Thursday, 6 August 2026

Thursday, 6 August 2026

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Start of Sitting Day

Karakia/Prayers

MAUREEN PUGH (Assistant Speaker) (14:00): Almighty God, we give thanks for the blessings which have been bestowed on us. Laying aside all personal interests, we acknowledge the King and pray for guidance in our deliberations that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom, justice, mercy, and humility for the welfare and the peace of New Zealand. Amen.

Business of the House

Business Statement

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Leader of the House) (14:01): Today, the House will adjourn until Tuesday, 18 August. That week, we will consider the remaining stages of the Te Here ā Nuku (Nelson Tenths) Bill and the Oranga Tamariki (Responding to Serious Youth Offending) Amendment Bill. The hours of Wednesday will be extended into Thursday morning for Government business.

Presentation

Papers

SPEAKER: No petitions have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation. Ministers have delivered six papers for presentation.

CLERK (14:02):

2026-27 Statements of performance expectations for:

Sport Integrity Commission, and

Sport New Zealand

2026-30 statements of intent for:

Fire and Emergency New Zealand, and

Sport Integrity Commission

2026-30 strategic intentions for the Department of Internal Affairs

Government response to the petition of Alistair Reese.

SPEAKER: Those papers are published under the authority of the House.

Select Committee Reports

SPEAKER: Twenty-six select committee reports have been delivered for presentation.

CLERK (14:02):

Reports of the Education and Workforce Committee on the:

2026-27 Estimates for Vote Education and Vote Education Review Office

2026-27 Estimates for Vote Labour Market, and

2026-27 Estimates for Vote Tertiary Education

reports of the Environment Committee on the:

2026-27 Estimates for Vote Cities, Environment, Regions, and Transport (excluding local government appropriations) and for Vote Environment

2026-27 Estimates for Vote Conservation, and

2026-27 Estimates for Vote Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment

reports of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee on the:

2026-27 Estimates for Vote Defence and for Vote Defence Force, and

2026-27 Estimates for Vote Foreign Affairs

reports of the Governance and Administration Committee on the:

2026-27 Estimates for appropriations within Vote Cities, Environment, Regions, and Transport that are the responsibility of the Minister of Local Government, and

2026-27 Estimates for Vote Internal Affairs (excluding the appropriations that are the responsibility of the Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector and the Minister for Ethnic Communities)

report of the Health Committee on the 2026-27 Estimates for Vote Health

reports of the Primary Production Committee on the:

2026-27 Estimates for Vote Agriculture, Biosecurity, Fisheries and Food Safety

2026-27 Estimates for Vote Forestry, and

2026-27 Estimates for Vote Lands

reports of the Social Services and Community Committee on the:

2026-27 Estimates for appropriations within Vote Social Development related to the Independent Children’s Monitor

2026-27 Estimates for appropriations within Vote Internal Affairs that are the responsibility of the Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector and the Minister for Ethnic Communities

2026-27 Estimates for Vote Arts, Culture and Heritage

2026-27 Estimates for Vote Disabled People and for Vote Disability Support Services

2026/27 Estimates for Vote Housing and Urban Development and for appropriations within Vote Building and Construction that are the responsibility of the Minister of Housing

2026-27 Estimates for Vote Oranga Tamariki

2026-27 Estimates for Vote Social Development, and

2026-27 Estimates for Vote Social Investment

reports of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee on the:

2026-27 Estimates for appropriations within Vote Finance related to the infrastructure sector

2026-27 Estimates for Vote Building and Construction, and

2026-27 Estimates for Vote Transport.

SPEAKER: Those papers are published under the authority of the House. No bills have been introduced.

Oral Questions to Ministers

Workplace Relations and Safety

Question No. 1

ORIINI KAIPARA (Te Pāti Māori—Tāmaki Makaurau) (14:04) to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: Does she stand by her statement that the Government’s health and safety reforms will “better protect workers and support a continued reduction in serious workplace injuries and fatalities”?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety) (14:05): Yes. This coalition Government’s health and safety reforms will better protect workers by focusing the health and safety system on critical risks—those are the risks that are likely to result in serious injury, illness, or death—rather than treating health and safety like a tick-box exercise. These reforms focus everyone’s attention and energy on the risks that matter most. This is a change that both workers and businesses should be able to get behind.

