Thursday, 19 September 2024
Volume 778
Sitting date: 19 September 2024
THURSDAY, 19 SEPTEMBER 2024
THURSDAY, 19 SEPTEMBER 2024
The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.
karakia/prayers
karakia/prayers
GREG FLEMING (National—Maungakiekie): E te Atua kaha rawa, ka tuku whakamoemiti atu mātou, mō ngā karakia kua waihotia mai ki runga i a mātou. Ka waiho i ō mātou pānga whaiaro katoa ki te taha. Ka mihi mātou ki te Kīngi, me te inoi atu mō te ārahitanga i roto i ō mātou whakaaroarohanga, kia mōhio ai, kia whakaiti ai tā mātou whakahaere i ngā take o te Whare nei, mō te oranga, te maungārongo, me te aroha o Aotearoa. Āmene.
[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 and humility, for the welfare, peace, and compassion of New Zealand. Amen.]
Speaker’s Rulings
Debates—Reading of Speeches
SPEAKER: Members, yesterday I undertook to give a considered ruling on the reading of speeches in debate. This topic has been the subject of numerous Speakers’ rulings and Standing Orders Committee discussions over many years. The explicit prohibition of reading speeches was removed from the Standing Orders in 1995. In 2011, wishing to enliven debate, the Standing Orders Committee recommended reinstating the ban on reading speeches as a convention rather than a rule. The convention is that “Where possible, members should not read speeches.” “Debate is best served by members engaging with the points brought up in other … speeches, and some level of improvisation is needed” to respond to other members’ speeches.
There are circumstances in which reading a speech may be acceptable. Such circumstances may relate to the technical nature of the material under discussion or a Minister’s first reading speech or a Speaker giving a ruling, a maiden speech, or perhaps even a valedictory. General debates, however, should not necessitate members to read a speech unless it is something particularly technical in its nature covered in the speech. All members are entitled to refer to notes, and some members may rely more heavily on them than others. The key thing is that members are giving their own speeches, rather than the remarks prepared for them. In any case, no member other than the Speaker may interrupt a member who is speaking to mention a breach of this convention. I refer members to and reiterate Speakers’ ruling 52/6, 52/7, and 52/3.
Urgent Debates Declined
Implications of Recent Attacks in Lebanon—Stability in the Middle East
SPEAKER: I’ve also received a letter from Chlöe Swarbrick, seeking to debate under Standing Order 399 the recent attacks on people in Lebanon and the implications of this for stability in the Middle East. Urgent debates are a way of holding the Government to account for its actions. There must be administrative or ministerial responsibility for the case of recent occurrence. The member has not disclosed any such responsibility; therefore, the application is declined.
Business Statement
Business Statement
Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) on behalf of the Leader of the House: E te Māngai o te Whare, tēnā koe. Next week, the House will consider the first readings of the Building (Overseas Building Products, Standards, and Certification Schemes) Amendment Bill, the Parliament Bill, the Sentencing (Reform) Amendment Bill, and the District Court (District Court Judges) Amendment Bill. We will also have the third reading of the Appropriation (2024/25 Estimates) Bill.
There will be extended hours on Wednesday morning for Government business and the afternoon will be a members’ day.
SPEAKER’S RULINGS
Debates—Reading of Speeches
Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Point of order. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I apologise for the slight delay in this. Thank you for that ruling and we support that. There’s just one question I have about that, and that’s in regard to the reference to a Minister’s first reading speeches. From memory, the Standing Orders Committee agreed that the introduction of legislative statements were in part to prevent the need for Ministers to read a speech.
SPEAKER: You’re actually quite right. That should have been the way it was put in that. With the indulgence of the House, I’ll have that corrected in the ruling. It was the purpose of those statements—that’s quite right. Thank you for that.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister): Point of order. The time for Mr McAnulty to raise that was at the time it was being discussed, but since then you’ve moved on with the business of the House and we cannot go back in that way. I would have thought, with respect, that you’d have ruled him out.
SPEAKER: That is actually what the point of order process is about—bringing up matters that are to do with the order of the House—and that definitely was a matter to do with the order of the House.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: But he’s too late.
SPEAKER: Well, I tell you what, none of us are as fast as you. You’ve pointed that out to me many times. And I understand you’d still give me 20 metres in 100 yards and expect to beat me. In this case, we are now moving on.
Petitions, Papers, Select Committee Reports, and Introduction of Bills
Petitions, Papers, Select Committee Reports, and Introduction of Bills
SPEAKER: There have been no petitions presented. Ministers have presented papers.
CLERK:
Annual reports for:
Airways Corporation of New Zealand Ltd
City Rail Link Ltd
Kiwi Group Capital Ltd and subsidiaries
statements of performance expectations for Auckland Light Rail Ltd.
SPEAKER: Those papers are published under the authority of the House. Select committee reports have been delivered for presentation.
CLERK:
Report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the review briefing on the 2022-23 annual review of the Office of the Controller and Auditor-General
report of the Social Services and Community Committee on the review briefings on the 2022-23 annual reviews of Radio New Zealand, Television New Zealand, and the New Zealand Film Commission.
SPEAKER: Those reports are set down for consideration. No bills have been introduced.
Oral Questions
Questions to Ministers
Question No. 1—Biosecurity
1. MARK CAMERON (ACT) to the Minister for Biosecurity: What recent reports has he seen about the value of New Zealand’s robust biosecurity system?
Hon ANDREW HOGGARD (Minister for Biosecurity): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Earlier this month, the Government released an independent economic assessment that underlines the magnitude of the economic risk we face from an incursion of foot-and-mouth disease and how important it is that we respond quickly and decisively. The analysis found that if even a minor incursion of foot-and-mouth disease was found here, our access to foreign markets for animal products would stop, and the cost to our economy would be $1.5 billion in export revenue per month, demonstrating just how important the primary sector is to this country. The New Zealand Institute of Economic Research estimated that if we did nothing to return to normal trade, nominal GDP would fall by 11 percent.
Mark Cameron: What has the Government done in response to receiving this analysis?
Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: This analysis informed Cabinet’s decision to confirm that stamping out foot-and-mouth disease, if it ever gets here, is the most economically viable option, despite the significant cost of a response to both the Crown and the livestock industry. We have assured farmers and the wider economy that there won’t be any mucking around; we will just get down to work to get rid of it and to get back to normal production and trade as soon as possible.
Mark Cameron: What other key insights does the Minister take from this analysis?
Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: First of all, that the best way to respond to an incursion of any significant disease is to keep it out in the first place. So the Government will continue to invest in a robust biosecurity system with the highest border standards in the world. It’s also occurred to me that I’ve heard some members of this House minimise the primary sector’s contribution to the economy, but with a total projected annual loss of $14.3 billion per year for the disease—
Mark Cameron: How much?
Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: —that’s right, $14.3 billion per year—that will directly affect only part of the sector, what this analysis shows is that farmers and rural businesses continue to underpin the living standards of all New Zealanders. On this side of the House, as we can hear, we obviously recognise that.
Question No. 2—Transport
2. Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai) to the Minister of Transport: Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker, tēnā koutou e te Whare. Ka takahuri noa tāna ture whakatau pae tere (2024), e whakaarohia nei, i ngā whakahekenga pae tere anake “where it is safe to do so”?
[Will his proposed setting of speed limits rule (2024) only reverse speed limit reductions “where it is safe to do so”?]
Hon MATT DOOCEY (Associate Minister of Transport) on behalf of the Minister of Transport: The Government is reversing Labour’s blanket speed limit reductions on local streets, arterial roads, and State highways that have had their speed limits reduced since 1 January 2020, and restoring their speed limits to what was in place on 31 December 2019. The draft rule will also require slower speeds around all schools during pick-up and drop-off times to keep young New Zealanders safe. As the member will be aware, section 164(2)(c) of the Land Transport Act 1998 requires the Minister to have regard to the level of risk existing to land transport safety in New Zealand when finalising the Government’s new speed limit rule. As the member will also be aware, the new rule has not yet been signed, but I can assure the member that the Minister will be taking safety into account as part of the process of signing the new rule.
Hon Julie Anne Genter: Why is the Government continuing with this policy after receiving a letter from over 100 road safety experts, including former Ministry of Transport Chief Science Adviser Simon Kingham, who said in the letter, “We strongly urge you to reconsider the proposed blanket speed limit increases. Should this rule be adopted, the tragic consequence will”—
SPEAKER: Just ask a question.
Hon Julie Anne Genter: —“be more New Zealanders losing their lives”—
SPEAKER: Just ask a question.
Hon Julie Anne Genter: —“or suffering severe injury,”?
Hon MATT DOOCEY: On behalf of the Minister, we welcome feedback. That’s why we went out for consultation. Up to two-thirds of New Zealanders supported the direction of travel. That’s why the Minister is required to consider safety under section 164 of the Land Transport Act. Safety outcomes have, and will be, continued to be considered before the rule is finalised.
Hon Julie Anne Genter: Will he listen to the many local councils who opposed these rule changes, like Kāpiti Coast District Council, who stated in their submission, “we believe the changes proposed are illogical and irresponsible.” and “reduce the safety of our roads, place yet another unfunded mandate on councils, and puts business and economics above the safety of our children.”?
Hon MATT DOOCEY: On behalf of the Minister, we have to remind ourselves here: we are only returning the speed setting rule back to 2019. Up to two-thirds of New Zealanders supported that direction of travel, and, as said in the answer to the primary question, as the member will be aware, the Minister has to take regard of the level of risk existing to land transport safety in New Zealand when finalising the Government’s new speed limit rule, as set out under section 164(2)(c).
Hon Julie Anne Genter: What does he say to Hamilton City Council, who in their submission stated, “none of the proposals for reversing speed limit reductions have a safety assessment associated with them. International evidence is very conclusive that increasing speed limits exponentially increases [the] safety risk.”?
Hon MATT DOOCEY: On behalf of the Minister, if we want to talk about international comparison, we can look at how our approach aligns with those of other high-income countries that have the lowest rates of road deaths—including Norway, Sweden, Iceland, Japan, Denmark, and the United Kingdom, where these six countries all have default speed limits of 50 kilometres per hour or more on urban roads, with exceptions for lower speeds. That’s what we’re doing.
Hon Julie Anne Genter: Does the Minister deny that the chance of a pedestrian surviving when hit by a car at 30 kilometres an hour is around 90 percent, whereas the chance of surviving at 50 kilometres an hour drops to only 20 percent, and will he acknowledge that the reversals of speed limit reductions that were determined by local communities and councils will jeopardise community safety?
Hon MATT DOOCEY: On behalf of the Minister, the Ministry of Transport undertook an interim regulatory impact analysis to support the new speed rule. The Ministry of Transport advised that reversing reduced speed limits would likely result in an increase in the average speeds of these roads. Where the average speed increases, the risk of fatal and serious crashes also increases. The ministry was unable to quantify the overall impacts, due to a range of uncertainties that dictate actual operating speeds on individual roads.
Hon Julie Anne Genter: Will he commit to listening to the feedback from city councils, from road safety experts here in Aotearoa and around the world, to police, and to schools and communities, and change the final rule to allow communities to keep safer speeds where they wish to have them, particularly all day around schools?
Hon MATT DOOCEY: On behalf of the Minister, this Government will commit, as the member asked, to improving road safety on New Zealand’s roads. We’ll be focused on areas that cause the greatest fatalities, and we have already made changes to target road-policing funding and to implement legislation to support new oral-fluid testing on the side of the road. Later this year, the Government will be announcing its new road safety objectives. It is committed to safer roads in New Zealand.
Hon Julie Anne Genter: Point of order. I’d like to table this document I received under the Official Information Act (OIA) from the New Zealand Transport Agency. It’s crash data, which isn’t publicly available, that shows speed—
SPEAKER: Well, hang on—
Hon Julie Anne Genter: —is one of the primary factors—
SPEAKER: Just a minute.
Hon Julie Anne Genter: —in fatal and serious crashes.
SPEAKER: If it’s not publicly available, why is it published on the internet?
Hon Julie Anne Genter: Sorry, this table was released to me under the OIA. It is not available on the internet. This is a table that shows crash factors from 2014 to 2024, including alcohol and drugs—
SPEAKER: Sorry—sorry—
Hon Julie Anne Genter: —and speed—
SPEAKER: Can the member just—
Hon Julie Anne Genter: —and a number of other factors.
SPEAKER: That’s fine. Good. It’s a great description, but why is that not available on the internet? I understood that such data is published by the ministry.
Hon Julie Anne Genter: I assure you, Mr Speaker, that we looked for this data. It wasn’t available broken down in this way, and we asked for the information from the New Zealand Transport Agency. They provided us a very comprehensive table, which has crash data, including alcohol and drugs and speed as contributing factors.
SPEAKER: Is it your analysis or theirs?
Hon Julie Anne Genter: No, this is a table that was given to us by the New Zealand Transport Agency.
SPEAKER: I’ll put the leave. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.
Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.
Question No. 3—Prime Minister
3. Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his Government’s statements and actions?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes, but with the usual caveats.
Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Is he concerned that today’s GDP figures confirm that the economy has shrunk under his watch?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, that is a stunning statement, because the reality is, what it confirms is that we inherited a horrible economy and it’s going to take us some time to turn it around. Of course, some of us said that all the way through 2023 when they were borrowing money and tossing it around like an eight-armed octopus, which didn’t save us at all; it made the situation so much worse. The journey back to recovery would be harder, but we’re going to do it. [Interruption]
SPEAKER: I’ll just say to the Government backbench that the loud noise while the answer is being given actually deprives the public of the answer that they might like to hear.
Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. Thank you very much. Just for the clarity of the House, is the Rt Hon Winston Peters answering on behalf of the Prime Minister today?
SPEAKER: When he’s here and the question is addressed to the Prime Minister, he answers as the Prime Minister.
Hon Kieran McAnulty: Thank you.
Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Is he concerned that Kiwis do not see a future under his Government and are leaving in record numbers, with net 55,800 New Zealanders having left the country for the year ending July 2024?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Of course, New Zealand is very concerned and the Government is concerned as well, but, of course, many of those people left because of the climate that was engaged without their permission or knowledge by November 2023, when 133,000 net had come into the country with no warning to the people of New Zealand about hospitals, schools, roads, or any infrastructure required to accommodate them. It’s those circumstances that makes our battle so much more difficult to keep New Zealanders in New Zealand.
Hon Carmel Sepuloni: How does he reconcile the Government’s target to reduce job seeker beneficiaries by 50,000 with an increase of 26,000 more beneficiaries since he took office?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, you’ve got to look at the facts because a lot of facts, when they are put through the mind of a statistician, can be confusing. The reality is, we’ve seen a massive drop off of those people dependent upon the State, as a consequence of this Government, and we’re out there now, all over the country, creating jobs with all sorts of policies, and we expect that the tide will turn. But we inherited a very, very sad economy and it wasn’t going to be able to turn around overnight.
Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Does he acknowledge that the declining economy and widespread job losses under his watch have led to more people being on the benefit now than what Treasury had forecast to peak in January 2025?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Treasury getting the forecast wrong is not unusual. It’s happened time and time again, including the state of the economy, when they were writing the books for Labour. The moment the election was over, we found that the books were not accurate. It was so much worse. Many of us suspected that, and here’s the point, really: the economy will be turned around. All the long-term forecasts now, by those in the know, including a number of economists, is that New Zealand is going to come right. But we’re on a difficult trajectory. It’ll be a hard battle, but, to quote a famous song, “help is on its way”.
Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Is he concerned that due to the declining economy and widespread job losses under his watch, the forecast is now far more grim, with jobseeker numbers forecast to rise to 214,000 in January 2025 instead of the previous Treasury forecast of 202,000?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: If any of the inferences in that question were correct, why is business confidence going up? Why is confidence in the Prime Minister going up? Why is confidence in Ministers going up, and, over there, confidence going down, if any of her inferences in that question were remotely correct?
Hon Carmel Sepuloni: A point of order, Mr Speaker. I don’t feel like there was a correlation between the answer by the acting Prime Minister and the question asked, so I’m just questioning whether or not he actually addressed the question I put.
SPEAKER: Well, I think he did, but why don’t you ask the question again and he can address it the same way?
Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Is he concerned that due to the declining economy and widespread job losses under his watch, the forecast is now far more grim with jobseeker numbers forecast to rise to 214,000 in January 2025 instead of the previous Treasury forecast of 202,000?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: To quote someone who said this countless times, I reject the premises of that question. If any of it was true, then why is business confidence out there going that way [Points upwards], confidence in the Government going that way, confidence in the Prime Minister going that way, confidence in the Minister of Finance going that way, if any of the statements made then, in that question, on the premises I reject, were remotely true?
Hon Carmel Sepuloni: When will he take responsibility for more Kiwis losing jobs, more Kiwis leaving New Zealand, and thousands more Kiwis needing welfare support instead of blaming others for what is clearly his fault?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I don’t know what happened on Celebrity Treasure Island, but maybe it was a flight from reality. Though I do notice that what’s very clear from that programme is that this member is becoming very good—she’s becoming very good—
Hon Willie Jackson: You wanted an invitation.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No, I turned it down. I’ve never done any of those things. Never been on women’s magazines, never done all the kind of things that those members do.
Hon Member: They’d love you!
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No—no, we have a sense of pride in this political business. But my real point is, I’ve noticed on that programme she’s showing a great acuity with numbers, which, now that somebody’s about to arrive in England very shortly, might come into play. I wish when she’d made those allegations she would apply it to her questions, because what she’s saying is simply incorrect. To blame us for a shonky economy which we inherited is mind boggling.
Question No. 4—Justice
4. TAKUTAI TARSH KEMP (Te Pāti Māori—Tāmaki Makaurau) to the Minister of Justice: E tautoko tonu ana ia i āna kōrero me āna mahi katoa? Does he stand by all his statements and actions?
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): Tēnā koe mō tō pātai. Yes, I stand by my statement on Monday that “We want to return the victims of crime to the heart of the justice system.” A big part of that is denouncing illegal acts and ensuring there are real consequences for crime, which is why the Government this week introduced a sentencing reform package that does just that.
Takutai Tarsh Kemp: Does he stand by his post-Cabinet interview on Monday where he said he would not be comfortable with police having the power to search someone’s home for a swastika, but he is comfortable with the police having the power to search someone’s home for gang insignia?
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, I don’t recall making that exact statement. I think the discussion was around a variety of other things put to me, and the answer I was saying was that this legislation—what we’re talking about right here, right now—is about the Gangs Bill and the gang insignia. The desire was there to create a set of escalating consequences for people that repeatedly flouted the law. So one of those consequences would be that if you’re convicted three times within five years for flouting the law about the gang patch ban, then you’ll face some uncomfortable circumstances.
Takutai Tarsh Kemp: Why are hate symbols such as swastikas not included in the Gangs Legislation Amendment Bill?
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Because the Gangs Legislation Amendment Bill is about gangs and it’s about gang patches, not a wide variety of signals. So that is the focus of it, and that’s what we’re doing, because we’re concerned about the impact of gangs in our broader society. It might pay just to remind members that only about one in 400 adult New Zealanders are gang members—one in 400—yet they are associated with one in five serious violent crime offences and, actually, one in four kidnappings. So one in 400 are gang members, and roughly one in five serious violent crimes are associated with gang members.
Takutai Tarsh Kemp: Why are there no white supremacist gangs named in Schedule 2 of the Gangs Legislation Amendment Bill?
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, I’m not going to get into details around what the Comancheros are and what the Mongols are in terms of their ideology. The gangs who are listed in the gang register are the gangs that are associated with the Gangs Bill. But I would encourage the member—if she’s implying, like her colleague Tākuta Ferris did—that when we talk about gangs, we should not be jumping to the conclusion that we’re talking about Māori in particular, of course, because the vast majority of Māori are not in gangs and the focus of this legislation is to reduce the number of victims of crime and Māori are more likely to be victims of crime. Dealing with gangs who peddle misery is in the benefit of all New Zealanders, including Māori.
Hon Tama Potaka: Mō te Minita o Te Tāhū o te Ture. Ki tō whakaaro, ka iti iho te tokomaha o ngā Māori ka tūkinotia mā tēnei pire?
[For the Minister of Justice. In your opinion, will the number of Māori being mistreated reduce due to this bill?]
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Āe.
Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Oh, he’s fluent now!
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Tautoko!
Takutai Tarsh Kemp: Does he agree that banning gang patches from marae and tangihanga is an invasion of mana motuhake, tikanga, and a gross breach of Te Tiriti o Waitangi?
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, look, the purpose of this legislation is to ban gang patches from public places. It builds on the existing ban in relation to Government buildings, hospitals, and schools, which has been successful over the past few years, and it extends it to all public places. That includes some marae and some parts of marae, and that is because we are tired and New Zealanders are tired of the intimidation and fear caused by gangs. So we’re very much focused across all of New Zealand to give people some relief.
Takutai Tarsh Kemp: How does he justify legislation that is a clear breach of human rights, such as freedom of association and expression, without any evidence that it will reduce harm in our communities?
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, yes, we accept that there are limits on freedom of expression, and we are limiting the freedom of expression of gang members to wear their patches in public. That’s a statement of fact. But we’re also concerned about the rights of ordinary New Zealanders to go about their lives without fear and without having to deal with the intimidation and the trouble and chaos and mayhem that gangs cause across our community. Like all Governments, we have to balance sometimes competing rights, and, in this case, we think it’s absolutely appropriate to ban gang patches in public.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is the Minister concerned that illegal behaviour at a Manurewa marae is something that has to be addressed by the law enforcement agencies of this country?
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Yes, indeed, I am concerned.
Takutai Tarsh Kemp: What role does he believe Te Tiriti o Waitangi plays in the criminal justice system?
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, I think the Treaty of Waitangi is part of our broader constitutional framework, and, as a Government, we seek to recognise commitments made in the Treaty and in Treaty settlements. We also recognise the basic human rights and expectations of all New Zealanders, particularly around equality of the law and their basic universal human rights. One of those fundamental human rights is to feel safe in the community in which you live, and this gangs legislation, alongside the sentencing reforms we’re making and the many other things we’re doing to restore law and order, are all focused on law-abiding citizens in this country being able to live in their communities feeling safe.
Takutai Tarsh Kemp: How, then, does he justify the removal of Treaty provisions from legislation that is designed to address Treaty breaches in the justice system, such as the Corrections Amendment Bill?
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: If the member is referring to the New Zealand First - National commitment in the coalition agreement around reviewing the Treaty references right across legislation, there are, I think, roughly 25 or 30 pieces of legislation that make references to the Treaty in a variety of ways—some give effect to, some have regard to, and a number of other formulations. The previous Government started a process to take stock of those and ask ourselves, as a Parliament: is that legislation fit for purpose? It’s our intention to go through that in a careful and considered way and to be clear about what Parliament does and doesn’t mean when references to the Treaty and Treaty principles are referred to in legislation. So that’s a process that we’ll be working our way through over the next few months.
Question No. 5—Finance
5. CARL BATES (National—Whanganui) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has she seen on the economy?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. This morning, Stats NZ released the GDP results for the June quarter, which ran from 1 April to 30 June this year. This showed that economic activity fell 0.2 percent compared to the previous quarter. This follows a string of mostly low and negative GDP results going back to late 2022. That was the point at which rising interest rates started to bite on economic growth.
Carl Bates: Was this negative result a surprise?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: No, this result was not a surprise; it was well anticipated by economists and forecasters. For example, in its August Monetary Policy Statement, the Reserve Bank forecast negative 0.5 percent growth in the June quarter, considerably higher than this result. Other forecasters were also picking negative growth, and, looking ahead, the Reserve Bank is also forecasting negative 0.2 percent growth in the current September quarter.
Carl Bates: Why has economic growth been so low?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: New Zealand has endured a prolonged period of restrictive monetary policy. In response to the cost of living crisis, the Reserve Bank hiked interest rates sharply, with the official cash rate going from 0.25 percent in 2021 to 5.5 percent in mid-2023. The Reserve Bank judged that this was necessary to squeeze very high inflation out of the economy. It is of note that, at that time, interest rates were rising high even while the Government of the time continued to put cash into the inflation fire. This has meant very difficult times for many New Zealand families and businesses, and I acknowledge it is still tough for them. The good news is that inflation is coming down, and the cost of living crisis is easing. We are on the right track.
Carl Bates: What is the outlook for interest rates and economic growth?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Interest rates are still relatively high, but they are coming down earlier than forecast. The Reserve Bank reduced the official cash rate by 25 basis points last month and has set out a path for continued reductions. Lower interest rates will be a breath of fresh air for the economy. There will be a lag between interest rates reducing and growth picking up, but that will happen and the economy will start to grow again. That is good news for New Zealand families and businesses after years of low growth and high inflation.
Question No. 6—Finance
6. Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) to the Minister of Finance: Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. Does she stand by her statement, “We are focused on supporting our economy to grow”; if so, how much has the economy grown since she took office?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Yes, absolutely, I stand by that statement. In answer to the second part of the question, GDP in the June 2024 quarter was 0.1 percent lower than in the December 2023 quarter. As I said in my earlier answer, the GDP data out today shows the impact of high interest rates. It follows a series of mostly low and negative GDP results going back to late 2022. The economy has been suffering the after-effects of a long, prolonged cost of living crisis and the Reserve Bank has kept rates high to tackle inflation. The good news is inflation is now easing, interest rates have fallen and are forecast to fall further, and, judged by business confidence surveys, difficult conditions are easing.
Hon Barbara Edmonds: Is the fact that the economy has shrunk under her watch contributing to the record net migration loss of 55,800 New Zealand citizens?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I believe one of the very reasons the three parties on this side of the House were elected was because New Zealanders could see their economy was being terribly mismanaged. We were elected on a platform to fix it, to bring fiscal discipline back, to bring economic rigour back, to get back on the side of businesses so that they can invest and grow and hire people, to reduce red tape, and to deliver infrastructure. We are doing all of those things so that New Zealand can face better economic prospects.
Hon Barbara Edmonds: Why, when the Government wants to take credit for inflation coming down, won’t she accept responsibility for the downturn in economic activity?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: As I’ve outlined in some detail in the answers to the questions I have had in the House today, New Zealand has gone through a prolonged period of restrictive monetary policy. I was not the finance Minister in the Government that chose to do record levels of increases to Government spending when inflation was at record highs. And when I reflect on that decision, I have no doubt that that contributed to the Reserve Bank lifting interest rates higher and keeping them higher for longer. On our watch, inflation has come back into band quicker than many forecast, and interest rates have come down a year earlier than had been forecast. I will take accountability for that.
Hon Barbara Edmonds: Is it the case that her decision to make significant cuts and cancel infrastructure projects is making the downturn worse than it needs to be?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: No. This year the New Zealand Government will oversee a record level of infrastructure investment. And I would also say to the member that it is difficult to take these questions seriously when only months ago, she was warning me that tax relief would be inflationary and that our Budget was too expansionary. She cannot have it both ways, members. She cannot both claim that we spent too much in the Budget and then a couple of months later say we should have spent more. Which is it? Would the real finance spokesperson for the Opposition please stand up.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Seeing as the Hon Barbara Edmonds talked about infrastructure projects being cancelled, does she recall and understand, and has she made her colleagues aware of how serious it was to have spent $1.2 billion on an infrastructure project called light rail in Auckland and not build one metre?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: The Deputy Prime Minister raises a very good point. It is something that I lament often when I think of the hundreds of millions and billions that were wasted on go-nowhere projects: light rail, three waters, the list goes on. And, on this side of the House, when we talk about investing in infrastructure, we don’t mean putting visualisations of trains on the front page of the Herald; we mean building things. [Interruption]
SPEAKER: Stop! Everyone just calm down.
Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. We’ve discussed a number of times in question time the use of patsy questions from Government parties to Government Ministers for the purpose of making a political point, and you have agreed previously that that sort of behaviour is not good for the decorum of the House. It comes as no surprise to me that some members were reacting to that question and that answer.
SPEAKER: Well, I’m happy that you weren’t surprised, but I’ve also said that it’s not inappropriate for the Government of the day to refer to activities of a previous Government in the context of the questions being asked, and that most certainly was. Is there another question?
Hon Barbara Edmonds: Is it the case that when there is a downturn in the economy and a growing output gap, Government action can help to smooth the troughs in the economic cycle, and does she not need to actively make it worse?
Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, there is no doubt that Government action can contribute to an economy’s fortunes. That is really clear to anyone who’s had to face a huge spike in electricity prices this year, who will reflect that, for example, a Government policy decision to stop oil and gas exploration has had some long-run impacts. At the same time, actions like introducing legislation which will allow for fast-track permitting and consenting of major growth-enhancing developments for New Zealand will have a material impact. This is a Government on the side of growth, on the side of development, that is removing red tape and doing everything we can to increase business confidence and investment.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Going from the Hon Barbara Edmonds’ question on infrastructure projects being closed down, what was the cost for the cycleway over the Harbour Bridge in Auckland costing $54 million and not one—
Shanan Halbert: What’s the cost of iReX cancellation?
Rt Hon Winston Peters: What’d you say?
Shanan Halbert: What’s the cost of iReX cancellation?
Rt Hon Winston Peters: You’ll hear about iReX shortly, but in the meantime it’s going to be the cycleway over the Harbour Bridge: did it not cost $54 million for not one metre being built?
SPEAKER: There’s no need to answer that question, because the question actually contained its own answer. Do we have another question, the Hon Barbara Edmonds? Then we go to question No. 7.
Question No. 7—Justice
7. Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National—Ilam) to the Minister of Justice: What actions is the Government taking to restore law and order?
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): The Government is taking many actions to restore law and order. Just this week, the sentencing amendment package was announced and introduced, Minister McKee and I appointed the remaining members of the ministerial advisory group for the victims of retail crime, and today we are making further progress to pass the Gangs Bill and Sentencing Amendment Bill.
Dr Hamish Campbell: How will the sentencing reform package contribute to the restoration of law and order?
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, the Government is concerned that in recent years, courts have imposed fewer prison sentences and, at the same time, the prevalence of violence and serious crime in our communities has increased. We will put more serious offenders in prison for longer to prevent them creating new victims, and, if they spend time in prison on remand, we will ensure that they have access to rehabilitation to turn their lives around.
Dr Hamish Campbell: How will the ministerial advisory group for victims of retail crime contribute to the restoration of law and order?
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, the ministerial advisory group for the victims of retail crime is moving at pace to develop specific proposals for the Government to consider as part of its plan to restore law and order, starting with options on how security guards and business owners can better protect themselves, and considering greater powers for security guards to detain thieves. The first proposals are due imminently.
Hon Dr Duncan Webb: When the Minister said in oral question No. 10 yesterday, “I frequently converse with the Attorney-General.”, was there actually specific consultation with the Attorney-General on the amendment inserting an offence of residing in a place where a gang patch is present into the Gangs Bill, or not?
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: The amendment went through the Cabinet process, and the Attorney-General is part of the Cabinet and was certainly consulted as part of that.
Dr Hamish Campbell: How will the Gangs Bill contribute to the restoration of law and order?
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: The Gangs Bill and the Sentencing Amendment Bill are expected to pass today. When it comes into effect on 21 November, the Gangs Bill will give police additional tools to disrupt gang activity and reduce their ability to cause fear, intimidation, and disruption to law-abiding New Zealanders going about their lives. This legislation is a significant step towards making our communities safer.
Question Nos 2 and 8 to Minister
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister): Point of order, Mr Speaker. You observed question Nos 2 and 8, both from the Green Party. There seems to be something quite unusual going on here, because instead of it being in Māori and then English, or in English and then Māori, they’ve mixed the two up in both cases as if it’s some sort of contempt for the proceedings and processes of this Parliament.
Chlöe Swarbrick: You’re triggered.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, read it and have a look. Why is it in one language and then the next, but then mixed up in both cases—or are you just confused, as usual?
SPEAKER: OK, the question was raised yesterday, as well, and where there is a direct quote being used that’s in te reo, you would expect it to remain in te reo in the translated language as it’s a direct quote. It would be odd to have a direct quote quoted—it would no longer be a direct quote.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Where’s that in question No. 8—where’s the exact quote in question No. 8?
SPEAKER: Well, I’ll tell you what: I’m not going to go into a question and answer session on these. I’ve just said that the question is acceptable; we go through them extensively before they come into the House.
