bill provides around emergency response. It was just Friday a week ago in the wonderful Whanganui electorate that I did my civil defence training with Tim Crowe, the local manager in Whanganui, just looking at how we respond in those emergency moments. This bill supports part of that activity that we as a country need to have as part of our legislative arrangements, to ensure we can respond effectively in emergencies. I commend this bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Taxation (Annual Rates for 2024–25, Emergency Response, and Remedial Measures) Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 102

New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 14

Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Tana.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

ANDY FOSTER (NZ First): Point of order. They clearly said 13 votes, and we’re sort of going, “Well, why 14?”

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Fourteen.

Hon Member: Darleen Tana.

ANDY FOSTER: She said 13.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Obviously 13 plus one is 14, mate. Come on.

ANDY FOSTER: Yeah, well, it’s actually 14 plus one, which is 15.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I’m satisfied that the voting has been counted. If the member has any other concerns, we’ll have a look at it.

Andy Foster: Oh, I just think you should check the Hansard.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yeah.

SUZE REDMAYNE (Junior Whip—National): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I just wanted to clarify that I do think the member voted 13 twice, so I just wonder if there’s reason they’re voting 13—that it’s not a mistake, that’s maybe what she wants recorded.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, that’s up to the Green Party.

SUZE REDMAYNE: But that’s what they said, but you’ve recorded 14.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No—the Green Party voted 13, and Darleen Tana voted; that’s where the 14 comes from. OK, so the Clerk has announced—[Interruption] OK; silence please! The Clerk has announced the bill’s first reading, so the question now is that the—[Interruption] Quiet, please!

The question is, That The Taxation (Annual Rates for 2024–25, Emergency Response, and Remedial Measures) Bill be considered by the Finance and Expenditure Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Finance and Expenditure Committee.

Bills

Victims of Family Violence (Strengthening Legal Protections) Legislation Bill

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 28 August.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I follow on from our previous speaker, Kahurangi Carter, in speaking to the Victims of Family Violence (Strengthening Legal Protections) Legislation Bill. Firstly, I would like to echo what the previous speakers have said already, which is our gratitude towards both the Hon Ginny Andersen for bringing this bill to the House and then the Hon Paul Goldsmith for carrying this bill on, as well as for the fact that we have support from all parties on this particular bill. This bill is incredibly important because it allows us to make further improvements to our court system, where victims of family violence are being further abused, or are further experiencing trauma as a result of everything they have already been going through, in what the commentary on this bill has mentioned as being litigant abuse.

In terms of this particular bill, there are a number of areas that we wanted to highlight in terms of the fact that it does allow judges to provide this order in order to prevent such litigant abuse that may be used, and there are some measures being put in place if a judge is satisfied that it’s not going to be done in a way that is going to cause the victims further trauma. There are, obviously, some concerns around this, particularly when it comes to the fact that this may allow for more unrecorded incidents of family violence and domestic and sexual violence. I think this is somewhere that we need to be quite vigilant and keep monitoring, and to also keep supporting and keep raising awareness and be proactive in our approaches in preventing such domestic and sexual violence—approaches undertaken by both the previous Minister for the Prevention of Family and Sexual Violence as well as the present Minister.

The other couple of areas I wanted to highlight as well are that in this particular case, what is really important in this bill is that it will help victims to regain trust in our court system, knowing that the court system is sympathetic, and it is also really, really important that we do take a very victim-centred approach when we are looking at victims of family violence. One of the things that I would like to see is this, and this is carrying on from other bills that we have been speaking on in the House as well, particularly when it comes to the Courts (Remote Participation) Amendment Bill. I think that the whole idea here is that we want to make our court system and our justice system one that is approachable and that is welcoming. So I would also like to see things further improve in the context of what has been released in the Turuki! Turuki! report, particularly around having access to something like a Whānau Ora navigator, which may be able to help victims of family violence to also navigate the court system in a way that means that they are able to go through that process with dignity.

I think that this bill is pretty straightforward and it has got everyone’s support. The Green Party supports this bill, and we commend this bill to the House.

JAMES MEAGER (National—Rangitata): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It seems like just yesterday we were debating this bill, so it’s a great pleasure to be back up and continuing the cross-party support fest that we’re having this afternoon, because we have another bill which has been well received by the House and well supported across the House. So it is a real pleasure to be able to speak to this particular bill.

This is, of course, one of the many bills that’s come through the Justice Committee, and I wanted to thank the members of the Justice Committee—the busy and effective Justice Committee—for their ongoing collegiality and hard work as they work through these bills.

It’s interesting because we had, actually, a number of bills in this space. As the previous speakers mentioned, the bill was actually brought to the previous Parliament just before it dissolved last term on 29 August and has made its way through to this Parliament—so it’s been picked up by Paul Goldsmith. One of the things I wanted to point to was, throughout the debate on this bill, it’s one of a few family violence and sexual violence bills that we have considered as a committee and it became known as the “Litigant Abuse Bill” because of the title. We had very similar titles. We had the Family Proceedings (Dissolution for Family Violence) Amendment Bill, we had the Victims of Sexual Violence (Strengthening Legal Protections) Legislation Bill, and then we had this bill. And because of some of the confusion around which particular bill we were addressing, this bill became known as the “Litigation Abuse Bill”.

That’s important, because one of the changes that the select committee actually made throughout the process was to change one of the terms in the bill from preventing “abuse of the court” to what it is actually intended to do, and that is preventing abuse of individuals, harassment of others through litigation and through use of the court’s processes. And that’s the real intent of the bill: to protect victims of family violence and to protect individuals from harassment, from intimidation, and from annoyance from estranged spouses or former partners or other family members by using and abusing the processes of the court. That’s the key part or the key purpose of this bill.

The other thing that this bill does is it makes a couple of further changes. The bill originally removed a provision around vexatious litigation. We decided to actually make sure that that term wasn’t removed from other pieces of legislation because it’s still important that those processes or that vexatious litigation can be prevented. This particular piece of legislation won’t prevent that because that’s the instance when you are, maybe, a self-represented litigant or you are repeatedly processing applications on your own behalf and you become vexatious, not necessarily with the intent to abuse or harass others.

There were a number of submitters who thought the bill didn’t go far enough and who made some very strong and valuable submissions around whether or not we could expand the bill to cover off instances of stalking, because New Zealand doesn’t have a stalking law. It’s interesting because I think that was met with a lot of approval across both sides of the committee, to the point where I’m sure it wouldn’t be out of turn to say that we were considering drafting a member’s bill around stalking. And then, lo and behold, Ginny Andersen beat us—or pipped us at the post, to use a better analogy—before the end of the year. Then, of course, Minister Goldsmith has also indicated that the Government may be interested in picking up a stalking bill as well.

So there is some further good news to come from this particular piece of legislation. It’s been well supported across the House. I look forward to seeing its passage through second reading, through committee of the whole House stage, and through the third reading. With that, I will commend it to the House.

TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Kia orana, Madam Speaker. Look, it’s a pleasure to rise and take what will be a brief call and contribution on this bill. It’s one that we do support because, as the member who’s just resumed his seat indicated, it was one that we introduced because we saw that there was an issue, and this was a way in which this particular issue could be fixed.

The fact of the matter is that when we look at the issue of litigation, most people in our community would think and expect that those who are involved in litigation do so with good intent and good intentions, but the reality is that there are some in our community for whom they utilise litigation for other means and other purposes to perhaps not seek justice, which is what this is all about, but to rather try and continue to exert a level of control, harassment, or just being able to continue to have some level of communication or contact with those who in many circumstances, sadly, are their victims.

What this bill seeks to do in one particular element is it allows the presiding officer of proceedings to actually adopt a fairly broad view when it concerns the issue of an individual’s conduct. Rather than looking at a form of behaviour or conduct in isolation, this bill will empower those judicial officers who are making decisions to actually step back if they need to and to look at a broader range. If there are sustained patterns of behaviour, that would give them rise to take a particular course of action, rather than looking at just the one issue of behaviour in isolation, on its own merits. This bill will amend a number of pieces of legislation that relate to courts within the hierarchy of courts, really, in New Zealand to achieve that.

It’s also important that the bill, as I understand it, introduces a new section 12B into the Family Court Act. We’re looking at Family Court judges who, let’s face it, often deal with circumstances and cases that are extremely difficult, that relate to familial relations, whether those are wanted or unwanted, in some circumstances. This will give the Family Court judge presiding over a matter the authority to, basically, call a halt or a stop to proceedings if they think that a party to proceedings is actually using that process as a way of abusing the system. Those are just two examples, but it is great to see that this is well supported across the House. I commend this bill to the House.

RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini): Madam Speaker, thank you. I too would like to share my support for this bill, the Victims of Family Violence (Strengthening Legal Protections) Legislation Bill. We’re in the second reading, and I tautoko what my colleagues around the House have been expressing about this bill. I’d like to turn our attention to the key themes that emerged from the submissions during the Justice Committee stage. These five things were that litigation abuse is indeed an issue, access to justice needs to be maintained for both parties, children’s welfare and best interests need to be considered, there are concerns that measures could harm victims, and systematic change is needed to enhance the protections the bill offers.

Here, I’d like to just highlight one of the submissions, by Backbone Collective. They submitted that in their 2017 Family Court survey, involving 496 victims/survivors who had been involved in Family Court proceedings, 50 percent said that they experienced litigation abuse. This amendment bill is absolutely needed, and, indeed, with our victim-centric approach, this will help make sure that victims are put at the forefront when it comes to addressing their needs and their concerns. It’s to strengthen the court’s ability to respond to litigation abuse. I commend this bill to the House.

INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): It’s great to have so much cross-party support for this important piece of legislation. It’s excellent to see the survivors of family violence being supported in this way. I have to say, as mental health Opposition spokesperson, it would be better to see more support for the mental health elements that concern family violence, and particularly with the links to suicide. Doing this one tweak, while it’s good, is not going to solve some of the problems.

We’ve heard a lot about what the bill does, but I think it’s timely, in a way, just to be aware of some of the statistics which link family violence through to suicide that have come out from Women’s Refuge. This is important because it shows how important it is to have a bill like this that supports survivors of violence. Each year, more women die of suicide than of homicide. Suicide after family violence is one of the leading causes of death in New Zealand, and about half of women accessing mental health services have experienced current or recent family violence, according to Women’s Refuge. So I would like to acknowledge the 47,000 people who die globally each year from family violence, the nine women and the two men on average that die each year.

I say this because we need to strengthen all areas that can support the wellbeing, including the mental wellbeing of families, so that they are not made more vulnerable. This goes one step, but we need to see far more support because what we have seen from this Government is the pulling apart of the Suicide Prevention Office. We’ve seen gaps in responses to 111 calls, which often emanate from family violence situations where we don’t know who’s going to be there to pick up the pieces. Will it be the police or others? We’ve seen no workforce plan yet in the mental health sector, and we have a Minister that doesn’t know what his budget is.

So, great to have the piece of legislation. I look forward to this Government looking at the totality of the links between family violence, suicide, and mental health so that we can get some real progress in this area.

CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour): It’s with great pleasure that I stand here in support of the Victims of Family Violence (Strengthening Legal Protections) Legislation Bill. This reflects our victim-centric approach from this Government that has somehow stretched out and won support across the aisle. I am very pleased that here on the last day of our sitting this winter that, again, we have got support across the House. It also shows people listening to “truth radio” or watching Parliament TV, they can see just how much we as a Government are focused on not just a victim-centric approach but on law and order and on cracking down on law and order.

It gives me great pleasure to support this bill. This bill will, of course, make amendments that strengthen the court’s ability to identify and to respond to instances where an individual attempts to use court systems and family proceedings to harass, annoy, harm, or psychologically abuse people.

There were not a lot of submissions, but in the submissions that we got there were some key themes that I just want to touch on. Submitters said that litigation abuse is a frequently occurring family violence issue. There are a number of comments relating to justice rights. Approximately a quarter of submitters raised concerns about the bill’s impact on children. Submitters also expressed concern that the provision could harm victims, and submitters also highlighted the need for systemic change.

The Justice Committee recommended refinements to the bill to ensure the new provision better recognises the impact of litigation abuse on victims. In response to submitters’ concerns, the revised bill now focuses on the harm to the targeted party rather than focusing on this behaviour being in the abuse of the court’s process, and uses wording to further signal the serious nature of litigation abuse, while still ensuring protections and access to victims.

To wind up, the bill will make amendments that will strengthen the court’s ability to identify and respond to instances where an individual’s attempt to use the court system in family proceedings to harass, annoy, harm, or psychologically abuse people is limited and victims are protected. I finish as I began: the focus of our approach as a Government is not on defending the offender or protecting the offender but protecting the victim. I commend the bill to the House.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s a real pleasure to speak on the Victims of Family Violence (Strengthening Legal Protections) Legislation Bill, a bill introduced by the Labour Party in the last Government. It’s no surprise to the last speaker, Cameron Brewer, I hope, that the Labour Party is supporting this bill. He makes it sound like we’ve suddenly come to our senses, when, in fact, of course, this cracking good idea came from the Labour Government and also from the advocacy and knowledge of Dr Emily Henderson, a Labour MP in the last Parliament. I want to recognise the work that she did.

The overall scheme of the bill has been well traversed. Can I just thank the people who did come to the Justice Committee to submit, both those experts, the advocates, and also those who had real, personal experience of litigation abuse. I think it’s one of the real conundrums of the court system that we hold very dear this almost ancient concept of free access to the courts and the idea that any person can come to the courts to air their grievances and seek redress. But, in throwing the doors of the court wide open, that right, that entitlement, can be abused. Whilst, in some contexts, it’s perhaps not too harmful—in commercial law, perhaps even in the law of political questions that the courts might be considering, we can put those vexatious claims to one side. But when we’ve got people who are vulnerable—they’re not necessarily victims here in the sense of criminal law, and I was a bit perplexed by the last speaker’s constant reference to victims. These are disputants, largely, to family proceedings. Yet, it is the case that those proceedings can be used to harass, annoy—and, as we noted in committee, that doesn’t really pitch it high enough. I can assure you that legal proceedings are annoying at any time, but the concept of abuse, of that harassment and annoyance reaching a level where it is intended to cause actual harm, psychological harm, to the other party.

I just want to touch on one other thing, and that is actually quite an important point that hasn’t really been focused on. Traditionally, vexatious litigants have been seen as abusing the process of the court, and the kind of party that is wronged has generally been considered the court or even the justice system, or whatever. On reflection, that’s not really appropriate in the modern world, because the real person who is harmed is the litigant who is being harassed. That’s why the language was changed away from it being an abuse of the procedure of the court, or an abuse of the court, to being an abuse of the other party to the litigation. I think that’s a really significant and important shift. It’s actually a shift of the philosophy underpinning this kind of vexatious litigant or abusive litigant problem. Now, the question isn’t, “How is the court harmed?” or “How is the administration of justice harmed?” At least in respect of this piece of legislation, the question is, “What is the degree of harm being caused to the other party to the litigation, and does it reach an appropriate threshold?”

Look, it’s worth noting that it has to be significant; it has to be more than just annoying, because the consequence is a very significant limitation on the right to go to court and ask for a remedy and to raise concerns of breach of rights or law. I think we’ve struck the right balance, and obviously, from here, this bill will be discussed further and may be subject to further improvement. It is good that this is a bill which has crossed Parliaments, crossed parties, and is still being supported around the House.

So, with that, I’ve identified those matters I did want to highlight. Once again, thanks to Emily Henderson for the work that she did, and I think she should recognise this as a legacy that she left the last Parliament and this Parliament. I commend the bill.

CARL BATES (National—Whanganui): Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to take the final call on the Victims of Family Violence (Strengthening Legal Protections) Legislation Bill.

Last Friday, I had the privilege of having the Minister of Police and Corrections in Whanganui, and it makes me reflect on the victims that are going to experience the new justice hub, Te Puna Hapori, in Whanganui that’s currently being constructed. As this bill navigates its way through the House, I’m looking forward to the opportunity that victims who present at that new court space, as it’s built, are going to be able to feel like they are the centre of focus, because we are bringing in legislation that is focused on victims. I really like the language that my colleague and great MP Rima Nakhle spoke about before, when she said that this is a victim-centric bill. I think, as we take this through the House, it’s really important to remember that victims are at the focus of this bill.

The bill strengthens the courts’ ability to respond by removing individuals’ attempts to use the courts to harass, to annoy, to harm, and to psychologically abuse others. You know, New Zealand is not the United States; we’re not a litigious nation. We shouldn’t put victims in a space of feeling like the law can be used against them—that they can end up, ultimately, feeling like they’re in the United States because there’s this litigious focus that they can get caught in, in court proceedings that are only designed to batter and wear them down. This bill addresses that challenge.

Given the second reading of this bill has been broken over two days, I thought that it would be valuable as part of the conclusion of the speeches in the second reading to reference back to Minister Goldsmith yesterday, who talked about the purpose of this bill. It is about ensuring that we don’t have the misuse of court proceedings, particularly when it is about disturbing or is intended to hurt victims. The purpose of this bill is to, as I said, strengthen the court’s ability to respond to litigation abuse, and the Minister spoke yesterday about that. It gives the courts a tool to protect victims from litigation abuse. It focuses on the harm to the targeted party rather than the behaviour, and this, I think, is a key distinction of the legislation. It shows the focus that we have on the victim—the target of the harm, if you like—rather than on the behaviour. It’s intended to capture, and I quote, “a pattern of behaviour that leads to litigation abuse”.

This has been through select committee, as we know—the hard-working Justice Committee, which I have the opportunity to serve on a regular basis as a sub-in. There were two key changes—

Cameron Brewer: Honorary member.

CARL BATES: An honorary member—my fellow colleague here, Cameron Brewer, says—of the Justice Committee. I always look forward to my opportunity to participate, because they are engaged in ensuring that the best legislation is presented to this House, and I just want to acknowledge the chair of the Justice Committee who’s led that, James Meager, member of Parliament.

The two key changes that came through that process were, firstly, to better recognise the impact of litigation on the abuse victim. Now, that was a key change that came through the opportunities that they had through the submissions that were provided to the select committee, when they weren’t interrupted—the select committee submissions. And then, secondly, to focus on harm to the targeted party—and that required just some changes in the wording to ensure that that was clear and articulated well. The bill would focus, as we said, on the victim’s rights and prevent the repeated—and I think that’s key to this bill: the repeated target of threats, assaults, and serious physical violence.

I haven’t been in the position that I’ve had to worry about this situation. Just reading the bill, reading the submissions, reading the notes that have come with this, I would hate to be in the position of one of those victims who is the target. That’s a pretty strong word in the context of this legislation—the target of threats, abuse, and serious physical violence. I think that we need to fix that. While I acknowledge that the Opposition brought this bill into the House prior to the last election, like many things, it is this Government that is delivering and getting it done. This is, as my colleague Cameron Brewer said, a new dawn as we come through the end of the winter session of this House—a new dawn for victims so that we can ensure they no longer have to feel like the target of this abuse.

Finally, if I can just acknowledge once again the hard work of the Justice Committee, thank them for getting this to the House, and just say that I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Firearms Prohibition Orders Legislation Amendment Bill

Third Reading

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

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

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

I am pleased to bring this bill to its third reading. Today marks yet another important milestone in this Government’s ongoing commitment to reducing violent crime and restoring law and order. This bill is the first phase of my work programme to reform New Zealand’s outdated firearms law with the priority of keeping our community safe from the threat of illegally held firearms in the hands of gangs and other violent offenders. The bill 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. It progresses the Government’s commitment to reduce violent crime, restore law and order, and keep our communities safe.

To recap for the House, firearms prohibition orders—or FPOs—are orders made by the court when offenders have committed serious violent offences. They are not granted lightly and, therefore, are in force for 10 years, prohibiting offenders from holding a firearms licence and from accessing firearms or even being around them. Breaching the conditions of an FPO is a criminal offence, and orders that willingly breach them can be liable for up to seven years in prison. This imprisonment term reflects how seriously we as a Government are taking the threat of violence with firearms in our communities.