Question No. 8—Social Development and Employment
8. RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: E tautoko ana ia i tāna kōrero “one of the challenges that they clearly talked to me about—that I agree with in terms of removing the minimum wage exemption—is the fact that a group of New Zealanders, who have significant challenges and would clearly produce less in an hour than someone else, may well be shut out of employment”; mēnā āe, ka pēhea tā te āwhinatanga utu, te hoatu tāpiritanga nei ki ngā kaituku mahi, e ārahi ki te korenga mahi mā ngā tāngata?
[Does she stand by her statement that “one of the challenges that they clearly talked to me about—that I agree with in terms of removing the minimum wage exemption—is the fact that a group of New Zealanders, who have significant challenges and would clearly produce less in an hour than someone else, may well be shut out of employment”; if so, how would a wage supplement that would provide a top-up to employers lead to shutting people out of employment?]
Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Yes, the minimum wage exemption supports a small number of severely disabled people—around 900. The majority of people covered by the exemption also receive the supported living payment benefit because they are deemed to be unable to work in the open employment market. The Labour Inspectorate grants these limited exemptions only if reasonable and appropriate, the wage is fair, and the employee agrees. The social enterprises who employ people on this exemption do so to give disabled people social connection and confidence through employment. Many have said publicly that the proposed wage supplement scheme would pressure their operating models and reduce their ability to hire disabled New Zealanders. As I said, these are social enterprises—they deliver a social service.
Ricardo Menéndez March: Can the Minister run through, step by step, how the Government topping up wages so that employers are no worse off put jobs at risk for disabled people?
Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Let me quote from the 2019 Cabinet paper where the wage supplement was proposed, to explain this to the member further: “A submission made by the MoreAble Network noted ‘Additional funding for a wage supplement would substantially alter their financial model and risk some employers already under financial pressure due to a lack of funding being forced to close’. They also highlighted the perceived risk of a wage supplement resulting in some disabled employees being worse off due to losing benefit eligibility.”
Ricardo Menéndez March: Does she accept that she is quoting outdated advice and that the wage supplement that she chose to remove would have looked more like a top-up for employers so that they are no worse off?
Hon LOUISE UPSTON: No. The unfortunate reality is the social enterprises who run these employment schemes provided advice to the previous Government that is consistent with their advice to the current Government—that they do not support the wage supplement because it would risk the opportunity for people to be in work.
Ricardo Menéndez March: How can she stand by that comment when she didn’t consult anyone, including disabled people, as part of the Budget process to prevent disabled people from at least earning the minimum wage?
Hon LOUISE UPSTON: As I said in the House yesterday, there were many opportunities, many visits over many years that I undertook with disabled people, their families, as well as the social enterprises that run these schemes. Unfortunately, the reality is that these social enterprises didn’t support the previous Government and they were very pleased to see the status quo maintained.
Ricardo Menéndez March: Is it true that the wage supplement would not have put jobs at risk, and, rather, that cutting the wage supplement was an exercise to cut costs to pay for tax cuts?
Hon LOUISE UPSTON: No. I don’t think I can make it any clearer. This was not about saving money; this was about saving jobs.
Question No. 9—Police
9. Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) to the Minister of Police: Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. Ko tāku pātai i tēnei rā ki te Minita mō ngā Pirīhimana o Aotearoa: [My question today is to the Minister for New Zealand Police:] Did he receive reports from Police on the Comancheros or any other gangs and their associates using gun ranges to practise their shooting skills; if so, what did Police report?
Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Police) on behalf of the Minister of Police: No.
Hon Ginny Andersen: Hmm, right—[Interruption] What assessment—[Interruption] What assessment did the Minister take before he and other Ministers approved the release of a discussion document that proposes to limit Police oversight of ranges and instead move to a system of self-regulation?
Hon CASEY COSTELLO: Sorry, Mr Speaker, I missed the first part of that question.
SPEAKER: Yes, so did I.
Hon Ginny Andersen: What risk assessment did he take before he and other Ministers approved the release of a discussion document that proposes to limit Police oversight of ranges and instead move to a system of self-regulation?
Hon CASEY COSTELLO: On behalf of the Minister of Police, I think we have traversed this subject in terms of the level of advice and risk assessments that have been done through the standard legislative process. But I think, to clarify or perhaps elucidate for the member, what has been proposed around the firearms ranges is to remove a duplication of reporting. The concern the member has raised repeatedly is about the sale of ammunition from firearms ranges. That will still be required to be reported, and we have total faith in Minister McKee, in terms of her knowledge in this space, and we are continuing to prioritise firearms safety.
Hon Ginny Andersen: Point of order. I believe—and over to you—that the point the Minister just made was that there is still a requirement for ammunition on ranges to be reported. The Order in Council that took effect on 28 June does exactly that: it no longer requires gun ranges to report the sales of ammunition on a range. So that point, from my understanding, is incorrect.
SPEAKER: What is the point of order?
Hon Ginny Andersen: That I want to know—the Minister has made a statement there that, from my understanding—
SPEAKER: Sorry, you can’t stand up and make a debating point and call it a point of order. Is there a point of order?
Hon Ginny Andersen: The Minister was incorrect.
SPEAKER: Well, that’s not a point of order; it’s a debating statement. I’m warning the member that wasting the House’s time with this stuff is not good. Ask another supplementary and we’ll move on.
Hon Nicole McKee: Speaking to that point of order—
SPEAKER: No, there is no point of order. So you’d be talking just because you want to, and I don’t want to hear from you. Can we have the question, please?
Hon Ginny Andersen: Is he aware—
Hon Nicole McKee: Point of order, Mr Speaker—
SPEAKER: You’ve now called a point of order? Can I ask you to make sure it’s a point of order and not a debating point or a rebuttal of a debating point.
Hon Nicole McKee: Certainly, Mr Speaker. The point of order that I wish to make is that the question being asked to the Associate Minister on behalf of the Minister of Police should actually be directed at a different Minister. That Minister has no responsibility for that.
SPEAKER: Well, I’m sorry, but you are a Minister in the Government, and the Government makes the decision about who answers the questions. So that is a terrible condemnation of the Government’s processes.
Hon Ginny Andersen: Is he aware—
Hon David Seymour: Point of order, Mr Speaker.
SPEAKER: It had better be a point of order, because, I’ll tell you what, the fuse is pretty short.
Hon David Seymour: Well, funnily enough, that’s precisely the topic, Mr Speaker. I think—
SPEAKER: Sorry, I didn’t hear that.
Hon David Seymour: Funnily enough, that’s precisely the topic. I don’t think a member who in good faith stands up to raise a point of order should be told by you, “I don’t want to hear from you.” I think we need higher standards of respect in this House, starting from you.
SPEAKER: Well, I’ll tell you what, that is not an unusual comment to be made from the Chair to members in the House.
Hon Ginny Andersen: Is he aware of Police advice on Nicole McKee’s proposed gun range changes, “We need to strengthen gang, criminal, and terrorist type risks that this repeal will cause”; if not, why not?
Hon CASEY COSTELLO: On behalf of the Minister of Police, yes, I am aware of the advice received from Police, and, as stated repeatedly, our priority is ensuring that gun safety is at the core of all decisions that this Government makes.
Hon Ginny Andersen: Is he aware of Police advice on the changes already made to gun ranges that highlight a loophole created where criminals can now purchase ammunition with no records being kept; if not, why not?
Hon CASEY COSTELLO: As alluded to in my previous answer, to sell ammunition from a firearms range, they have to be an incorporated society. If they are an incorporated society, they must still report.
Hon Ginny Andersen: How does he explain himself to front-line officers and their families when we have, potentially, guns being used by gangs on ranges, he has stood silent as Nicole McKee has removed Police oversight of gun ranges as well as ammunition sales, and has taken no action when his own Police advisers have repeatedly raised the alarm about the risks of gangs and gang members and criminals practising on gang ranges and accessing ammunition?
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order. The first answer that member got was “No.” Then, in this question, she premises it on the basis of potential gangs on ranges. Now, if that is the very basis of her question, that is a waste of Parliament’s time. Potential—it either did happen or didn’t happen, and she was told on question No. 1 that it didn’t happen.
SPEAKER: Thank you for that. Does the Minister have any response to that?
Hon CASEY COSTELLO: Yes, Mr Speaker, and I think the member has highlighted to this House why our gun legislation was in such disarray. An airsoft range is not a firearms range, and there has been no reporting of the fact that any Comanchero gangs—there has been no reporting of firearms ranges. And, as I have stated in the primary answer, the Minister has not received any advice on the reporting of use of firearms ranges and that the follow-on, as reported, was that private farmland was used for live firing, as that was reported in the media. Further to this, this matter is before the courts at the moment, and it would be inappropriate to expand further on the information on this matter.
Question No. 10—Women
10. DANA KIRKPATRICK (National—East Coast) to the Minister for Women: How is the Government seeking to improve the lives of New Zealand women and girls?
Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Acting Minister for Women): As we celebrate New Zealand becoming the first nation in the world to give women the right to vote on this day in 1893, I’m pleased to say that, 131 years later, our Government is very focused on improving the lives of women and girls. Alongside businesses, we’re prioritising the delivery of a gender pay gap calculation tool to help shine a light on equal pay, we’re increasing paid parental leave, and we have introduced the FamilyBoost payment to help meet the cost of early childhood education. Other key areas of focus for this Government include economic independence, increasing representation at all levels of leadership, educational attainment, and better health outcomes.
Dana Kirkpatrick: What is the Government doing to improve health outcomes for women and girls?
Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Earlier this year, we announced that free breast cancer screening will be extended to women aged 70 to 74. This will mean around 120,000 more women will be eligible for screening every two years. This change is expected to save up to 65 lives a year. This is in addition to a $6.3 billion funding boost to Pharmac over the next four years to widen access to important and lifesaving medicines.
Dana Kirkpatrick: How is the Government helping to protect women?
Hon LOUISE UPSTON: In addition to making New Zealand a safer place for everyone by restoring law and order, our Government is taking some specific actions to help protect women and girls. The Ministry for Women is working with Netsafe to create a support tool kit for workplaces who are supporting women in leadership positions, particularly in the public eye. We have committed to introducing legislation to criminalise stalking because we know that women are disproportionately impacted by this. It is a terrifying crime for victims that nobody should have to endure and we are sending a very clear message that it will not be tolerated in New Zealand, nor will any violence against women.
Cushla Tangaere-Manuel: Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. Ko taku pātai kei roto i te reo Māori. Ki te whakaaro tātou mō te kaupapa e kīia nei “mana wahine kaupapa inquiries” kei runga i te whārangi ipurangi o te Manatū Wahine, he aha ngā mahi a tēnei Kāwanatanga ki te whakapiki i te ora o ngā wāhine me ngā kōtiro Māori?
[Thank you to the Speaker of the House. My question is in the Māori language. If we think about the initiative known as “mana wahine kaupapa inquiries” on the webpage of the Ministry for Women, what are this Government’s actions to increase the health of Māori women and girls?]
Hon LOUISE UPSTON: As I outlined, some of the work that the Ministry for Women is doing around protecting women, about lifting educational attainment, that is for women equally, whether they are Māori, non-Māori, or any other ethnicity.
Camilla Belich: How does shutting down the pay equity task force and stopping work on pay transparency improve the lives of New Zealand women and girls?
Hon LOUISE UPSTON: As I said very clearly, we are looking at practical solutions, like the gender pay calculation tool, that make a difference today.
Dana Kirkpatrick: What work is the Government doing to reduce the gender pay gap for women?
Hon LOUISE UPSTON: In June, we announced the Government is working alongside businesses to develop a gender pay gap calculation tool, which will help ensure that women are being paid fairly. Under the previous National Government, the gender pay gap decreased from 12 percent to 9.7 percent in 2017. Unfortunately, since 2017, it has only moved down to an 8.2 percent gap. We have a strong history of reducing the gender pay gap in New Zealand, and our Government’s track record clearly shows that we are a party that is backing New Zealand women to succeed.
Question No. 11—Foreign Affairs
11. Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: Does the Government believe that the Israeli deadly sabotage by remotely detonated communication devices in Lebanon was wrong; if so, is this more evidence that his Government should recognise Palestine without further delay in support of rules-based order so that a wider war in the Middle East can be avoided?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister of Foreign Affairs): It would be inappropriate for me to comment on the specifics of these particular incidents while the details are still being established, but New Zealand is deeply concerned by any and all of the actions in the Middle East which contribute to an escalation of violence and instability. We repeat our call on all parties to exercise restraint to avoid a wider war.
Hon David Parker: When will the New Zealand Government recognise Palestine—not Hamas—given that many months ago, he said it was a question of when, not if, and, since then, Israel has resisted calls for a ceasefire, perpetuating the war the Minister himself has called an utter catastrophe, which has turned Gaza into a wasteland, and many other countries, including Ireland, Spain, and Norway have recognised Palestine?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I thank the member for that question because just overnight, on the question of Palestinian recognition, New Zealand voted to support a UN General Assembly resolution affirming our longstanding position that Israel’s presence in the occupied Palestine territories is unlawful.
Hon David Parker: Point of order, Mr Speaker. My question wasn’t about the legality or otherwise of the occupation of the West Bank; it was the recognition of Palestine.
SPEAKER: Perhaps if you could ask the question again, without losing any of your other questions.
Hon David Parker: Thank you, Mr Speaker. When will the New Zealand Government recognise Palestine—not Hamas—given that many months ago, he said it was a question of when, not if, and, since then, Israel has resisted calls for a ceasefire, perpetuating the war the Minister himself has called an utter catastrophe, which has turned Gaza into a wasteland, and many other countries, including Ireland, Spain, and Norway have recognised Palestine?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The reason why the overnight resolution that New Zealand voted for was mentioned is because it fundamentally signals our strong support for the two-State solution and an independent Palestine. It is a matter of when, not if, New Zealand will recognise Palestine Statehood, but to say, as some have said, that it must be evacuated in the space of one year—these unrealistic statements might be a sop to some people’s consciences, but people out there want real help, and that’s what we’re trying to give them.
Hon David Parker: Will he now instruct the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade to intervene in the South African actions before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) concerning the war, as New Zealand did in the ICJ proceeding concerning Ukraine and Russia?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: If the member had signalled that, I’d have come with a prepared answer, and I haven’t. I’ll get back to him on it.
Hon David Parker: Did he express any concern that US military aid is fuelling the war in Gaza when he recently met with US Deputy Secretary of State Kurt Campbell?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I’ve missed one word you said there.
Hon David Parker: I apologise for that. Did he express any concern that US military aid is fuelling the war in Gaza when he recently met with US Deputy Secretary of State Kurt Campbell?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The reality is that this conversation was private; nevertheless, those who are engaging in the provision of armaments—and all manner of countries are—yes, that was part of our subject. But it is not just one country—what about the others that are involved as well?
Simon Court: Does the Minister accept Israel has the right to defend itself from constant rocket and drone attack by Hezbollah across its northern border with Lebanon that’s displaced 60,000 civilians, killed a dozen children playing soccer, and what limits, if any, does the Minister consider should apply to small democracies like Israel defending itself from constant terror attack?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I thank the member for his question. New Zealand recognises Israel’s right to defend itself, but Israel must respect international law, including international humanitarian law, and the price of defeating Hamas or others cannot be the continuous suffering of so many Palestinian civilians.
Hon David Parker: Will he undertake to this House that when he’s in New York next week, he will express New Zealand’s concern, either in the UN or directly to the US, that US military aid is fuelling the war in Gaza and undermining wider support for the rules-based order?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Let me tell the member that I’ve yet to write the speech, but if we were to even mention one country involved, we’d mention all those involved and not just pick on one and try and excuse our conscience that way. I don’t think that in any way advances the sincerity of New Zealand’s position.
Question No. 12—Mental Health
12. KATIE NIMON (National—Napier) to the Minister for Mental Health: What recent announcements has he made regarding the roll-out of a school-based mental health wellbeing programme in the Hawke’s Bay and Tairāwhiti regions?
Hon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for Mental Health): I was pleased to have recently announced in Napier that the Government has committed to the sustainable funding and roll-out of school-based mental health support in the Hawke’s Bay and Tairāwhiti regions. Mana Ake is a school-based mental wellbeing programme that, following Cyclone Gabrielle, will help primary and intermediate - aged school children learn skills such as coping with change, managing emotions, building positive relationships, and overcoming grief and loss.
Katie Nimon: How will this announcement benefit young people in Hawke’s Bay and Tairāwhiti?
Hon MATT DOOCEY: That’s a good question. I’m committed to increasing access to mental health and addiction support. I’m pleased that once this programme is fully rolled out, around 25,500 students across more than 130 primary and intermediate schools across the Hawke’s Bay region will receive school-based mental health support. I’m of the opinion that one of the key barriers to accessing timely mental health support is our workforce, and that is why, as the Minister for Mental Health, I’m committed to growing the workforce. This programme offers a diverse workforce, including a mix of clinical and non-clinical staff such as psychologists, social workers, counsellors, teachers, and peer support workers.
Katie Nimon: How do programmes like Mana Ake deliver better mental health outcomes for young people in need?
Hon MATT DOOCEY: Strengthening the focus on prevention and early intervention is one of my key priorities. We know that getting in early gives the best opportunity. School-based mental health programmes such as Mana Ake help our young people to build resilience and coping strategies and help set up young New Zealanders to maintain better mental wellbeing throughout their lives.
Katie Nimon: Why is the Government needing to invest in this programme when it was only set up last year?
Hon MATT DOOCEY: Good question. This programme was announced in May last year without any sustainable funding, and faced being wound back and stopped by December if further funding was not found. The Government has committed to sustainable funding for the programme which will ensure these crucial services remain intact and available for young people needing mental wellbeing support. With the trauma that Cyclone Gabrielle and other weather-related events have inflicted on these communities, it beggars belief that these services were announced by the last Government with no funding.
Ingrid Leary: Why hadn’t he already personally stepped in to stop the hiring freeze impacting the mental health front line, as he said he would yesterday, when there has already been widespread reporting and evidence of a hiring freeze on mental health nurses in Southland, hospital commissioning and specialist services, and in psychiatry?
Hon MATT DOOCEY: Oh, it’s very clear: people shouldn’t believe Ingrid Leary’s comms points.
Ingrid Leary: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I think you probably anticipate my point of order. I think that the member—
SPEAKER: No, I can’t. I’m waiting with bated breath.
Ingrid Leary: The member has implied that I have been dishonest, and I think that is, under Speaker’s ruling—[Colleague points to Speaker’s Ruling] Thank you. Sorry, I can’t read it. What is it? Ha, ha!—43/4, and I think he should withdraw and apologise.
SPEAKER: Well, we’re dealing with matters around this at the present time. I can let you know that the statement was not a direct questioning of the member. It was, effectively, an instruction to other people. But I will look at it further and I always take advice. [Receives advice] Yeah, good, well, I’m not sure what that means. So can I undertake, to the member, to have a look at it and come back on Tuesday. Thank you.
Bills
Gangs Bill
Sentencing Amendment Bill
Third Readings
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): I present a legislative statement on the Gangs Bill and the Sentencing Amendment Bill.
SPEAKER: That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the parliamentary website.
Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: I move, That the Gangs Bill and the Sentencing Amendment Bill be now read a third time.
Until the committee of the whole House stage, these bills were progressed through the Gangs Legislation Amendment Bill. This is one of the headline pieces of work that came out of the National Party election manifesto, and I’m pleased to be bringing it to this final stage of the House, and I acknowledge all the hard work that has got us to this point, including by the criminal justice policy team and by the Parliamentary Counsel Office drafters.
I want to expend my thanks to the Justice Committee and its chair, James Meager, for their thorough consideration of the bill following public submissions and for the advice they gave to refine and strengthen the legislation. The bill is one part of our plan to restore law and order in this country because New Zealanders deserve to feel safe in their communities.
Gang membership has increased by 51 percent over the past five years, alongside violent crime increasing by 33 percent. We need a firmer response. Gangs peddle misery and intimidation throughout our communities, and this Government is determined to give police and the courts the powers they need to deal with them.
Just one in every 400 New Zealanders are identified as gang members, yet they are linked to nearly one in five serious violent crime offences and around one in five homicides, around one in four kidnapping and abductions, and one in four of all crimes caused by illicit drug offences. A very small section of our society is associated with and linked to a very significant part of the overall serious violent crime in our communities. Let’s get real about the impact of gangs in our community. They are causing mayhem on our streets and no effort to reduce serious crime will succeed unless we make progress against gangs.
The passage of these bills will mean the implementation of four new policies to target gangs. First, the Gangs Bill introduces a comprehensive gang insignia ban outlawing the display of gang patches in public places at all times. This extends the current ban, which applies only to Government premises and will help diminish the status of gangs and reduce the fear and intimidation that patches cause in our community. Since the bill was introduced, I’ve worked to strengthen this policy so that the justice system can effectively respond to anyone who repeatedly defies the patch ban. If an offender is convicted three times within five years, a court order will be made against them, banning them from owning any gang insignia for the next five years and preventing them from continuing to reoffend. It will be uncomfortable for them.
Secondly, the bill creates a new dispersal power which police can use to stop gang members from gathering in public. A dispersal notice will require the group to leave an area and not associate in public for seven days. This tool will enable the police to disrupt gatherings that can escalate into criminal behaviour. Gangs gather in public places in order to create fear in our communities and to intimidate law-abiding Kiwis. Time and again, we’ve seen criminal gangs block roads, harass the public, and disrupt the lives of ordinary citizens going about their business peacefully. The public should no longer have to put up with this sort of behaviour.
To ensure the safety of officers, police can issue the dispersal notice at the time of the gathering or the police can decide it would be more appropriate to issue the notice at a later time. The notice will apply for the next seven days, preventing the group from reconvening again in public. We recognise there needs to be exemptions, and the dispersal notice will not apply to public meetings of immediate family members or where people need to associate for lawful purposes such as work, education, or healthcare. There’s also an ability to apply to the Commissioner of Police for an exemption for other lawful purposes.
The third thing the bill does is create non-consorting orders. This order is issued by the court and will require specified people not to associate or communicate for three years. Crimes like the importation and sale of illegal drugs, of course, require coordination and planning. Police often know exactly who the criminals are but are powerless to prevent them from planning and committing these crimes before it’s too late. We believe the police should be able to get on and act on the intelligence they have and apply to the court to stop known gang offenders from associating or communicating with one another, to keep our communities safe. As with dispersal notices, our bill recognises that some association or communication may be required for lawful purposes. Exemptions are provided for immediate family and lawful purposes such as work, education, and healthcare. The court can also consider applications for exemptions for other lawful purposes.
The Sentencing Amendment Act will allow courts to more easily consider a person’s gang membership when sentencing them for crime. This will ensure the courts are not unduly limited in using gang membership as an aggravating factor. I expect this will lead to tougher sentences for gang members and send a strong message that the unlawful activities of gangs will not be tolerated.
The Government’s putting gang members on notice. Our message to them is clear: your behaviour is not tolerated and Parliament is determined to give police extra tools to disrupt your illegal activities.
I look forward to the commencement of this bill in November so that law-abiding Kiwis can enjoy the summer with less risk of violent crime, drug dealing, and general fear, disruption, and intimidation, which gangs have gotten away with peddling for far too long. I commend this bill to the House.
Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Madam Speaker. Labour opposes this bill for a number of reasons, but the most invidious part of this bill—apart from the way in which it progressed through this House—is the prohibition on a person having gang insignia in a private residence, and I really want to touch on that today.
The idea of a private residence being a particular sanctuary that should only be invaded by the State in the most necessary of circumstances is one of the most longstanding principles of our law. It was in 1604 that the famous quote was said by Lord Justice Coke, “The house of every one is to him as his castle and fortress”—400 years ago. That theory, that principle, that fundamental constitutional principle, has flowed through many jurisdictions. It was in 1890 that the Justice of the US Supreme Court said, “The right to be let alone [is] the most comprehensive of rights, and the most valued by civilised [people].” To put it in more plain language: it was Mrs Patrick Campbell, actual name Beatrice Rose Stella, who said “I don’t care what they do, as long as they don’t do it in the street and scare the horses.”—a friend of Oscar Wilde.
Now, that captures it, right? This is actually about what goes on in the street and what goes on in private. We get the intimidation in public places issue; it’s real. We agree that it needs to be addressed, but no one is intimidated by a gang patch in someone’s top drawer. Or to use a more antipodean reference, Darryl Kerrigan: “It’s not a house, it’s a home. A man’s home is his castle.” Great legal document, the movie The Castle—a little bit of levity but it’s a serious point that what we have here is a highly invasive right.
To hear the Minister stand up in question time today and say with a straight face that he hadn’t talked to the Attorney-General about this invasion of fundamental rights—he should hang his head. I hope the Attorney-General raises it with him. There is a document here dated 7 March which says, “Make sure this briefing is shared with the Attorney-General.” Even though the document says to share it, he hasn’t talked to her about it. I find that a dereliction of this Minister’s duty. He should be ashamed of himself.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: She can read.
Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Don’t be too sure. That’s the fundamental objection to this bill. And let’s just be clear: the Minister knows full well what’s wrong with this, because he had a briefing in 2023. He hasn’t given it to me yet—but, hopefully, he will soon—but it’s referred to where it says, “Previous advice outlined particular concerns of the bespoke search power.” That is to say, the ability to enter someone’s home and look for a gang patch, even though they haven’t worn it in an intimidating manner outside. Then in the footnote, just tucked away in the footnote, it says this: “It would represent a shift in the purpose of searches that is inconsistent with the rule of law, moving them away from being tools for collecting evidence of criminal offending.” That’s right, because the police will use the power to enter someone’s home to look for a gang patch to give it a shakedown.
The document itself again—that very same document, and I’m reading from a briefing of the Ministry of Justice of 7 June 2024—makes it clear what the dangers are. If you’re pursuing an offence—someone’s got a firearm, they’ve run into a house, then you’re looking for that firearm—but if you’re just wondering whether they’ve got a gang patch that they’re not entitled to, you’re going to shake down the entire house. And you know what? You might find some other stuff too. That is a recipe for abuse of power. That’s what the Ministry of Justice is saying there. That Minister of Justice, his job is to protect rights and to not give the Minister of Police and the police everything they ask for, because they ask for a lot. He has just buckled, and what we see—without the Attorney-General having been consulted by him—is a real and significant erosion of rights in this country.
I know that a lot of people will say, “It’s OK, it’s only gang members.” Well, there’s two things to say about that. Human rights are called human rights because they’re universal, and we’ve got to be very cautious about saying, “Well, we don’t like that group of people. They’re not the kind of members of society I like, so they shouldn’t enjoy the same rights as everyone else.”
The second thing I’ve got to say about that is that it’s not just those people, because those people live in houses with others, other people who may not even know that the order’s in place. Let’s be honest, these searches are not conducted on notice at 3 o’clock in the afternoon. They’re conducted without notice, and if it’s a gang house, it won’t be one officer and it won’t be two officers; it will be many officers, because that’s what you have to do when you’re dealing with risky situations. It says, “This will come at a high cost to whānau and communities in which gang members reside. Searches can be intrusive, disruptive, and traumatic for children and other whānau who reside with the person who is subject to the search.” That’s what’s going to happen. Whilst some of our homes may be our castles, there’s a whole section of our community where they now are not, where that fundamental principle of the sanctity of a private residence has been utterly undercut and undermined.
We get search, right? A right to search, sometimes without a warrant, is needed. But what is the proportionality here? What is the risk of someone’s gang insignia—a bandana, a ring, a jacket—sitting in a wardrobe? Where is the harm? Where is the victim? There isn’t one. There’s no harm and no victim. It’s essentially a tool for harassment of gang members so that they give it up. Now, I get that we don’t want gang membership—that’s all good—but this kind of invasion that intrudes into other people’s spaces is just an absolute overreach.
One other thing: we think we’ve got this gang member, this bad person, and we’re looking for that person’s gang patch. Oh, no, it just so happens that the nephew is staying in the spare room and the nephew has gang connections. It’s not even the same gang. So, by association, because uncle has extended hospitality to his nephew and his nephew has gang connections, by that association, by giving shelter to that other person who’s a member of a gang, you’re guilty. That is frankly unbelievable. It’s so easy to dismiss this by saying, “They’re gang members”, but the fact of the matter is that gang members belong to communities and the communities here are harmed.
I haven’t touched on so many other points in respect of this bill, and I’ll leave those to my colleagues who are more than able to talk about them, but the bill itself is not workable. I mean, these dispersal notices—the idea that we’re going to disperse gang members and email them their notices by way of service is frankly laughable. This bill is largely window dressing, and the idea that a flag on a boat is prohibited but a flag on a house is not is incoherent. This bill is so poorly put together, so unprincipled, that it makes no sense. Yes, we’ve got to do something about gangs, but addressing the causes and harms of gangs is what we should be doing. Waving our hands and making noises about gangs in this kind of offensive way serves no purpose whatsoever.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just before the last speaker I omitted to say the question is that the motion be agreed to. The question is that the motion be agreed to, and I call Tamatha Paul.
TAMATHA PAUL (Green—Wellington Central): Kia ora, Madam Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to make our thoughts known about the Gangs Bill. What I want people to understand about this bill and about the Government’s attack on gangs is that it is simply a marketing exercise. It is a PR strategy to look tough on crime but does nothing to make our communities tangibly safer. It does nothing to address the reasons why people join gangs in the first place, and does nothing to reduce people’s reasons as to why they join gangs. It will not increase public safety, but it will result in people being put into prison, and for longer, and to increase the length of those sentences due to their affiliations with gangs. The main point that we want to make, and the main point that recent research and evidence has made over the years, is we cannot arrest our way out of the gang problem.
Let’s start with who are in gangs in the first place, because that’s something that we never talk about in this House. The contributing factors to people joining gangs in the first place are simple—three things: poverty, trauma, and colonisation. The reason that I say that is because many people join gangs because they genuinely believe that that is their only pathway towards having any money. Those who join gangs often come from the most highly deprived communities where there aren’t job opportunities, where the only opportunity that you have is actually to be on the benefit because there are no jobs in those communities. If you’re faced with the task of having to put food on the table and pay your bills, sometimes the only option you might have is to join a gang. You need only to watch Dave Letele’s series on gangs, which is on TVNZ for free, where he talks to gang members and often they talk about the driving factor that poverty played in them joining gangs in the first place.
The second reason that people are in gangs is due to the trauma and the abuse that they experienced as children. We know that because 80 to 90 percent of gang members experienced abuse in State care. We know that because we had the report—the largest royal commission inquiry in the history of this country—looking into abuse in State care that said that 80 to 90 percent of those gang members have experienced harm at the hands of the State.
The other reason that people join gangs is, of course, the impacts of colonisation. The reason that I say that is because 75 percent of gang members are Māori. We understand the drivers of gang membership: it’s poverty, it’s trauma, and it’s the impacts of colonisation. That is backed up in the regulatory impact statement on this bill, and I want to read a quote: “A significant portion of gang members have also been victims of violence, poverty, and neglect, including family violence, intimate partner violence, and drug or alcohol abuse. While these elements exist in all communities, gangs serve as a concentration zone for individuals with a higher risk of exhibiting anti-social behaviour. These individuals tend to live in the most deprived communities and have high rates of unemployment.” We need to look at the reasons why people feel that they need to join gangs in the first place. If we want to reduce people joining gangs in the first place, if we want to reduce that gang membership, then we have to look at the reasons why people join them in the first place.
Now, the other reason that we don’t support this bill is because it completely ignores people’s human rights. I completely agree with my colleague the Hon Dr Duncan Webb that human rights are afforded to people by virtue of being human beings. Just because you are a gang member or just because you’re in prison or just because this House has designated you as being less worthy of human rights—you are still entitled to your human rights. This bill completely flouts human rights.
Let’s talk about how it does that. The freedom of expression: when has it ever been acceptable—and I think this is good for the ACT Party to listen to this, as a party that claims to champion human rights and the freedom of expression and the freedom of speech—for the Government to tell people what they can and can’t wear? There’s no precedent for that, yet this one creates that. The freedom of peaceful assembly: if there are a group of people who are together, gang members or not, if they’re not committing a crime, then why can’t they be together in a public place? Again, the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure. This bill means that more people will be subject to unfair and unreasonable searches.