The FPO regime has been in place since 2022 and this bill strengthens the existing regime. It provides police with a practical tool to enforce compliance, and it sends a strong message that the buck stops here because this Government is committed to addressing violent crime. This bill makes three key improvements to the existing FPO regime. First, the bill expands the qualifying criteria, which allows the court to make an FPO, with this expansion focused on targeting gang members who offend with illegally held firearms. It does this by specifying additional offences that mean a member or associate of a gang, if convicted, can be issued with an FPO. These offences are gang-related offences in the Crimes Act 1961, the Arms Act 1983, the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, and the Psychoactive Substances Act 2013. These are offences like assault, robbery, illicit drug manufacture, 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 gang associates using firearms to inflict violence and intimidate New Zealand’s communities.

Secondly, 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 these circumstances may change, and people can genuinely rehabilitate. If they achieve this, they may no longer pose a risk to public safety. To address this, the bill’s changes mean anybody with an FPO will be able to request the court to vary or revoke that FPO. They will be eligible to do this at the mid-point of the FPO, which is after five years have passed. Before varying a condition, the court must be satisfied the condition is no longer necessary to prevent the person from accessing, possessing, or using any firearms. Before revoking an FPO, the court must be satisfied that the FPO is no longer necessary, reasonable, and appropriate to assist in managing risks to public safety.

Thirdly, the bill gives police a new search power to monitor compliance with an FPO. Currently, police do not have any specific search powers for monitoring 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, giving police the ability to search to monitor compliance with an FPO. The officer must have reasonable grounds to believe that a person is subject to an FPO, and the search must only be conducted for the purpose of checking whether the person is complying with the conditions of that FPO, not to locate evidence of other offending. Misuse of this power, such as searching for an ulterior purpose, or excessively, or at unreasonable times could be found to be unreasonable under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. This bespoke search power means police can proactively monitor compliance with FPOs to ensure those individuals who have been deemed a risk to public safety are not accessing firearms.

The bill comes into effect six months after it is passed, providing time to prepare guidance for police officers and court staff and to make necessary IT system changes. Together, the changes in the bill address the unacceptable levels of gang-related violence, public intimidation, and crimes involving firearms that have outraged New Zealanders. The changes keep firearms out of the hands of criminals, thereby reducing violent crime and ultimately restoring safety in our communities for the benefit of all New Zealanders.

I want to again thank the Justice Committee and this House for their thorough and mindful consideration of the bill, as well as the officials who have worked diligently on this bill. My thanks go to every member of the public who submitted on the bill. Their valuable input has fine-tuned this bill to ensure it best addresses the unacceptable levels of gang-related violence, intimidation and crimes involving firearms that are impacting our communities. By passing this bill, we are keeping our promise to all New Zealanders to restore law and order in this country and make sure criminals are held accountable for their offending. I commend this bill to the House.

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

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s almost perplexing that we’ve got a Government who’s Minister for firearms, on the one hand, is talking about doing away with a firearms registry, and reintroducing military-style semi-automatic rifles, and then tweaking the firearms prohibition orders—the inconsistency of that does not escape me. We already have firearms prohibition orders. The last Government, the Labour Government, put those in place. We don’t see that this legislation is necessary. Those firearms prohibition orders, which are already set out in the Arms Act, have just been there—we haven’t had long enough to see them bed in. This would be window dressing were it not such an overreach.

I mean, this Government, is well used to overreach; they’re getting quite used to it. I mean, in the Gangs Legislation Amendment Bill, they slipped in at the last moment a prohibition on having gang patches in secret in your own home. Here, again, we’ve got a bill which has a very significant invasion of the home—and quite unnecessarily, quite gratuitously. I think we need to look very carefully not just at this particular overreach but the fact that this Government is eroding some pretty fundamental rights and doing it in quite invidious ways.

We’ve already got firearms protection orders. We want to see how they work; they might need some adjustments. I’ll tell you what they don’t need: they don’t need the kind of far-ranging warrantless search powers that this Government is giving to police. Whilst we accept that police officers, by and large, exercise their duties and responsibilities appropriately—

Sam Uffindell: Do you want the gangs to have more guns?

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: —we know that there will be instances where there is overreach.

Hon Priyanca Radhakrishnan: That’s what you’ll be doing with semi-automatics.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: If you look—and you’re right, Priyanca Radhakrishnan; there they are, chipping away whilst they’re talking about reintroducing semi-automatic rifles. It’s an absolute outrage that flies in the face of the harm to some of our most vulnerable communities—it’s deeply, deeply offensive.

If we do look at the warrantless search power in new section 18AA, inserted by clause 14, the breadth of that search power simply makes no sense. The first thing to say is this, as the Associate Minister of Justice herself identified in the House—I think it was yesterday—there is already a right of a constable to enter someone’s home under the Arms Act to check compliance with the Arms Act. Now, that search power—and the Minister’s there; she knows the Arms Act. She was a gun lobbyist, so she knows it pretty well. If you look at that search power, it talks about entry at a reasonable time. Now, a warrantless search doesn’t talk about entry at a reasonable time. In fact, the very reason it’s warrantless is so that they can catch people off guard—these are people’s homes, right?

Now, the suggestion is that this is not a punitive power—the suggestion is that it’s protective of the public, but it’s hard to say that it’s not a little bit punitive when your house is busted into at 3 o’clock in the morning. Let’s not pretend that won’t happen, because if the police were going to have a look around—here’s the other thing, the trigger isn’t that they think there is a breach. They don’t have to even think there’s a breach of the firearms protection order, the wording is there in subsection (1): it’s “for the purpose of checking”. Just checking up. “Gidday. Oh, 3 a.m.? Sorry about that. Just want to check whether you’ve got a firearm around.” There doesn’t have to be any wrongdoing whatsoever. How many times can they do that? As often as they like. Sure, they’re not supposed to go in there and check whether there’s illicit drugs or whether there’s stolen property or whether any other criminal activity is going on, but when you have an absolutely unfettered right to pop in for a check at any time of the day or night, that is a recipe for overreach.

Our law assists that because of section 30 of the Evidence Act. Section 30 of the Evidence Act provides that if evidence is found as a result of an illegal search, then if it’s useful enough you’re still allowed to use it. Now, that’s problematic when you’ve got an ability to pop into someone’s house at any time just to have a look around, as long as they’ve got a firearms protection order.

Of course, the other thing is the scope of this power isn’t limited only to people’s homes; it can be other places where the person is present. So be careful who you invite over—

Hon Members: That’s the point!

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: —because if they’ve got a firearms protection order, your house—no, I know you wouldn’t invite a gang member or a person with a firearm; they wouldn’t go either. The fact of the matter is that, if there’s a firearms protection order in place, the police can enter any premises at any time to check—not because they think offences are being committed, but just to have a check-up. That is highly invasive. What’s more: not just the part of the premises where the person is in control or is present, but any part of the premises. That third party’s home can be searched from top to bottom.

Tim Costley: Gang pad.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: No, not a gang member. It can be the gang member’s mum—and that’s the kind of thing we’ve got to think about: that these are other people’s homes. I’m sorry if you think that gang members’ mums need to be turned over by the police, but I don’t. I think that people should be free from unreasonable search and seizure. This is an extension—such an overreach that it is an unreasonable search and seizure.