Now, you look at some of the changes that have been made to this bill throughout the process, like clause 8A, which talks about the possession of gang insignia and simply possessing a patch within your home. That is a massive Government overreach for the Government to determine what you can and can’t have in your home. That has nothing to do with public safety. How are the public even meant to be intimidated by something that they can’t even see and are not even impacted by?
This bill, in my eyes, is about persecuting Māori, because not all gangs have been treated equally in this bill. We just heard about that at question time: what about white supremacists? What about swastikas? What about other white supremacist symbols? They haven’t been prohibited as part of this bill, but they cause fear and intimidation. Where’s their mention in this bill? There is none, because they’re not mentioned in the gang list as part of this bill, and the gang insignia doesn’t include some of the most offensive symbols in this country.
I want to mention something that was in the regulatory impact statement on this bill, again, and the advice on this bill says, “Targeting gangs will affect Māori and their whānau the most … As is reflected in the research, gang members are disproportionately young, male, live in more deprived communities, and as noted in the overview three-quarters of those on the National Gang List are Māori. Any policies that impact gangs will therefore disproportionately impact Māori.” We know that international application of some of the powers in this bill—for example, the non-consorting orders—have been used disproportionately against young indigenous people, as I have made that point repeatedly throughout this bill process.
We’re worried about the police’s ability to actually implement this bill, but we’re also worried about the police’s ability to be able to distinguish what is gang insignia and what isn’t gang insignia. I made this point earlier this morning: if they see a bulldog, as associated with the Mongrel Mob, but it’s actually a Canterbury Bulldogs T-shirt, are they going to think that that’s a gang insignia? If they, say, see a fist, which is associated with Black Power, are they going to think that that is a gang insignia when it could be something completely innocent and unrelated such as a Black Lives Matter T-shirt or a workers’ rights T-shirt? If they see a skull on a T-shirt and that person is Māori, could they assume that that was a Head Hunters logo? We feel like the bill hasn’t been clear enough about what constitutes gang insignia.
To summarise, we need to stop treating lawmaking as a PR exercise. If the Government is serious about reducing gang membership, they need to look at the research and the evidence as to who makes up gang members and what the drivers of that membership are and address those, as opposed to having this bill, which will only result in more people being in prison—more wasted human potential—and which will not make our communities any safer. Thank you.
MARK CAMERON (ACT): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I always enjoy the opportunity to debate these sorts of issues in the House as we come now to the third reading of the gangs legislation bill and Sentencing Amendment Bill. Many questions I actually want to pose to the Opposition members. The Green member was talking about Māoridom and the suffering that happens therein by virtue of association with gangs. Māori by population make up a million people in New Zealand—a million; I’ve just googled the stats—so, essentially, just close to one-fifth.
By virtue of the gang numbers as quickly as I could find it on dear old Google, there’s 5,000 of those that are Māori and disproportionately Māori women, not Māori men. Fifty-three percent of Māori men are in prison—53 percent of those that are in prison are Māori men, I beg your pardon; 67 percent of women. A million New Zealanders that happen to be Māori are not in prison. I think we’re having an ideological conversation here today about breaking the law, intimidating law-abiding New Zealanders who just want to go about their daily lives.
Now, I live in Northland, quite often venture into the Far North—awesome place. I spend a bit of time in Kaikohe—at certain times of the day that’s a pretty scary proposition for certain people because there is a significant gang presence. Please, I ask this House to indulge in common sense. For a lot of New Zealanders, that is frightening. By virtue of the nature of being in a gang, we can have a wider conversation about the societal drivers of young Māori men disproportionately drawing down on wanting to be in a gang. We understand what they are; the member rightly pointed it out: poor employment, domestic violence perpetrated often against them. But why are we not talking about the victims of crime? It’s so often, to the member’s remarks about Māori and Māoridom—if I pronounce it correctly—the victims are disproportionately Māori.
Go to some of our poorest regions in New Zealand who have the very issues that the member raised—poor employment, job losses, fractured employment at the very best, a lot of issues with domestic violence, a lot of issues with poor policing by virtue of resources; the myriad of reasons that we find ourselves in societal decline in these areas where gangs have run amok—I don’t think, as we pass this legislation into law, that anyone worth their salt can genuinely come into this House and say that we don’t have a gang problem. We’ve got a gang problem. We’ve got a problem with some of our young people who happen to be Māori choosing that as a pathway to a future. That is a nonsense. I don’t pick winners and losers based on race; I pick people. They either want to be in there or they don’t. They break the law or they don’t.
We have a prison system that reconciles those that have broken the law and those that haven’t. Yes, the member makes some very salient remarks about the societal drivers of gang membership and joining them, but let’s be real here: there’s a million Māori people and overwhelmingly they’re not in gangs. They’re bloody good people going about their lives, adding to New Zealand society, the tax take, the overall wellbeing of New Zealand as a whole. They’re not gang members, they’re not out intimidating people on motorbikes, flipping the bird, and ultimately making people’s life pretty miserable.
There’s a better opportunity and it is employment. Let’s find these people jobs. Let’s get our young Māori men and women in schools—keep them in schools. We can have a wider conversation around that. But this bill, to do with gangs, is addressing the core drivers of gang intimidation. I think, at risk of over-litigating the point, this bill is addressing that runaway problem and the victims of crime and the victims—and the dear old New Zealander that just wants to go about their daily lives without being intimidated. That includes the million Māori people that aren’t part of any sort of gang affiliation. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
JAMIE ARBUCKLE (NZ First): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on the Gangs Bill and the Sentencing Amendment Bill. Firstly, I’d just like to speak on the Sentencing Amendment Bill. It has always been New Zealand First’s policy to see it as an aggravating factor to be a gang member while you’re being sentenced, so today seeing that implemented is something that we have campaigned on and is now being implemented into legislation.
This also sends a strong message to gang members that we’re serious about cracking down on gang numbers. It gives police the tools that they need to deal with gang behaviour. The other side of the House doesn’t believe that is a problem, but intimidation by gangs is a serious matter, and we heard through the election campaign how people are fed up being fearful of gang behaviour, how they are feeling unsafe in their communities and while they’re at home and, when they go out to participate in public, are having gangs around—their intimidating behaviour is absolutely unbearable for people, it is harmful, and it’s causing misery in our communities. This bill actually does something about that.
It’s also about the broader impacts of gangs and the gangs’ crimes—they’re bringing in drugs, the crime that they’re causing in our communities. It is about the behaviour of gang members, and it is about their involvement in organised crime. This is the important part to this: in 2017, there were just over 5,000 registered gang members; by 2023, we had over 8,600 members, a 50 percent increase—a 50 percent increase—because of that side of the House. That side of the House failed to keep gangs under control. They poured millions of dollars—taxpayers’ dollars—and gave it to gangs. Their way of fixing gang behaviour was to give them money. No wonder people were joining gangs, because it was a free money tree.
Restoring law and order is about this side of the House and this Government—and New Zealand First will restore law and order. It is about gang patches and banning those gang patches. It is about dispersal notices and giving the tools to police to actually move gang members on. It’s also about non-association powers, to actually say to gang members, “You are not associating with each other.”—to actually stop it.
What I want to come back to is something that was said in the House in the second reading. It was asked, “Who would you rather be in a dark alley with: a policeman or a gang member?” For this side of the House, this is the news that you need to hear today: there is going to be less gang members in alleyways, because they’re going to be locked up, because police have got the tools to deal with that. Just for the record, I would rather be with a policeman in a dark alley any day of the week than a gang member, and on that, I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Right, the next call is a split call. I call Takutai—
Hon Willie Jackson: —the 501s, you fool!
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Excuse me while the Speaker’s talking, and we won’t have personal—
Jamie Arbuckle: Point of order—point of order.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yeah, I know what the point of order is. The member will stand, withdraw, and apologise for calling an individual a fool, please, Mr Willie Jackson.
Hon Willie Jackson: I withdraw and apologise, Madam Speaker.
TAKUTAI TARSH KEMP (Te Pāti Māori—Tāmaki Makaurau): Tēnā koe e te Pīka. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. I want to start with: I’m not intimidated by a gang patch—I’m not intimidated. Our marae open up space for whānau. We’re not afraid, and we do that on a daily basis. It is not a space that a bill can determine who and what can come on to our marae. It is our tino rangatiratanga that we determine what and who can come on. We set the parameters, we set the rules, and everybody abides by that. But that’s how we behave on a marae. This is not something that we do lightly, either. We have kaumātua and kuia that uphold those tikanga. You may laugh about it, but it’s not a laughing matter on our marae. Our tikanga is the way we behave. We will uphold that.
This bill puts our whānau in a position where they are judged, where they are made to feel like they are not valued, where they are made to feel like they are nothing. Our people are not nothing. Our people wear a gang patch. Actually, do you know what we do? We actually have a kōrero. We actually have wānanga with them. We actually bring them into a space and say, “What is happening? How can we awhi you to make better choices? What programmes can we develop to help?” That’s what we need to do. That’s a solution. That’s what we do through Whānau Ora, through our marae, through Māori providers. We wānanga, we hui with whānau. I want to encourage that.
This bill is going to put our whānau backwards. This bill will put our people even further backwards in what they’re doing today. It’s not going to help us at all. Our people deserve to be treated better. Like I said in question time, why is it that swastikas are not part of the legislation? Why is it that Black Power insignia is named and a swastika isn’t? Why aren’t white supremacist gangs named? Why is it just those of us who are brown? I don’t understand that. It’s unfair for our people to be treated that way.
We will never agree to this bill. We absolutely do not support it. It’s our right to ensure that our marae, our tikanga are not wavered so that they can make the decisions that they need to for our people. Kia ora.
STEVE ABEL (Green): Kia ora, Madam Speaker. I’m pleased to speak to this legislation, which we disdain. We visited Waikeria Prison on the day before the koroneihana of the now late King, and we had a very moving welcome there by members of the iwi unit—the Te Ao Marama Unit—who shared some of their life experience.
In the heart of the Waikato—and this speaks to the context of the legislation—it’s impossible for us to not consider that there’s a relationship between colonisation and the disenfranchisement of Māori. Of course it would be a deep denial of our history and the facts of our present day to do that. In the heart of the Waikato—the land that was invaded and confiscated by raupatu and the atrocities committed—it’s hard to not observe that the descendants of the people from whom the land was stolen are now locked up in a prison built by the Crown, who stole the land, on the land that was stolen. The prison is built on the land that was stolen. When we consider that deep history of disenfranchisement, of theft, of raupatu, of atrocity, it gives us some context for the ongoing disenfranchisement of Māori—the 80 to 90 percent in State care who are now members of gangs.
They had no safe place in our society. Maybe they were removed from an abusive domestic situation—maybe they were rightly removed—and then they were put into a State care situation and they were abused again. They had nowhere to go, and perhaps the gang was the only refuge on this earth where they felt they could be safe, and they went to that refuge and they found that they could get a home there. They had a place to exist—the despised of our society—and now, through this legislation, we’re coming for them there too. We’re going to say, “You must disdain and disabide yourself and remove yourself from this one place where you had refuge.”—this community that happens to be a gang; that place that was better than nowhere—“You need to leave that now too.”
“And as much as you have done it unto me, one of the least of my brethren, you have done it unto me.”—this is the saying from Matthew; the saying that you go and clothe the naked and you feed the hungry and you visit those in prison. I wonder if our Christian colleagues on the other side of the House have fed the hungry, have visited those in prison, have sought to reach a hand across to understand what is the experience of these people who are in gangs—have approached them not with aggression, not with vengeance, but with compassion and with empathy.
Hon Karen Chhour: Did they approach their victims with compassion?
STEVE ABEL: They are themselves victims, and you know it. You know they are themselves victims, and you are victimising victims. You’re re-victimising people by displacing them.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please don’t use the word “you”, Mr Abel. Thank you.
STEVE ABEL: Pardon me, Madam Speaker. What I would say is that I remember a time in my lifetime when a more enlightened, in this regard at least, leader of the National Party shook hands with members of the gangs, visited them on marae, and on his death, Sir Robert Muldoon had Black Power performing a haka at his funeral. He approached the question of those who are the most rejected by our society with compassion. He approached the question with compassion and, until such time as we are able to do that, we will not solve this problem, as my colleague Tamatha Paul pointed out.
I attended the funeral of King Tuheitia. It was a very moving and profound experience and, frankly, a privilege to be a New Zealander and to be able to attend that and be made so welcome by the iwi of Waikato-Tainui. There were gang insignia there on the road—multiple gang insignia—attending the hui alongside uniformed police, and they were there to honour the Māori King. Under this law, would those police be obliged to arrest those gang members in their insignia paying tribute at a funeral? Will funerals be exempt from this? Will marae? The principle that a man’s home is his castle is enshrined to Māori both in article 3 of the Treaty and in article 2, tino rangatiratanga, the sanctity of Māori resources and taonga. This legislation breaches both of those principles, both the English law that my colleague Duncan Webb spoke about and the principle of tino rangatiratanga.
This law is an affront to everything decent that we as a society should stand for, and it is exactly the sort of lockjaw, right-wing rubbish that we do not need in this world.
JAMES MEAGER (National—Rangitata): I’d like to quote from an article published on stuff.co.nz on 17 March 2021, and it goes like this: “Two men who went cruising the streets looking for … rival gang members, ended up shooting an innocent, random stranger and killing him. … They pulled up next to two other men before spotting Samiuela … Tupou at Ōtāhuhu’s Seaside Park. They chose Tupou only because of the colour of his clothing. [They] shot Tupou three times. Tupou was only 21 years old and worked as a machine operator to support his parents. He was not a gang member or even affiliated with a gang … He was murdered only because he chose to wear blue that day.”
The Opposition say they’re not intimidated by gang patches. Well, I wonder if they’ve asked the victims who have been kidnapped, raped, and tortured by patched gang members whether they are intimidated by gang patches. The Opposition say they’re not concerned about that, but they are concerned about the impact that the removal of gang patches will have on the gang members. None of them has asked what those gang members have done to earn those gang patches, and I’ll tell them. I’ll quote from a Radio New Zealand article from 11 February 2014: “A court has heard how the man accused of murdering Christchurch woman, Mellory Manning, barked like a dog and gave Nazi salutes as he attacked her during an initiation to the Mongrel Mob gang.” That’s what we’re talking about.
We must eradicate gangs and we must eradicate the causes of gangs. This bill isn’t the whole solution, but it is a step in the right direction. I commend the bill to the House.
Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour): We’re here talking about this incredibly important kaupapa. I acknowledge the kōrero of the previous member James Meager. It is a rightful kōrero and it’s something that many of us have dealt with for many, many years. However, we cannot go along with this type of legislation.
I’ve been involved with gangs most of my life, in terms of working with them at the coalface. Some of them have been my friends. Some of them have been relations. A number of them have let me down big time—big time—and my mother, who was 20 years on the Parole Board, sadly, had a lot of them coming around to our home, working with them, counselling them, working through the complexities of their lives. When we see gangs, we just don’t see gangsters, Mark. We don’t just see gangsters; we see our people, we see our whānau. And as much as it disgusts the House—and believe you me, Mr Cameron, it disgusts us too—we can’t walk away from them. They are part of us; they’ll always be part of us. To walk away from them and just come up with a gang patch law, that’s not going to do the business. The complexities of how so many of our wider whānau end up in prison demand more from us as a Parliament than just a nonsense gang legislation amendment Act.
The findings of the royal commission on abuse in State care suggest that 80 to 90 percent of gang members were victims of abuse—victims of abuse! Now, this Government, to their credit, has been very supportive of those victims, and we saw that as we had a bipartisan day in the House. You can’t have that type of day, you can’t have that type of commitment, and then the next day want to imprison half of the Māori population in gangs. It just doesn’t work like that. If we’re serious as a Parliament about removing the social harm caused by gangs, we would be looking to stop our kids being abused in State care in the first place.
This legislation isn’t an ambulance at the bottom of the cliff. Many of our people are just seeing it as a prison cell at the bottom of the cliff. I find it insulting when we ignore the reason why people join gangs at the same time as the ACT Party is stripping section 7AA from Oranga Tamariki. That clause will save our kids in terms of abuse in State care and joining gangs in the first place. It was a clause well thought out by Te Pāti Māori and the National Party. Bill English and others saw the strength of 7AA in terms of saving our kids’ lives. This has been such a contentious kaupapa with te ao Māori, but what does this Government do? Remove 7AA. This heavy-handed approach is doing no good in terms of our community. We’re just pandering to the “Let’s be tough on crime brigade”, rather than finding actual solutions. It’s the usual war on crime strategy that has caused more misery than it has healed.