Of course, then we’ve got vehicles that can be stopped—vehicles, again, for no purpose other than having a check. There has to be no suspicion that there’s a breach in a firearm protection order. Just see that person driving past. “Oh, yeah, we don’t particularly like that person. Let’s let them know we’ve got our eye on him. Stop them, get all the kids out of the car, get the groceries out of the car, give it a good working over.” That is a recipe for police overreach, so we need to be very, very cautious in that regard.

Of course, this is the other thing that really is the icing on the cake, and that is that even if the person doesn’t have a firearm protection order on them, as long as the officer reasonably believes they do—they don’t have to be sure—the search is legal; even if they reasonably believe. They don’t have to check it; they just have to have a reasonable belief that that’s the case. That’s not good enough. If someone is searched and they don’t have a firearm protection order on them, it should be an illegal search. There should be no authority to search that person.

This bill is one of many—the Minister in her speech made it clear that there’s a raft of legislation coming around firearms. We’ve seen a raft of legislation around other areas, and every time the New Zealand Bill of Rights—the ability to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, the freedom of association, the freedom of expression—is eroded.

On the other side of the House, they say, “Don’t worry, it’s just gang members.” You know what? That’s where it starts. If we don’t strike the right balance in respect of all members of our community, then ever so slowly the rights of all members of the community are eroded. It’s an unnecessary bill, it’s a bill that’s overreach, it’s a bill which won’t work, and it’s a bill which simply is window dressing in respect of firearms protection orders already in place.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Following on from what the Hon Dr Duncan Webb has mentioned, I would like to speak, too, on this particular bill, in the third reading. Now, first of all, I think when we were having the committee stage for this, it was one of the more unconventional experiences I’ve had when it comes to committee stage, and it was very interesting.

James Meager: What? It was a great time.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: It was a great time.

Tamatha Paul: He didn’t say it was bad.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: I didn’t say it was bad. But, in terms of the broader context of this, I think while we really appreciate what the Justice Committee has done here—as well as the way that the Minister at the committee stage answered the questions—there are a lot of concerns with this particular bill.

To provide a little bit of background/context, when the Labour Government introduced FPOs—the firearms prohibition orders—FPOs in general are a good thing. This is something that the Green Party agrees with. However, things that are in this bill are already prevalent and already exist within the current legislation, particularly when it comes to a high-risk person and their access to firearms. What we’re seeing here by extending it and, essentially, only targeting gangs is nothing short of virtue signalling, as we have seen from this Government.

The Hon Dr Duncan Webb has, before, mentioned a crucial element of this bill, which is around the introduction of clause 14, particularly when it comes to warrantless searches, new section 18AA under the Search and Surveillance Act. This is a really concerning bit, because although, rightfully, there’s been amendments and adjustments, firstly, when it comes to new section 18AA, it states, “If a constable has reasonable grounds to believe”—and, yes, from the Attorney-General’s perspective, this does satisfy some of the requirements around the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. However, one of the things here is: who then judges in terms of what is considered reasonable grounds? We have seen in reports lately of the systemic bias that our police force have towards members of certain communities. That is in the report.

Over here, when we see something like this and when any constable is able to act within reasonable ground, who is assessing that reasonable ground and what are some of the repercussions of that if that reasonable ground fails to meet the standard that is expected? Over here, the bottom line is that warrantless searches means that they can search any place, at any stage, listed in this particular section. We talked about the fact that they can go into anyone’s house, anyone who has an FPO, and then conduct a search. Yes, we have heard from the Minister that if they are looking for anything else other than what is required and what is for the consideration of FPO, that will be considered inadmissible. That is something they have to tread very carefully. Nevertheless, it does not fail to address the fact that they can go into these people’s homes at any stage.

That is the crux of the situation we’re talking about here, because when they do that, when you have people—and we talked about scenarios—going into your house, like many people here who talk about the harmfulness of gangs, who talk about the harmfulness of gang members, you would be horrified when the gang member comes to your house, wouldn’t you? Particularly when they have a firearm, how do you feel? What do you think about for those gang members when they have a police officer charging into their house by right of law at any stage, at any time, any time of the day? That is serious. That is serious for them. That is serious for their family. It is serious for their children.

Imagine the kind of trauma that that would create for children, and you—sorry, not you, Mr Speaker—people, and the Government in general, ask why we say that some people in some parts of our communities are more fearful of police than they are of gang members. This is one of the reasons why, because if you are a child of a gang member or a child of anyone who holds an FPO, or a child—like the Hon Dr Duncan Webb mentioned before—of a family who may have invited someone over to stay who has an FPO, the police could come and search you at any stage. That is serious—that is serious.

On top of that, there are other instances. It’s not just gang members, but there are other instances where this creates generational trauma. This creates trauma for those rangatahi and for those tamariki. Another good example of that is overstayers, in the context of the Dawn Raids. That’s another place where we have heard from those people that you had people who came in at 4 or 5 in the morning, knocking down their doors, searching for them—looking for overstayers. We’re looking at trying to create that balance. We’re looking at what it means for these people to experience that kind of trauma and looking at how we can minimise trauma. That’s what we’ve said we’re supposed to be doing while talking about keeping the public safe, not what this bill is doing here.

Lastly, another thing that we have asked, and which has not been addressed in this particular bill, is that, again, if we were there to really provide for public safety, why are we only targeting those who have been convicted on whom then will be placed an FPO? Why aren’t we talking about the broader context of gun violence in Aotearoa New Zealand? Why are we not talking about the fact that there are people who are harming our communities who are committing massacres with no track record, with no criminal record? They’re not on any form of watch-list, and they are harming and hurting our communities. That is important here, when we are talking about gun safety.

The Green Party does not support this bill, because of the fact that even though having FPOs is a good idea, the way that this legislation is laid out isn’t. The way that this targets specific parts of our community isn’t. We have seen this sort of legislation being introduced in this House over the last little while, and we have heard about the additional amendments and additional search powers it has introduced, and I, for one, am concerned for those tamariki and for those rangatahi who are in that environment where they are being searched unjustifiably because of legislation that this Government introduces and is trying to pass.

I’m concerned for those tamariki and rangatahi who feel like their Government has failed them and is creating even more distance and even more barriers for us to reach out to them. I am concerned for our migrant communities and for our Muslim whānau, who still, to this day, are asking the Government to recognise and to listen to their fears and concerns when it comes to terrorists and to terrorism activities from people who are not on any sort of watch-list. The Green Party does not support this bill. Thank you.

JAMES MEAGER (National—Rangitata): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Time to clear up a bit of confusion, because there’s been a large amount of confusion on this bill in the House over the past couple of days. The first bit of confusion is I’m confused that members opposite are taking very, very long calls, because last night they were desperate to shut down debate. They hate the bill so much that they were desperate to shut down debate, vote on it through committee stage, and see it here for third reading, and now here they are speaking at length about how much they continue to dislike the bill. Well, members opposite need to change their attitudes and change their minds and support this bill, because it is a good bill.