Look, no one has time for organised crime, but what’s being mooted here is simply a justification by the Government—who love, sadly, using Māori as a punching bag—to storm a tangi to remove a gang patch. That’s what we’re talking about. Christopher Luxon told the country during the Paddy Gower election debate that he would demand 500 heavily armed police to storm a gang funeral just to remove a gang patch. I mean, how ridiculous is that? So few people have been to tangi. I meet Pākehā people—and it’s not their fault at all, but a lot of people have not been to our tangis and that. They don’t understand the tikanga. They don’t understand the process. They don’t understand that when gang members walk in, we get irritated too, but we don’t turn away our own whānau. What is the Government suggesting? They’re going to storm the tangi and rip out people? It’s just a nonsense. And Māori police officers no doubt will be at the forefront of that. This is what Christopher Luxon said.
This gangs legislation amendment will not make New Zealand safer, as far as we’re concerned. It will just greenlight over-the-top stunts like removing these patches from tangi or, even worse, as Duncan Webb said, allowing people’s homes to be invaded. I mean, how ridiculous is that? Has the Government and have police not learnt anything from what’s happened in the past with regards to police actions? We should never forget the Tūhoe raids of 2007, where police breached our people’s rights, where we had guns on school buses—you have to go back if you have not seen the Tūhoe raids, and you will see how our people’s rights were breached. And now we’re talking about people entering homes to get patches. Who are they going to send into the people’s homes? The Māori police officers, like they did in Tūhoe? That’s not progress. We’re talking about hurting people, hurting whānau.
We empathise with the Government in terms of the crimes going on out there, but there are better ways to do things. Our people who’ve been out there are working with you right now. I want to salute some of those people. Denis O’Reilly, who Stevie Abel talked about—Denis O’Reilly would work with this Government at the top of a hat. He’s the guy who worked with Rob Muldoon. He’s the guy who worked with the National Party. He’s the guy who worked with me. He’s the guy who’ll work with Tama Potaka and anybody on that side to turn things around. I want to salute Denis O’Reilly today. He’s also very clear that this getting-rid-of-patches law will be of no use and will just cause further social disharmony. The way forward is not to rip the patches from Denis O’Reilly and his team, but to work with them and find work with them and do the type of mahi we’re talking about.
I want to salute Eugene Ryder, who I think appeared before the select committee, who is working with his people at the coalface to turn their lives around. Eugene Ryder will say the same thing as Denis O’Reilly, that just taking these patches off gang members won’t make things a lot different. They’ll just wear different colours. I salute Eugene Ryder for his work.
I salute David Letele, a good friend who I went to school with, who was a mob boss who did 10 years, who today works in the Grace Foundation, has been with the current police Minister, Mark Mitchell, who was surprised at the type of work that David Letele does in the communities. This guy’s got no time for gangs. This guy will look them in the eye and say, “Take that patch off.” This guy is saying very clearly that this patch law will not work. We should be listening to wonderful leaders like David Letele. I’m talking about David Letele senior; I’m not talking about David Letele junior, who does some wonderful work too. When you have a man who was the mob boss, who did 10 years in prison, whose life now is absolutely committed to turning around people’s lives, has no time for gang members, you should listen—you should actually listen. He knows what works. What works is mahi. What works is knitting communities together. What works is giving people a sense of purpose, not just playing tough guy.
I want to salute Martin Cooper today. As we know, he does wonderful work at Takutai’s marae at Manurewa. He’s been a kaumātua for them, former Black Power boss on my paepae at Ngā Whare Waatea—turned his life around, spends his days working with young people, turning their lives around. He is absolutely opposed to this law. I also want to salute one of our wāhine out there, Paula Ormsby, who’s fabulous with her work down in the Tainui—you know, really worked well with us. Again, she understands how fragile this law is. And finally, Fa’afete Taito, or Fete, who’s a former King Cobras boss.
You see, not all former gang members are bad. In fact, so many of them have turned their lives around. I’m so proud of the work they’re doing. We have to work alongside these people. We’re working against them at the moment. This Government is working against them. I salute all those people. This is the wrong legislation that we have in front of us today. Kia ora tātou.
CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour): It gives me great pleasure to rise on this third reading of the Gangs Bill and the Sentencing Amendment Bill. The Opposition tells us we don’t understand the gangs and they tell us, “Let’s address the causes of gangs.”
Hon Willie Jackson: Have you ever met one?
CAMERON BREWER: Willie Jackson says there are better ways. Well, frankly, I don’t want to understand gangs, because we know enough. We know enough about the misery that they peddle in our community. This is a great day for New Zealand. This is a great day for New Zealanders. They will be watching and they will be very happy with the direction of this Government, that it’s delivering on this promise. This Government is banning all gang insignia in public places because New Zealanders deserve to feel safe in their communities. We are cracking down on gangs. That’s what the New Zealand public wants us to do and that’s what we are delivering today. I commend the bill to the House.
Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour): Thank you, Madam Speaker. One of the most irritating parts of this debate, not only today but throughout this process, has been on one hand listening to the thoughtful contributions from lived experience, from learned exploration of the ideas, from people who know other people or who are those people who have tried to conceptualise a problem and actually figure out what it means and what we can do about it; and, on the other hand, hearing from the contributions from the other side of the House that are vacuous, silly, lightweight, and pathetic, including some of the contributions that have been made here today. All due respect to the member from the ACT Party, but his opening spiel told us nothing about the problem. You’re on the wrong track, buddy, so just, yeah, think about it.
We’ve heard here today about the fact that gangs are a problem, and of course they are. Crime is a problem. No one’s sticking up for gangs. The pathway that people end up in gangs is also heartbreaking—no one’s disputing that. The huge amount of work that people need to do to turn lives around and to make society better for everyone is commendable—no one’s disputing that—but ripping the gang patches off the backs of people is not going to solve the problem, and yet this is the solution before us according to the Government. All talk, no trousers. I agree with my Green colleague: it’s a marketing, PR exercise. It’s vacuous, it’s invalid, and it’s infuriating that we’re sitting here today.
We know it’s a flawed process. We know that there were even last-minute amendments that were brought into the House at the last minute, even though discussions were being held as early as March. We know, therefore, that that indicates that the Government and both Ministers, most certainly, are scrambling around, trying to find solutions, trying to plug gaps because they’ve looked at this from the wrong way. They’ve looked at this as a marketing exercise, instead of something with substantive value, and they’re making it up on the hoof. We know that there are impractical enforcement obligations around this. We talked before throughout this process about the fact—how are police going to monitor this? How are police going to enforce this? Some of the contingencies and some of the scenarios when you allow yourselves to think through it properly are just utterly ridiculous. We know it’s not supported by evidence.
We’ve had gang patch bans and gang bans and things like that in New Zealand before. We’ve talked about it in prior readings when we looked at the Whanganui example. And the most incredulous thing about that was actually asking Michael Laws, who was mayor at the time, “How did that work out?” He did a whole speech about how fabulous it was and we should do it, we should do it, we should do it. When I asked him a question, the result of the answer was that the gangs just left town. It’s like, “Cool. So where are they going to go when the gang patches are banned over all of New Zealand?” That is not a solution.
We’ve heard from both Ministers—the Minister of Justice, and we’ve heard reference from the Minister of Police, as he’s referenced this in media and in other sort of fora that this is all about an effective deterrent—that it’s all about putting gang members on notice; it’s all about telling gang members, “Just don’t be in gangs any more if you don’t like this piece of legislation.” If that’s not the most inane, ridiculous thing you’ve ever heard, I don’t know what is. I’m not saying there’s not value in signalling to the public. I’m not saying there’s no value in having expectations and saying, “Here’s a signal for the direction that we’re going.” But you’ve got to back that up at some point with some actual legislation and some actual direction.
Mr Meager referred to the fact that this was not the only thing that was going to happen in the fight to eradicate gangs, but it was a step in the right direction. Well, it’s not much of a step. The purpose it is serving—the only purpose it is serving—is to signal to people who are too busy working two jobs and don’t pay any attention to what goes on in this House that the National Party and the National Government are somehow tough on crime and tough on gangs because they’re going to police people’s uniforms. It’s ridiculous. I am livid at the fact that we’re having to go through this process in such a sloppy way with these last-minute amendments, but yet here we have it. I do not commend this bill to the House.
PAULO GARCIA (National—New Lynn): The Gangs Bill and the Sentencing Amendment Bill are only part of a suite of legislation that is meant to restore law and order in New Zealand. The situation with law and order in New Zealand, a majority of reasonable people living throughout New Zealand would agree, is a situation that has slipped down to very difficult, scary, and uncomfortable levels. The Gangs Bill and the Sentencing Amendment Bill, therefore, attack one specific portion of law and order, and seek to provide police with the tools to deal with gangs, to disrupt and crack down on gang activities and gang crime, to reduce gang numbers—which have grown tremendously over the past five years—and to stop gangs from gathering and associating and maintaining a threateningly high profile, which spreads fear and discomfort and anxiety in local communities. I commend this legislation to the House.
Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much. That was a short speech, wasn’t it? We are pretty loud and clear on the fact that Labour does not support this bill for a number of reasons, but I think it’s appropriate here at the third reading that we highlight the appalling process that this bill has gone through. As far as the public interest, the people of New Zealand, also the media who have been quite interested in finding out answers here—they’re really interested to understand at what point in time and what was it that caused Paul Goldsmith to buckle and for the Ministry of Justice to cave and to give Police what they asked for back in March.
Back in March, Police were concerned about the ability for this law to be enforced. They raised real concerns that there would be insufficient front-line capacity to enforce legislation that required police to remove patches from gang members. That was very clear in the submissions process that we heard on this bill. We had the Police Association who specifically stated that there was a risk to the trust and confidence in New Zealand Police if we made a law in this House that was then unable to be enforced by a front-line police officer because there would be insufficient numbers or capacity capability to do that work.
The Police’s advice to the Minister of Police and the Minister of Justice back in March was: “Well, if we sort of had this threat that was big enough, a really good penalty or something we can hang over them, we reckon we might get a better chance of some kind of compliance in areas where we know there’s not going to be a good show of getting compliance.” But that was ruled out. It was thought that it would be breaching the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act; it wasn’t going to be a good idea to invade somebody’s home to go in, and the penalties for having a gang patch under your bed or in your top drawer would be up to, I think, five years in prison is the maximum penalty attached to that—having a gang patch in your own home: five years. That was ruled out; it wasn’t going to happen.
Then, when the select committee had finished its work and reported the bill back, second reading, we came to the committee of the whole House stage, and lo and behold, it appeared back. We had this change without any ability for members of the New Zealand public to submit on this change, without even the ability for a New Zealand Bill of Rights Act section 7 vet to be tabled and to have that information available. It was immediately put into this bill. I’d love to know—I would just love to know—the sheer drama of it, of what happened. What made “Goldie” buckle? We just want to know. It would be interesting to think, you know, was he threatened? Was he worried? Did he get a report from somewhere? What made him change his mind? It would be fascinating to know what went on there, because he hasn’t really given much away at all.
Hon David Seymour: Point of order, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, as a longtime friend and colleague of Mr Goldsmith, I’d like to draw your attention to Speakers’ rulings that say it’s unparliamentary to imply that a member’s made a decision due to fear or a lack of courage. That’s simply unparliamentary.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you for the point of order, but I know some of these questions were asked particularly this morning during the committee of the whole House stage. What I also will note is that it is actually unparliamentary to call somebody by a nickname rather than by their full name. I do note for Minister Seymour’s perspective that those questions did come up this morning.
Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: Thank you, Madam Speaker. In terms of this process, we’d already had this last-minute introduction at the committee of the whole House stage, which was pretty unusual in terms of good lawmaking or parliamentary process.
But it gets worse, ladies and gentlemen—it gets worse—because when we’d done the committee of the whole House stage and it’d been voted on, it got hauled back again this morning. We haul the bill back again before the House because we find that, if a gang member is driving their car and they display a patch—I’m assuming not while driving, because that would be really dangerous, but somehow they display it on the back of the car—that, then, was potentially not covered by the legislation, the way it was drafted. [Issue with Chamber clock] I get to go on all night, is that right? We clarified this morning that it doesn’t apply to yachts, and it’s good that the Government were clear on that—oh, no, it does apply to yachts; it applies to yachts as well. If you had a Mongrel Mob member who had a really big yacht with a sail on it, if they put Black Power, Mongrel Mob, Head Hunters, Comancheros, you can’t do that on a sail; definitely out. The change we saw this morning was on no display of a patch in a vehicle. That’s been tidied up as well.
I do wonder what else has been missed out, because if they’ve just found out this at the 13th hour and jammed it in at the end, are there other things that we will find out about this bill and how its operational, that the way it’s actually going to be implemented will have significant problems for police to be able to enforce? That is our main problem with this bill. It is one of these ideas that sounds really strong on the campaign trail but the devil is going to be in the detail of how New Zealand Police enforce this legislation. That is evidenced in the scrambling we’ve seen from the Government to try and fix the holes that are starting to show in this bill now, and it has been a real shambles.
I would like to spend the remainder of my speech in talking about the fact that this bill is largely cosmetic—is largely cosmetic. When you have a bill that is focused upon external things such as a gang patch, it begs the question: what is happening beneath the surface? What are the real drivers and causes of organised crime and gang membership in New Zealand? That’s where this bill fails to even get near to those questions. What is sad, I find, is that we have learnt from the royal commission inquiry into State care that one of the main causes of young people ending up in situations where they join a gang is because they grow up in homes where they’re subjected to unacceptable ongoing levels of family violence, and sometimes sexual abuse, as well; that we have young people who have violence normalised as part of their daily lives, and young people who don’t have hope when they’re thinking about what their future here in New Zealand holds for them.
One of the main services that locate those young people and provide those families with support and assistance is Oranga Tamariki. They go into those homes and they provide counselling services; they provide advice; they support mums and dads and aunties and uncles to have better parenting skills, to assist them to bring up their children in their own homes and to help them have more opportunities in life. What we have in this Government is a Minister responsible for those areas who has said on record that she will only fund those services once those children are in State care—“Nothing more, nothing less”. If those members opposite who have gone quiet now would like the real reason for what grows gang members in New Zealand, the real reason for what grows gang members in New Zealand is the fact that there is a lack now which will embed these issues further into New Zealand society—a lack of support for whānau who are struggling.
What concerns me even more, in terms of addressing the root causes of gangs, organised crime, and growing gang membership in New Zealand, is the fact that we now have a police service who will be more focused on taking these gang patches off people than raising the flag when young people and their families are in situations of family violence, because there’s now only a high threshold when there’s real risk to life that, if someone calls 111 after 5 o’clock at night, they’re going to get any help in New Zealand.
We had a plan just for mental health, not family violence, that was going to take five years to have the workforce in place. Well, that’s happened right now; the plug’s been pulled already. We know there are families out there right now with family violence situations who are asking for help who are not getting that help. That is really concerning for the next generation of young people and the opportunities that lie before them, because the one thing we know about family violence is what stops reporting is when someone has reached out for help previously and not received that help. That is the main reason why 20 percent or less of family violence currently gets reported in New Zealand. This Government has made decisions and funding cuts that will make that 20 percent reporting rate even lower in New Zealand.
If this Government hopes to fix or resolve or remedy the problem of organised crime in New Zealand by driving down reporting for family violence and cutting the services to young people who require assistance and help in their family situations, then what they’ve, effectively, done is prove that this bill is actually consigning another generation of young people with less hope and far more chance of joining gangs. That is sad. That is sad, because this is a Government focused on the cosmetic. They want to look good on the telly for two seconds but they couldn’t care less about what happens in the suburbs of New Zealand that they don’t have to deal with or front up about because they don’t want to know about the ugliness in the shadows of our community; they are far more interested in being able to point to a gang patch and say they took it.
RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini): Madam Speaker, this evening we’ve been having a philosophical conversation about the real drivers of what leads people to gang membership, and all of these conversations are very interesting and very true, to a great extent, but unfortunately, my neighbours in Takanini don’t have the luxury of sitting around having a philosophical debate about what leads people to join gangs when they’re being intimidated by the brazen, antisocial, and anti-lawful behaviour taking place in our patch. Six years of philosophical conversations, what did it lead to? It led to increase in violent crime by 33 percent; 51 percent increase in gang members over the last five years. This is about helping our neighbours in our patches feel safe. We commend this bill to the House.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the Gangs Bill and the Sentencing Amendment Bill be now read a third time.
Ayes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 55
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6; Tana.
Motion agreed to.
Bills read a third time.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: I declare the House in committee for further consideration of the Education and Training Amendment Bill.
Bills
Education and Training Amendment Bill
In Committee
Debate resumed from 18 September.
Part 1 Amendments to principal Act (continued)
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The House is in committee for further consideration of the Education and Training Amendment Bill. When we were last debating this bill, we were debating Part 1, which is the debate on clauses 4 to 62A, “Amendments to principal Act” and Schedules 1 to 3. The question again is that Part 1 stand part.
Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): Thank you, Mr Chair. New section 212ZH, inserted by clause 40, basically exempts sponsors—the people who will be running these charter schools—from the provisions of the Official Information Act. We spent some time at the select committee discussing this. The trouble is, it’s not at all clear why this provision is in here and what the bill’s authors hope to achieve by it.
There are two obvious concerns here. One is that a group of schools who are funded entirely by taxpayers’ money, funding students who are there to receive their education, some of whom may not have any real choice about being there, are no longer going to be covered by the Official Information Act. It is, I think, as the Chief Ombudsman said at select committee, almost a sort of constitutional principle in New Zealand that public entities that are spending public money are covered by the Official Information Act. There’s a real question about the lack of accountability for taxpayers’ money.
I’d be interested to hear from the Minister: what is the principle of public policy that this exemption is based on, that schools that will be spending $153 million of taxpayers’ money aren’t accountable under the Official Information Act? I would also like to invite National Party members this afternoon to express a view on this or ask a question about this in this debate. Is this a principle of public policy that they are comfortable with?
I also have my doubts about whether New Zealand First, when it comes down to it, are comfortable with the provision in this bill because based on things that various New Zealand First MPs have said in the past, I suspect they may not be happy with it.
The second issue that I would like the Minister to comment on is why create this inequality where the students at charter schools and their families will not be able to avail themselves of the Official Information Act? Their rights are restricted in this respect and it’s particularly relevant because we know, and any MP in this House who works in the community, including electorate MPs, will know, that it’s not uncommon for students and their families to fall out with a school. It doesn’t always have to be something as serious as exclusions and expulsions; there are all kinds of disputes.
Currently, public schools in New Zealand have to, under the Official Information Act, release the documentation that shows the basis of decisions that they may or may not have made. Now, in this respect, this provision is setting up an inequality that significantly disadvantages students and their families at charter schools, and that seems to me to be very difficult to justify. We didn’t hear in all of the discussions at select committee anything from the Minister or officials that shed light on this, and I would be very interested to hear the Minister’s explanation now.
I urge the Minister and this committee to support Jan Tinetti’s amendment that would create a new paragraph in new section 212ZH that would, in fact, apply the Official Information Act to a sponsor if they are performing their duties and functions and powers in relation to the charter school contract.
Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Associate Minister of Education): Well, I’ll very quickly address the issue in new section 212ZH. It is true: charter schools are exempt from the Official Information Act (OIA); so are most early childhood education centres. You know, the Opposition has been in Government for the last six years. If this was really so terrible, they should have exempted early childhood education centres or at least added early childhood education centres receiving taxpayer money with young children in their care to the OIA. But they didn’t, and the reason for that is that charter schools and other suppliers to Government can be accountable to supply the service they receive taxpayer money for through a contract, which charter schools will.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. Before I pick up on what the Minister just mentioned before, in terms of the Official Information Act—this is clause 40; new section 212ZH—we are now coming to the crux of the process of charter schools. And this is an incredibly substantial section, to the point that we’re going to beyond “Z”. There is still a lot of material to cover, and I’ll be very explicit in terms of which areas to cover. It would be disingenuous, otherwise, to consider that we have explored all of Part 1 at this stage.
Now, going back to what was mentioned—a couple of things—and just to touch on some of my Amendment Papers, previously we heard Camilla Belich talking in terms of students enrolling and the transitional phase of students going from a converting school into a new school. I would like to draw the Minister’s attention to my Amendment Paper 91. That is an amendment to new section 212K which says that, unless the secretary is happy with the arrangements being made for the student or for the family—if they have decided not to go to a converting school—the conversion date needs to be adjusted. The reason for that is we don’t want to have a situation where these students are being placed in limbo without a new school to go to and, at the same time, the school that they were from, which was a State or State-integrated school, has completed their conversion. With this amendment, we’ll also be making the relevant changes to the date in new section 212L(5)(o). That’s the first Amendment Paper I would like to speak to.
The next part is what the Hon Jan Tinetti mentioned, in terms of the direction by the Minister for schools to convert. Now, what is quite interesting here, in terms of new section 212G, is that the Minister only needs to take advice from the Authorisation Board, but then it’s also the Authorisation Board that approves it. The Authorisation Board directs the Minister to say, “This school should convert” and then they send the application and the Authorisation Board formalises or approves it, which then would create this Ouroboros of a circle, where they kind of do the same thing. My recommendation is Amendment Paper 87, where it shouldn’t actually be the Authorisation Board that the Minister takes direction from or consults with. It should actually be the school board, school community, school staff, and students, because they are the ones who are most affected by a transition or by a conversion. The fact that school boards, communities, school staff, and students do not get told at all, are not part of this consultation process, when there’s a direction seems weird. I would invite the Minister to consider that amendment as well.
Now, coming to the one area that I would like to discuss when it comes to curriculum, I appreciate what the Minister said—that we want to see flexibility in terms of the curriculum. But the first thing, when it comes to curriculum—and having been, again, someone who dealt a lot in terms of programme accreditation through New Zealand Qualifications Authority (NZQA), which I’m sure the Minister has some experience of as well—it is absolutely crucial for our qualifications authority to be aware of the kinds of qualifications that a charter school needs to be undertaking. Now, if they are internationally recognised, like the International Baccalaureate or GCSE or NCEA, that’s fine; it’s already covered. But if it is a programme or curriculum that the school itself develops, it needs to go through the accreditation process. My Amendment Paper for new section 212I suggests that NZQA should be considered on the matter of curriculum, as set out in new section 212I(2)(c). That’s another thing for the Minister to consider.
Also, on the subject of curriculum, I’m noticing that, while the school is exempted from the national standard and curriculum in general, they’re also not mentioned at all in terms of the health curriculum. I would ask the Minister to consider incorporating the health curriculum—this is section 91 of the principal Act—and incorporating charter schools into that as well. We heard from one of the previous speakers, Shanan Halbert, that this is going to be really important—[Time expired]
CARL BATES (National—Whanganui): I move, That debate on this question now close.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Members, this debate has gone on for some time. I’ll be looking for only new material from here on.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. There is still a lot of new material, for sure. In fact, I have an amendment on pretty much every single subsection of clause 40, so if the Minister would like to provide some clarification or if other members would like to speak on my amendments, please do so. We have not heard from the Minister regarding his take on these amendments. So, to the Minister, if the Minister could provide some clarification or some of his thoughts around my amendments that I have mentioned, that’ll be appreciated.
The other thing, when we’re looking at this particular section and when we’re looking at the Authorisation Board component and who is able to apply—so we’re going to the beginning bit of clause 40. This is new section 212F(1)(b)(ii), inserted by clause 40. This is a new section that has not been covered previously. One of the requirements is that it only requires one or more members of the school community, with the support of the proposed sponsor, for a converting school to convert.
Now, this is really interesting, because one would argue that one additional person from the community is too low a threshold. Again, when we’re looking at the school boards, there are a minimum of three parent-elects on any given school board and up to a maximum of seven. My Amendment Paper—this is Amendment Paper 86—would adjust the number one to three, taking into consideration that I’m not even asking for the maximum number here of seven. I am asking, simply, for a minimum threshold of at least three people in the community who are happy to vouch for the sponsor, for there to be the process following the case of a converting school.
That is not a huge ask, so I would like to know from the Minister: why was one chosen? Why was one deemed a sufficient threshold from the school community? I would seriously ask the Minister to consider readjusting that to three. Now, moving on to the next Amendment Paper, Amendment Paper 88—
Grant McCallum: Getting desperate.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: They are all Amendment Papers and I am free to speak on my own Amendment Papers. The Amendment Papers, in terms of conversion, say that the Minister can direct a school in terms of poor performance. However, one of the issues with that is, as we have seen in overseas examples, the ministry, or in this case, for example, the UK equivalent of the Education Review Office, would then go in and deliberately give a bad review to a school, which will trigger a forced conversion. What I’m saying here is not that that is a situation that is going to present itself here, but what Amendment Paper 88—my amendment—is simply saying is that the Minister may not direct a State school to convert into a charter school on performance grounds without first giving the State school all reasonable opportunities to make improvement needed to remain as a State school.
I think this is really, really important, because, again, there are no provisions in here on any of those kind of things, I think particularly when it comes to the fact that the Associate Minister has not clarified whether he has been given dedicated authority by the Minister to also be directing charter schools or directing State or State integrated schools to convert. This sort of clarification is also really important. I will leave that for the time being, but there have been a number of Amendment Papers that I would like the Associate Minister’s advice on.
Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Associate Minister of Education): I have to admire the member for his persistence in small matters, and will try to address as many of them as I can now. The gist of it seems to be about people being consulted in the conversion process and who initiates it and who’s involved. Just about all of his points relate to that. For example, he talks about new section 212L(5)(o), inserted by clause 40, changing the date that a school converts in case a student does not wish to attend a charter school in its new form. They would still have time to enrol in another school with the current time frame, so I think that would be, frankly, a redundant change to make and something that we have considered and thought of.
There’s an amendment to include the board of trustees of a State school before converting, much as there was one about consulting more members of the community. I think what’s really important to recognise is I think it’s new section 212I(2)(f), inserted by clause 40, that actually requires the Authorisation Board to consider the amount of community support. This is really, really key, that you’re not going to see the Authorisation Board convert a school when there’s widespread opposition for it to do so, because it would be impractical for the school to operate in that circumstance, not to mention making the policy the Authorisation Board is committed to very unpopular. Once you consider how this practically works and how much community support you need, not just in practical terms but required by the legislation, most of those concerns melt away, as does the need for the Amendment Papers that Mr Xu-Nan has put up.
I think I’ve actually—oh, the other thing was about the health curriculum. Well, that’s part of the New Zealand Curriculum. Charter schools, of course, do not have to use the New Zealand Curriculum, just as some State schools and independent schools use a different curriculum as we speak right now. Again, it would seem a strange overreach to be overly prescriptive on that for charter schools.
Hon JAN TINETTI (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. Because the Minister has talked about new section 212I, inserted by clause 40, I just want to ask a further question around that.
Minister, you talked about the Authorisation Board, and it’s under new section 212I(4). It talks about “In the case of a converting school, the Authorisation Board must also take into account the following matters” and it talks about the level of the support from the school community. This has caused quite a bit of angst in the community, and it’s coupled with the one that I talked about just before lunch. I know, Minister, you didn’t get the opportunity to answer the question that I had just before lunch, and that was about the Minister’s direction and the ability to direct to become a charter school. The community is seeing together those two and they are concerned about the ability for the Authorisation Board to say, “Oh, yeah, what’s the percentage of the community that don’t want this charter school in place?”, and to be quite liberal with their views around that.
I wondered, Minister, whether first of all, going back to that question before lunch—that question was around that ability for you as Minister or the education Minister to direct that school—how much of an influence is that over the Authorisation Board? I’d really like to have an answer to that—the concerns that the community has that that’s actually taking away their choice of the fact they don’t want to become a charter school, and in what circumstances would that happen. Because that has never been made clear during this whole process.
The question that I also have now is around that community support. I have an Amendment Paper up that actually talks about inserting a new part that says, “The Authorisation Board must not approve the conversion of a school into a charter school without a clear indication of support from a majority of the school community.”, which makes it very clear. In the legislation, in this bill as it stands at the moment, or in the drafting of this bill, it is not clear. I wonder whether there would be some ability to be able to make that clearer at this point. I see the two coming hand in hand and those are the questions that I have for you at this stage, Minister.
Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Associate Minister of Education): The member asks really a continuation of the theme raised by the Green member, and it is: can the legislation somehow codify what support is?
I think an important thing to draw members’ attention to is that the Authorisation Board is actually responsible for the ongoing monitoring and assessment of the operation of charter schools. The thing that’s going to be in their mind is: can this work? This House could specify a level that is deemed to be sufficient and that could become the subject of judicial reviews in both directions, but it might be more practical to recognise that what this legislation really does is it devolves the decision making to a group of people who are accountable, who are putting themselves and their professional reputations—very senior professional reputations; you’ll have seen the appointments the other day—on the line with this, and I think trusting their judgment is better than the House trying to micromanage or specify.
I see another amendment that the Minister has put forward, tabled this morning, suggesting that mana whenua through local iwi authorities and hapū be consulted separately from the rest of the community. Again, I think that’s redundant because those groups are actually all part of the community and we should never say otherwise.
TIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki): I move, That debate on this question now close.
TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Kia orana, Mr Chair. Thank you. This is the first opportunity I’ve had to take a call on this bill in committee stage, and I want to cover an area that I don’t believe has been covered as of yet, and that’s the views of our Pacific community when it comes to Pacific education. When this bill, just prior to lunch, was being debated by the committee, my colleague Camilla Belich did touch on this issue of a State school that was seeking through a process of conversion—that’s a situation where, for example, a school that might be zoned; there is an opportunity for someone who lives in that particular community that might in some circumstances be the only school that they’re able to attend.
The Associate Minister of Education, in his response to that—basically, Minister, you indicated that “Well, that’s happened for a wee while, and, you know, there’s a whole process around charter schools that those in that community would form the view that the charter school was the best way to go, the approval process to one side.” But it does limit the ability for members in that community to have any other choice if they are zoned for that school, and it may be a situation where the particular nature or specific special characteristics of the new charter school are at direct odds with a particular community of interest. In this particular case, I’m referring to our Pasifika community, who may take issue with a particular charter school but, as the Minister has said, I think, it would be the only option that is available to them.
Now, when we look at new section 212T, that does provide an opportunity for a charter school to refuse a new student, but that is tied to the issue of the question of enrolment. My question is about, actually, not a new enrolment but, effectively, a conversion opportunity for someone who was a student at a school that was a State school that was now going to become a charter school. They have no other options because of where they live, and they are zoned for that school. If there is a family situation—and I speak about our Pacific community, who are diametrically opposed to the particular issues or philosophy of a particular charter school. What opportunities are there for that particular aiga to ensure that they continue getting an education that meets the needs of their particular family?
Now, I know that there is an opportunity for the ministry to provide a direction to enrol, but this is about a situation where it is a conversion opportunity, there are no other options—how is that family, under this legislation, going to be able to effectively have that element of choice?
Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Associate Minister of Education): First of all, I’d note that Pasifika origin - New Zealanders have really embraced charter schools in the past and continue to do so. I think of Sir Michael Jones, Pacific Advance Secondary School; I think of Sita Selupe at the Rise UP Academy. Yet I don’t believe it’s ever right to say that all Pacific people think or believe the same, so it’s not necessarily true that a school would be antithetical to Pacific people, because Pacific people actually have a wide range of views.
What’s more, I think it really speaks to some of the contributions that’ve been made earlier that I’ve responded to. People have said, “Well, perhaps if a majority of the community were in favour of a school, then it should be able to convert.”, but I would take the opposite view that it is up to the Authorisation Board, as I’ve stated—and I’m now being repetitive—to make a judgment of whether there is community support. Of course, if there really were a group of people who were, as the member suggested, diametrically opposed and unable to be accommodated by the new charter school better than they were accommodated by the existing State school, then I think that would be very strong grounds for them not to approve the application.
TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): I move, That debate on this question now close.
A party vote was called for on the question, That debate on this question now close.
Ayes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Tana.
Motion agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 106 and the tabled amendment be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Tana.