Last night, we had a history lesson from Arena Williams, a history lesson on the firearms prohibition orders—not protection orders; prohibition orders, to clear up another bit of confusion. Arena Williams correctly stated that these were introduced by Labour in the last Government. What she forgot to mention was that they were first proposed in 2017 by National. They were put up as members’ bills by National, voted down by Labour, and then surprise, surprise, as violent gun crime went up, as gang membership went up, Labour changed their tune and they put in firearms prohibition orders. Now the Green Party also think firearms prohibition orders are a good idea; they just don’t like the fact that we are strengthening them.

This is a good bill. It will strengthen the protections put in place by these firearms prohibition orders. The bill strikes the right balance between enhancing public safety and ensuring fair application of the law. I’m not going to criticise the contribution from Dr Duncan Webb. He has a lot of experience in this area as an advocate for people who are subject to these kinds of orders. I’m not going to criticise his lived experience in this area, but I am going to criticise his contribution to the House. It is wrong. He needs to change his mind and support the bill. I commend it to the House.

JAMIE ARBUCKLE (NZ First): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on the Firearms Prohibition Orders Legislation Amendment Bill. This is another effort by the Government to give the tools to the police that they need to take care of serious crime.

New Zealand First fully supports this bill. It’s about protecting public safety, it’s about getting our communities safe, it’s about stopping violent crime and, unlike the Opposition who’s trying to protect their voter base—which I must say is getting smaller—it is about restoring law and order. It is about common sense.

New Zealand First supports this bill because it strikes the right balance between enhancing public safety and ensuring fairness in its application. The amendment recommended by the Justice Committee improved the bill by focusing its reach on those who it generally poses a risk to without overreaching into the lives of innocent individuals.

New Zealand First supports this bill because it is a necessary step in protecting New Zealanders from the threat of gun violence, particularly in the context of gang and organised crime. It is a sensible, focused, and balanced piece of legislation that New Zealand needs. It has contributed to what New Zealand First believes in, and I commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Five minutes—Fernando Hernandez.

FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ (Green): Francisco Hernandez, Mr Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Francisco Hernandez.

FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ: It’s all good. I’ve often been confused with my other colleagues, such as Ricardo Menéndez March and Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan, but I’m pleased to report that as they’re more handsome and better dressed than me, I’m not offended by any sorts of confusion between us.

I rise to take a call on the Firearms Prohibition Orders Legislation Amendment Bill. I want to talk a little bit about the kind of genesis—

James Meager: Strong OUSA presence today.

FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ: That’s right—strong OUSA. Ha, ha! I want to talk a little bit about the genesis of this, and the genesis of this was, as Mr Meager alluded to, yes, it was talked about as a National member’s bill. But it was a tranche of legislation that was adopted by the then Labour Government following—and I’m sure all of us members in the House would agree—a very tragic and very senseless attack on 15 March. My colleague Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan rightfully pointed out that we do need to actually centre the voices of the people in this. We need to centre the voices of the people who’ve been affected by gun violence.

I think a lot of people have made a point and a lot of members opposite have kind of talked about a focus on the gangs, right? This bill does actually focus quite strongly on the gangs. A lot of the member’s contributions have been about the gangs, but if we’re serious about the gangs, how do we actually get rid of the gangs? Will we get rid of the gangs by creating jobs? Instead, this Government has pursued fiscal and monetary policies which have pushed unemployment up—4.6 percent; the highest it’s been. If we’re serious about getting rid of gangs, we have to invest in police. Instead, we’ve seen this Government making cuts to police.

This is a quote from the New Zealand Police Association about the cuts that are being made to the police—nearly 200 jobs—“We think this will be a scattergun headcount-reduction exercise made in a silo by people who don’t understand the work people do, who they do it for, and who also won’t personally be affected by the outcome of the [so-called] ‘realignment’ exercise.”, which is a euphemism of the cuts that are happening around the Police.

If we’re serious about actually taking action on guns, we have to create environments whereby social inclusion is fostered. This legislation does the opposite. It adds to the layer of stigmatisation of people who’ve already been through a lot. I mean we’ve heard a lot about the inquiry into State abuse about how people who’ve been abused by the State tend to turn to the gangs for comfort. I think we need to contend with these actual psychological realities. I mean some people do join gangs because they’re bad people—that’s absolutely true and we should make no excuses for the people who do join the gangs—but there are some people who’ve joined the gangs because of the trauma that they’ve experienced in their life. Further compounding trauma and further using the State to further abuse people isn’t what’s actually going to be a serious anti-crime or anti-gun thing.

We’ve talked a lot about the potential harassment, and Dr Duncan Webb has made substantial and quite informed and eloquent contributions about the potential for these warrantless searches to be used against the communities. I do think that’s definitely something that will further compound and further add to the layers of trauma that are already here. So my plea to the members opposite and my plea to all the members across this House, actually, is that rather than shouting slogans and actually saying, “Oh, well, we need to crack down on the gangs. We need to deploy the police on the street. We need to execute people.” or whatever, we actually look to see what’s worked overseas.

What’s worked is actually fostering inclusion. What’s worked is actually funding the police and funding people to do the jobs that need to be done so that we actually do make serious work on reducing gangs and reducing the harms that they do—we actually create jobs and employment opportunities. Instead, we’ve been going backwards—we’ve been going backwards under this Government. We’re seeing beneficiaries stigmatised, we’re seeing the overall employment rate cut, and it’s really quite sad.

I just want to conclude my speech by thanking the Minister for her substantial engagement during the committee of the whole House last night. I was able to take a call and my colleagues in the Greens were able to take calls, and she did answer our questions in a way that was quite direct and, I found, inclusive. So thank you.

CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour): There is a reason why gang members were campaigning against this Government last year. There is a reason why gang members were campaigning against the ACT Party, were campaigning against the National Party, and were campaigning against New Zealand First. Now we’ve got the unedifying sight of Labour, Te Pāti Māori, and the Greens vying for their votes in 2026. What we are seeing are apologists for gangs. What we are seeing are promoters of gangs, protectors of gangs, and defenders of gangs. The gangs know that this Government is going to make it easier to take the guns off them and we’re going to make it easier to search them. That’s exactly what this Firearms Prohibition Orders Legislation Amendment Bill does.

“Many New Zealanders”, was the quote from the Green Party a couple of weeks ago, “would rather find themselves down a dark alleyway with a patched gang member than a police officer.” Can I give that to you again? For those listening on “truth radio” and on Parliament TV, “Many New Zealanders would rather find themselves down a dark alley with a patched gang member than a police officer.” This is how deluded the Opposition is. This is how deluded they are and this is why they lost so badly at the last election. If they want to go out on a pro-gang mandate in 2026, well, this is the beginning of it. They are the apologists for gangs, they are the protectors of gangs, they are the defenders of gangs, and they are the promoters of gangs. I commend the bill to the House.

Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I was going to start with proclaiming this to be a little bit of window dressing from the National Party, but my colleague Cameron Brewer just stood up and acted out the window dressing, so one doesn’t really need to spell that out any further. The dramatics and the scraping the bottom of the barrel to make some sort of vacuous point is a little bit silly.

Nevertheless, the Firearms Prohibition Orders Legislation Amendment Bill is before us in this House today, and it is facing its third reading, which feels like a bit of a waste of time. Let’s begin by acknowledging the fact that the existing framework is in place—2021, the previous Government introduced legislation that, essentially, does this—and it hasn’t had enough time to actually bed in properly. We haven’t had enough time to evaluate it. We don’t know whether it’s working or not, but never miss an opportunity for the Government to go, “Let’s just pretend we can do something that says we’re tough on gangs; we’re tough on crime.” A little bit of window dressing; a little bit of nothing—that sounds good but does nothing. All talk, no trousers at the end of the day.

These orders that are already in place are a critical tool and they do do something. They’re a critical tool for the courts to prevent individuals—particularly those involved in criminal activities—from owning or using dangerous firearms. The current legislation, we believe, is comprehensive. It covers not only firearms but also ammunition. It covers restricted weapons and other related items.

To be going through this process now in the third reading to do something that makes it seem even more tough or strengthens it is a little bit silly. We don’t need to make the changes. We don’t support this piece of legislation. We think it has fish-hooks in it that create dangerous situations that have been well traversed by colleagues on this side of the House. We do not commend this bill to the House.

RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini): Thank you, Mr Speaker. This is the third reading of the Firearms Prohibition Orders Legislation Amendment Bill. It’s really sad when we just think that in South Auckland, two weeks ago, there was a drive-by shooting in Papakura, at a gang pad; one month ago, a drive-by shooting in Māngere, South Auckland, at an alleged gang pad; early July, a home was shot at in Ōtara, South Auckland. The list goes on, and that’s only in the last month and a half. There’s a reason why we’re pushing ahead with this bill.

“Window dressing” is a term that is being thrown around a lot by the Opposition. In the Cambridge Dictionary: “a person or thing that is used to make an activity appear more important or attractive than it really is”. That is what the Opposition is saying we’re trying to do with this bill, but I know what we’re trying to do: we’re trying to protect families, we’re trying to protect rangatahi and tamariki. We commend this bill to the House.

Hon PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I tell you what’s really sad about this bill is that what we’re seeing is a Government that is so divided and wants to sound like they’re tough on crime. On the one hand, National is trying to strengthen firearms prohibition orders (FPOs). On the other hand, the Minister Nicole McKee’s name is synonymous with the pro-gun lobby in New Zealand—everyone knows that—and they want to bring back military-style semi-automatic weapons. So which is it? Pick a lane. Just trying to sound tough on crime really isn’t cutting it, and I think people will start seeing through this pretty quickly.

I’ll be very quick, because my colleagues have traversed the reasons why we on this side oppose this piece of legislation, but the two points that I wanted to make really quickly are the fact that it’s, firstly, too soon. FPOs, as members opposite have also acknowledged, were brought into play in 2021, so whether they need to be strengthened to the level that we’re seeing in this proposed legislation remains to be seen. We don’t actually have the evidence. There’s been no evaluation that has been undertaken of the current legislation, let alone knowing whether widening the current police powers to such warrantless and causeless searches is even necessary. As my colleague Dr Duncan Webb has outlined, this is an unnecessary piece of legislation that’s occupying the House’s time.

The second point that he also made very clearly and I just wanted to highlight was the fact that these are warrantless, causeless searches that will come into play as a result of this legislation being passed. There is, of course, the potential to misuse this. It is incredibly broad, it is unwarranted, it is unnecessary, and for all those reasons I do not commend this bill to the House.

SAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to speak in support of this bill. Look, we’ve had far too much gang-related crime over the past six years, and we’ve seen it get out of control under a Labour Government that was soft on crime—very soft on crime. The good news for the people of New Zealand—and I can see people on the on the other side of the House smiling at the good news that the Comancheros are no longer in the South Island. That is because our Government has worked very hard to make sure that they know they’re not welcome any more. We’ve got a Government that is tackling them, and this Firearms Prohibition Orders Legislation Amendment Bill is another piece in that armoury to make sure that we can do what we need to do.

Look, there have been some concerns on the other side of the House about, you know, what this may do to those households where police do come in and go through and search, and concerns I heard from the Hon Dr Duncan Webb about it happening at any time of the day. I do understand where he’s coming from on that, but I don’t necessarily agree that it should prohibit them from being able to do that, because, at the end of the day, we are talking about gang members.

Now, look, I know people on the other side of the House tend to be a lot more sympathetic to gang members than we are over here on the Government benches, but at the end of the day, you have to have committed a crime to be admitted to a gang. These are not friendly people. Yes, they have often had a very hard upbringing and faced challenges, and there are a number of reasons that people do join gangs, so I’m not discounting that at all, but at the end of the day, gangs are out there peddling meth and peddling misery throughout New Zealand society, and it is often the most vulnerable members of New Zealand society that fall victim to gangs.

To take the cushy, soft approach that the previous Government took—look at what we saw. We saw an over 50 percent increase in gang numbers—an over 50 percent increase in gang numbers—over the previous Government. We are taking a different approach. We are saying, “Look, if you want to be part of a gang, you do that, but don’t expect any sympathy from us. We are going to come after you. We are going to take your firearms. We are going to take your patches. We are going to make sure that you cannot associate with other people who you are engaged in, or potentially engaged in, criminal activity with. You don’t have a place, operating like that in New Zealand—if you want to, we will hold you accountable.” That is what we are doing. We have already seen the Comancheros disappear—

Hon Scott Simpson: Bye-bye.

SAM UFFINDELL: —bye-bye—from the South Island. That is right, the Hon Scott Simpson, they are out of the South Island. I can see Duncan Webb trying to conceal a little grin over there.

Hon Scott Simpson: He’s thrilled.

SAM UFFINDELL: He’s thrilled. He’s going to have a beer at the airport after this, on his way back to a safer South Island.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: It’s actually misleading to say that.

SAM UFFINDELL: Well, you can stand up and take a point of order if you would like, and you can do that. You can stand up and take an issue with it if you want, but I would like to think anyone in the South Island would be happy that the Comancheros are no longer there.

What a great appearance we have now—the Hon Mark Mitchell, the Minister of Police, coming in here. Well done, Minister—that is very good; we are very happy, over this side of the House.

We will continue the hard work we are doing in this place. We’ve seen a lot more police on the beat, contrary to what the spokesperson from the Labour Party said yesterday about that not being the case. That didn’t go well because the figures showed that there are more police on the beat. That side of the House can continue to live in that alternative reality that they often live in, but, here on this side of the House, we are a serious Government. We are dedicated to improving the safety and wellbeing of the people and communities around New Zealand. I commend this bill to the House.

GLEN BENNETT (Labour): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. It’s interesting to hear the previous National Party member, Sam Uffindell, speak in the way—

Hon Member: More interesting than this!

GLEN BENNETT: Gangs are a scourge on our society. Gangs are bad, and this side of the House is in complete agreement with that. What’s happened today in Christchurch—yeah, it’s good. But also that doesn’t mean that the gang is gone. The gang has been arrested, and that’s the thing: for us on this side of the House, it’s how do we deal with the causes of gangs? How do we deal with the causes of crime?

Rima Nakhle: What about the victims?

GLEN BENNETT: How do we get tough on the causes on crime? I hear from the other side, “What about the victims?”, and that is absolutely what we support as well. We look at this piece of legislation: is this victim-centred? I’m not sure. When I come from working in restorative justice, where it’s completely victim-focused and victim-centred, I know a little bit about that and want to make sure whatever we do from this side of the House is around supporting victims, which also is dealing with the causes of crime.

Now, the Firearms Prohibition Orders Legislation Amendment Bill is something that we cannot support—whether it’s around the warrantless searches, whether it’s just around the fact this is the thin end of the wedge in terms of gun reform for us here. We need to look at a bigger picture. How do we change the way we engage not only with criminals, not only with gangs, but with looking at our young people, looking at our rangatahi, and looking at the ways that we can actually change the systems?

What was mentioned before was that we are sympathetic to gang members, and I take offence to that because we are not sympathetic at all. We are sympathetic to ensuring that New Zealand is a place where no one finds the need or desire to join a gang. We are going to work day and night as an Opposition and, then, as a Government to ensure that we can get tough on the causes of crime.

Now, we need to look at our gun reforms. We need to look at what we have done and what we are going to do. This isn’t it. This legislation isn’t going to fix the problem. Therefore, we cannot support this bill.

CATHERINE WEDD (National—Tukituki): Look, I rise in support of the Firearms Prohibition Orders Legislation Amendment Bill, and it’s a real privilege to be the last speaker on this third reading today.

I’d firstly like to just commend the Justice Committee for their very hard work in navigating this bill through the select committee process and, of course, through the House, because we on this side of the House are about restoring law and order, keeping our communities safe, and cracking down on gangs. This is about ensuring we are keeping illegal firearms out of the hands of gangs.

Look, I come from a region, Hawke’s Bay, the East Coast, where we have a major gang problem and we have seen a huge increase in the number of gang members in the past six years. In fact, we have a ratio of 2.5 gang members to one police officer, which I understand is actually one of the highest in the country. That is why we need to crack down on the gangs, because it’s the gangs that are increasing crime. They are peddling meth and they are causing our communities to be unsafe; they are intimidating our communities.

Look, I am going to speak to an example of some gang members yesterday, actually, in Hawke’s Bay. It was an example, actually, of our Hawke’s Bay Regional Council—and I’m going to say it here in the House—not reading the room at all because they enabled a whole lot of patched gang members to come into the public space, into the council chamber, and interact with the council leaders which is absolutely beyond belief, to be honest, that we had our council leaders interacting with patched gang members when it is actually illegal to wear a gang patch in a public building, in our schools, and on our public transport.

On this side of the House, our Government has, obviously, already introduced legislation in our first 100 days to crack down on the gangs to ensure that we ban gang patches in public spaces, and this is a really, really powerful message that we’ve been sending to the gangs. It does really beggar belief that yesterday we did have our council leaders interacting with gang members in the council building, which is a public building and it is actually illegal for those gangs members to be wearing their patched gang memorabilia inside the council building.

I think that really was not reading the room which does lead me to talk about councils in general, actually, because—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): No, no, Ms Wedd. It leads you to talk about the bill. You’ve had a pretty good go for four minutes; now let’s lead you to talk about the bill.

CATHERINE WEDD: OK, yes, I’m coming back to that because I think that our focus—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Oh yes you are.

CATHERINE WEDD: No, our focus, obviously, as central government and local government needs to be on getting the issues right, and that is restoring law and order and that is making sure that we have safer communities and that is what our ratepayers want to see.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): And now you tell us how you’re going to do that, Ms Wedd, or you’ll be sitting down. You are talking about the bill.

CATHERINE WEDD: Yeah, I’m talking about the bill. I am absolutely talking about the bill because this bill is about focusing on the issues that matter—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): No, you’re talking about what’s in the bill, actually, Ms Wedd.

CATHERINE WEDD: Yeah, that’s right—in this bill, because it does make three key changes to the firearms prohibition orders (FPO) regime and it specifies new qualifying offences for gang members who are convicted of these offences. It gives New Zealand Police additional search powers. That’s another thing, actually: police are really enjoying the fact that they’ve finally got a Government that is going to give them more tools in their kit to be able to crack down on crime.

I actually visited the Hawke’s Bay police station—quite a new police station in Hawke’s Bay—and I spoke with a lot of our amazing Hawke’s Bay police officers. I’d just like to congratulate our Hawke’s Bay police officers for all the hard work that they’re doing, because they are actually really respecting these laws that we are pushing through to ensure that they do have more tools to be able to do their job and ensure that we strike the right balance so that they, obviously, have that balance between being able to execute more powers to be able to crack down on crime and deal with the rise in crime that we have seen over the past six years and also the increase in the number of gang members who are also peddling a lot of crime.

During that week that I actually visited the Hawke’s Bay police station, I also visited the Hawke’s Bay Regional Prison—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Right, and also it’s not a tourist—

Catherine Wedd: No, it’s not—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Right, Ms Wedd, you have now not spoken about the bill for two minutes—

Catherine Wedd: That is right, but I am just going to come back to—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): No, Ms Wedd. Sit down.

Catherine Wedd: OK. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Ms Wedd, you’ve had three warnings now. If you want to continue, you speak about the bill and the bill only. It’s not a tour of the Hawke’s Bay or anywhere else.

CATHERINE WEDD: OK. Thank you, Mr Speaker. No, I appreciate that. So, if I am coming back to the bill, and obviously the key elements of the bill, which, of course, are about providing more police with the tools, as I’ve said, to ensure that they are able to have warrantless searches associated with the firearms prohibition orders—so it enables a constable who maybe had the reasonable grounds to suspect that a person was subject to an FPO, giving them the powers to execute those warrantless searches associated with FPOs.

Alongside that, that obviously enables them to get those illegal firearms out of the hands of gangs, which really is the objective of this, to create safer communities and make sure that we are reducing crime, which is what we’re all about on this side of the House—reducing crime, creating safer communities. Therefore, I would like to commend this bill to the House.

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

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 13; Tana.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 10 September 2024.

The House adjourned at 5.58 p.m.