Amendments agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendments set out on Amendment Paper 112 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Tana.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendments amending clauses 4 and 59 and deleting clauses 5 and 55 set out on Amendment Paper 113 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Tana.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendment to clause 4 set out on Amendment Paper 114 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Tana.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendment to clause 7 set out on Amendment Paper 115 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Tana.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendment to clause 14 set out on Amendment Paper 117 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Tana.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendment inserting new clause 34A set out on Amendment Paper 116 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Tana.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendment deleting clause 46 set out on Amendment Paper 118 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.
The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s remaining amendments amending clauses 35 and deleting clauses 43A to 45 set out on Amendment Paper 118 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Tana.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The Hon Jan Tinetti’s tabled amendment deleting clauses 35 and 46 is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee. The Hon Jan Tinetti’s tabled amendments deleting clauses 44 and 45 are out of order as being the same as previous amendments. [Interruption] The voting is conducted in silence.
The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendments to new section 212B in clause 40 set out on Amendment Paper 85 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Tana.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendment to new section 212F in clause 40 set out on Amendment Paper 86 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Tana.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Hon Jan Tinetti’s tabled amendments to replace subsection (1) in new section 212F and delete new section 212G in clause 40 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Tana.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendment to new section 212G in clause 40 set out on Amendment Paper 87 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Tana.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendment to new section 212H in clause 40 set out on Amendment Paper 88 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Tana.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendments to new section 212I in clause 40 set out on Amendment Paper 89 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Tana.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Hon Jan Tinetti’s tabled amendments to amend new section 212(4) and (5) in clause 40 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Tana.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendments to new section 212J in clause 40 set out on Amendment Paper 90 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Tana.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Hon Jan Tinetti’s tabled amendment to insert new subsection (4)(a) in new section 212K in clause 40 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Tana.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendments to new sections 212K and 212L in clause 40 set out on Amendment Paper 91 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Tana.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendment to new section 212L in clause 40 set out on Amendment Paper 92 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Tana.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Hon Jan Tinetti’s tabled amendment to replace paragraph (e) in the new section 212O in clause 40 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Tana.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendment to new section 212O in clause 40 set out on Amendment Paper 93 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Tana.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendments to new section 212O in clause 40 set out on Amendment Paper 94 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Tana.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Hon Jan Tinetti’s tabled amendment to replace paragraph (l) in new section 212O in clause 40 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Tana.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendments to new section 212P and 212Q in clause 40 set out on Amendment Paper 95 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Tana.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendment to new section 212Q in clause 40 set out on Amendment Paper 96 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Tana.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendments to new section 212T in clause 40 set out on Amendment Paper 97 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Tana.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Hon Jan Tinetti’s tabled amendments to new section 212R in clause 40 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Tana.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendments to new sections 212T, 212V, and 212W in clause 40 set out on Amendment Paper 119 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Tana.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Hon Jan Tinetti’s tabled amendment to insert subsection (8) in new section 212T in clause 40 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Tana.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendments to new section 212U in clause 40 set out on Amendment Paper 98 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Tana.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendments to new section 212V in clause 40 set out on Amendment Paper 99 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Tana.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendment to new section 212W in clause 40 set out on Amendment Paper 100 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Tana.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendment to new section 212Z in clause 40 set out on Amendment Paper 101 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Tana.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendment to delete new section 212ZCA in clause 40 set out on Amendment Paper 102 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Tana.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to delete new section 212ZCA in clause 40 is out of order as being the same as a previous amendment.
The question is that the Hon Jan Tinetti’s tabled amendment to replace new section 212ZCA in clause 40 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Tana.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendments to new section 212ZD inserting new section 212ZFA in clause 40 set out on Amendment Paper 103 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Tana.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Hon Jan Tinetti’s tabled amendments to new section 212ZD in clause 40 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Tana.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendment to new section 212E in clause 40 set out on Amendment Paper 104 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Tana.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Hon Jan Tinetti’s tabled amendment to insert new section 212ZFA in clause 40 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Tana.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendment to delete new section 212ZH in clause 40 set out on Amendment Paper 105 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Tana.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to delete new section 212ZH in clause 40 is out of order as being the same as a previous amendment.
The question is that the Hon Jan Tinetti’s amendment to new section 212ZH in clause 40 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Tana.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Before I take the next vote, the Minister probably should be setting an example of making sure these votes are heard in silence—particularly when they’re going across the floor.
The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendments to new section 237A in clause 42 set out on Amendment Paper 120 be agreed to. All those in favour say Aye, to the contrary, No.
Simon Court: No.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The Noes have it.
Simon Court: Let’s have a party vote.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): I’m sorry, the member can’t call for a party vote, because he actually voted for it. Did someone else call for a party vote? Yes.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Tana.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendment to new section 548A in clause 53 set out on Amendment Paper 121 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Tana.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendments to new section 601A in clause 53A set out on Amendment Paper 122 be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.
Ayes 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Tana.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendments not agreed to.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the Hon Jan Tinetti’s tabled amendment to delete clause 53A be agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.
Ayes 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Tana.
Noes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Amendment not agreed to.
A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 1 as amended be agreed to.
Ayes 68
New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.
Noes 49
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Tana.
Part 1 as amended agreed to.
Part 2 Amendments to other legislation and revocation
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Members, we come now to Part 2, which is the debate on clauses 63AAA to 70, “Amendments to other legislation and revocation”, and Schedule 4. The question is that Part 2 stand part.
Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Associate Minister of Education): Mr Chair, as you have just described, there is a total of whatever 70 minus 63 plus 2 is—so about nine clauses here. They’re all very short. They variously amend the Ombudsmen Act to add the Charter Schools Authorisation Board and, also, a sponsor of a charter school to Schedule 1 of the Ombudsmen Act. They also amend the Public Audit Act to include the Charter Schools Authorisation Board to the list of entities listed in the Public Audit Act. They also amend the Public Records Act, again to add the Charter Schools Authorisation Board to that. That’s because we’re creating a public entity in the Charter Schools Authorisation Board that will have some responsibilities, and therefore it has to be accountable under those various pieces of legislation.
There are also further consequential amendments to the Education (Early Childhood Services Network Approval) Regulations, which stand separate from the principal Act. They will be revoked.
The only other thing I failed to mention at the beginning is clause 63AAA and clause 63AAB—which are not actually battery sizes but clauses of Part 2!—and the intention of those clauses is to exempt charter schools which do not operate for a profit from local government rates. That is the status of most State schools, and if they’re operating a school for not-for-profit, particularly one that used to be a State schools and become a charter school, they should be able to maintain their status of being exempt from council rates.
Hon JAN TINETTI (Labour): I’ve got a quick question about clause 63AAA and the amendment of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002. I noticed that there’s been quite a bit of media recently about pan taxes that some schools have to get at the local area and they have to pay those. I’m wondering if this amendment here to exempt charter schools from the Local Government (Rating) Act also applies to the pan taxes that State schools have to pay. I know that’s a point of contention with many State schools. I’m wondering if the Minister could give some answer to that, please, because if that’s right, there is a serious inequity between State schools and charter schools that will need fixing up pretty quickly. I’d really like an answer to that, Minister.
Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. While the Minister gets some advice around what the Hon Jan Tinetti just asked regarding clauses 63AAA and 63AAB in Part 2, I would like to draw the Minister’s attention to clauses 63 and 64, which is around an amendment to the Ombudsmen Act 1975.
Clause 64 amends Schedule 1, Part 2 of the Ombudsmen Act 1975, specifically inserting “Charter Schools Authorisation Board” as well as “sponsor”. Now, “Charter Schools Authorisation Board” I get, and “sponsor” I also get. However, when we are looking at Schedule 1, Part 2 of the Ombudsmen Act it says, “Public service agencies and organisations to which the Act applies”. One of the things we heard as part of the Ombudsman’s submission is the dichotomy that this creates. The fact that charter schools, and particularly the “sponsor” here, is applicable under the Ombudsmen Act—but, again, not to the Official Information Act (OIA)—creates a level of dichotomy that the Ombudsman himself said would be adding extra bureaucracy and a barrier to the way that any parent or anyone could potentially request information.
My understanding is that, under normal circumstances, a school or institute can be subject to the OIA and they simply request this via the right agencies, but the fact that charter schools cannot be subject to the OIA but the charter school, and particularly in this case the sponsor, is still forced and is obliged under the Ombudsmen Act means that, in some ways, anyone who would like to get information on the charter school has to then go through the avenue and the medium of the Ombudsman. You kind of create this additional step in terms of the process.
I would like some advice from the Minister in terms of whether he has had a look at the Ombudsman’s submission and what he thinks in terms of this particular trickiness that has been established between the two. So, yes, this would be specifically around the way Schedule 1, Part 2 of the Ombudsmen Act applies to the sponsor.
Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): I want to talk about new section 119, inserted by Part 6, in Schedule 1, and it relates to the amendment that is being debated this afternoon that deletes clause 6, that states that section 119(6) overrides the protections in Part 6A of the Employment Relations Act.
The reason I want to raise this is that pretty much all of the discussion we’ve had so far has been about people who work in schools as being teachers, but there are a number of other occupational groups in schools, as we all know—school caretakers, cleaners, and others—and the effect of the bill is to really take away existing rights that they enjoy under Part 6A of the Employment Relations Act. School caretakers and canteen workers and cleaners and cleaning contractors all have collective agreements that rely in some part on Part 6A of the Employment Relations Act. Part 6A essentially identifies what it refers to as “vulnerable workers”—that is, workers who are employed in sectors where restructuring of an employer’s business occurs frequently, whose terms and conditions of employment tend to be undermined by that restructuring, and who have little bargaining power.
What Part 6A does is that it gives employees a right to elect to transfer to the new employer, to elect or not; it gives those who have transferred a right to bargain for redundancy entitlements; and if redundancy entitlements in that instance cannot be agreed with the new employer, to have the redundancy entitlements determined by the authority. Those are significant rights for this group of workers. There are a lot of people who do these jobs in schools who may well be affected by the establishment of charter schools. The loss of rights basically consists of the fact that the bill only gives them the right to transfer on conditions “no less favourable overall”; whereas Part 6A guarantees the same terms and conditions of employment or better. Now, there is a difference between those two things.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Sorry—which part are you referring to here?
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Part 6A of the Employment Relations Act, which is, basically, overridden in Schedule 1, Part 6. New section 119, inserted by Schedule 1, Part 6.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Gotcha, thank you. Yes, I’ve got that. Thank you for explaining that.
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Part 6, new section 119. The reason it’s important is that it takes away the right. The first is that, under Part 6A, cleaners, caretakers, canteen workers, and so on are guaranteed the same rights or better, and by taking away the protection of Part 6A, basically, they’re only assured of conditions no less favourable overall. That is a different thing, and it’s very likely, I believe, that this provision would lead to considerable dispute and argument and litigation if it were passed as written. Also—
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Sorry, Mr Twyford—the only schedule we’re discussing here is actually Schedule 4.
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Well, Mr Chairman, earlier this afternoon I raised matters in my contribution about Schedule 1, and our colleague Barbara Kuriger, who was in the Chair at the time, ruled that we were not going to discuss that in Part 1 and that we would have to deal with it later. So, with respect, sir, you can’t have it both ways. We have to be able to discuss these schedules, either in Part 1 or in Part 2, and Barbara Kuriger ruled that we could not discuss Schedule 1 matters earlier this afternoon.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): All right, given the time of night, I’m happy to let the member carry on given that that was the instruction then. I’ll give largesse for that now, so carry on.
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: OK, thank you, Mr Chairman.
Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. There’s just a couple of things in there I’d like some clarification on. You said, “given the time of night” and “for now”, so at what point can we expect absolute clarity on this? I’d hate for there to be any confusion given the possibility of having a different presiding officer at the resumption of this debate.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Yeah, well, and that’s fair enough. My intention was to actually discuss this with the previous presiding officer so I could give that instruction at the beginning. I am taking cognisance that we have only got less than probably 10 minutes to go, so rather than—to keep the order of the committee, and I’m sure the Minister in the chair is quite able to, if he has the opportunity, either defer this or not answer this or answer it. So carry on.
Hon PHIL TWYFORD: Thank you, Mr Chair. The second point that’s relevant here is that the bill does not give the worker the right to elect to transfer or not. That is a right that is enshrined in Part 6A of the Employment Relations Act, and it is taken away by this bill. It removes an element of choice. I thought this bill was all about choice, but apparently not for a significant group of workers who are going to be affected.
The bill also overrides the right of workers to maintain their collective employment relationship with the new employer. Part 6A of the Employment Relations Act stipulates the transfer not just of the existing workers but also that they take their relevant collective agreement with them. Of course, that is impossible under this bill, not only because Part 6A is taken away but because this bill outlaws multi-employer collective agreements.
Those are the main points, and I really ask the Minister: what possible justification could there be for confiscating existing employment rights for a very specific group of workers in this bill, other than kind of a vindictive desire to weaken employment rights of vulnerable workers. I can’t see what could possibly be the justification, but if there is one, I’d like to hear it.
Hon DAVID SEYMOUR (Associate Minister of Education): I respond to Jan Tinetti’s question about the pan tax, and I have to admit I needed to look this up, but people may be interested to know that some councils in some parts of New Zealand are imposing a special charge on property owners, including schools, for the number of toilets that they have. Economics being a real thing—although you wouldn’t always think it to hear from then other side—people are responding to incentives, and schools are actually talking about reducing their numbers of toilets in response to this tax.
That’s why you shouldn’t tax things so much, folks. It can lead to a reduction in places to pee. So it’s very important that we get this right. We are not explicitly exempting charter schools from the pan tax; we’re giving them the same exemption that State schools have. Depending on the council, they will face the same challenge that State schools would have. We’re not trying to differentiate them here; we’re just putting them in the same position as State schools.
Lawrence Xu-Nan asked about the changes to the Ombudsmen Act. All I can say is that we’ve extensively debated the policy behind the Official Information Act and its application to charter schools. These are consequential amendments designed to put in place that policy and they are necessary to do so.
I hesitate to engage in a policy debate about employment law, but what I can say to Mr Twyford is that there’s certainly no vindictiveness here. Perhaps he’s measuring the minds of others by his own, but that’s not how we think. On this side of Parliament, we are interested in creating better opportunities for children and being able to organise the school and the terms of employment of the adults for the greatest benefit of the children. We think that’s a very worthwhile desire that doesn’t require any sort of vindictiveness or speculation of it.
Hon JAN TINETTI (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’d just like to thank the Minister for that answer about the pan tax. It is something that very few people know about, but it is a big bugbear to schools that they have to pay that. I’ll just give an example of that, Minister, and I’m sure you’ve probably seen the same thing that I’ve seen, but Greytown School—which I know my colleague over here will be very interested in—has 33 toilets and is paying $37,000 in pan tax. I also just want to make members aware that it’s not just the pan tax that they pay; it’s also rubbish collection and it’s a whole lot of different things that different councils will charge. It is worth looking into to make sure that inequities don’t exist.
I deliberately didn’t talk about things that were in Schedule 1 earlier because of that ruling that was made at the time, when we were told that we were not talking about Schedule 1 at that stage. I do want to just return to talk about an amendment that I had put forward around the early childhood network planning that was in place.
Look, I know that this legislation is going to pass, but all of the amendments were written in the great faith that this would actually improve the situation for this particular bill. The one that was in Schedule 1 was an amendment to new clause 111 in Schedule 1, which I had put in there, and it was to replace words in subclause (2) to say that the conditions no longer apply in relation to the approval on and after commencement, except where a centre applies to establish within a 1-kilometre radius of another already existing early childcare centre.
The reason that I developed and came up with this particular amendment was because we had heard from people in the select committee about the number of centres that were being established within very close proximity to each other. We heard that there were centres that were closing because other centres were sprouting up and were looking flasher, even if they weren’t delivering as good or even delivering a similar quality of education, because they had that shiny new bling situation about them. It was a specific fear for our centres such—
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): I’m sorry to interrupt the member, but the time has come for me to report progress. At the same time, I will consult with my colleagues and I’ll ensure that the member gets the first call next time.
Progress to be reported.
House resumed.
CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Madam Speaker, the committee has considered the Education and Training Amendment Bill and reports that it has made progress on the bill. I move, That the report be adopted.
Motion agreed to.
Report adopted.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: The House now stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 24 September 2024.
The House adjourned at 5.56 p.m.