Oriini Kaipara: What assurance can she give workers and their whānau, following the death of a worker in an Ōtāhuhu meat processing plant just this week, that their safety remains the Government’s first priority?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: Firstly, what I would say is that any death at work is an absolute tragedy, and my heart goes out to the family members who will be grieving the loss of their loved ones. All members of this coalition Government wish that every worker comes back home safe at the end of each work day for their families. What we are prioritising under this legislation goes to the heart of that matter, which is that too many people currently are dying at work. That’s why our Government believes that when too many people are dying at work, we need to refocus our system on those critical risks—those risks that could lead to death or serious injury and illness—and focus on stamping those out, managing them, or eliminating those risks. That is right at the heart of this law.

Oriini Kaipara: What assurance can she give workers that WorkSafe has sufficient capacity to investigate workplace deaths and prevent further harm, given that WorkSafe has undergone repeated restructures and its headcount fell from 603 to 562 in the most recently reported year?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: The assurance that I can give all members of the public is that while the headcount at WorkSafe has fallen, that is because of a lot of back-office clean out. We have, under this Government, the highest number of inspectors at WorkSafe than ever before.

Oriini Kaipara: How does reducing WorkSafe funding for plant and structures regulatory reform by $8.561 million make workers in high-risk industries safer in light of media reports that the worker who died at Auckland’s Ōtāhuhu meat processing factory was trapped in machinery?

Hon BROOKE VAN VELDEN: My understanding is that the plant and structures work was put on pause by the previous Government, not by this Government. However, what I can say is that as a Minister, I have directed WorkSafe to ensure that all inspectors have new training when it comes to the processing and manufacturing areas. You can look at my most recent Beehive announcements on that. All inspectors have new capacity and capability in this area.

Housing

Question No. 2

TAMATHA PAUL (Green—Wellington Central) (14:08) to the Minister of Housing: Does he stand by all of his statements and policies on housing?

Hon TAMA POTAKA (Associate Minister of Housing) (14:08) on behalf of the Minister of Housing: Yes, including his statement this morning that the City Rail Link, which is opening on Sunday, 13 September, is fundamentally about the people who will sit on a train heading to a first day at a new job, going to the doctors, heading to school or to shop, or to catch up with friends. It’s about the new homes that will be built and the new jobs created.

Tamatha Paul: Is he aware of how many families with children have been evicted from their homes as a result of his Government’s decision to remove the Sustaining Tenancies framework?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: I’m aware of the number of whānau, including the numbers of children, that have had their tenancies terminated over the past couple of years.

Tamatha Paul: Did he seek any advice on how, and how many, households with children may be affected by removing the Sustaining Tenancies framework?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: On behalf of the Minister of Housing, I am not aware of that specific matter, but what I am aware of is that a number of tenancies that have been terminated were as a result of non-occupancy.

Tamatha Paul: Is he comfortable that 33 percent of the 324 tenancies terminated between July 2024 and June 2025, following the removal of the Sustaining Tenancies framework, had children in the home, meaning 258 children were evicted?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: On behalf of the Minister of Housing, I am aware that a number of tenancies have been terminated, but not necessarily as a direct consequence of a change in framework. What I am aware of is that there are instances, across a variety of tenancies, where people leave their house without terminating their arrangements and those arrangements are thereafter terminated.

Tamatha Paul: Was it his intention when removing the Sustaining Tenancies Framework that, according to Kāinga Ora documents, “the presence of a child does not change the decision about whether to end the tenancy”; if not, will he change his direction to Kāinga Ora?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: What I am aware of is that, in the instance that Kāinga Ora is terminating tenancies and there are children involved, they have advised me that they will be very careful and cautious to ensure that the appropriate connections are made with community housing providers and others who may be able to house those whānau that have tamariki and children in them.

Tamatha Paul: What is his message to the 258 children who have been evicted from their homes following his Government’s decision to remove the Sustaining Tenancies Framework?

Hon TAMA POTAKA: Again, this is combining the change in framework and alluding to that change as being the cause for the eviction. Often, it’s been very clear about the reasons why tenancies have been terminated. My understanding is that over half of the tenancies that have been terminated were actually terminated for non-occupancy. Whānau have left those homes and, as a result, those tenancies have been terminated.

Social Development and Employment

Question No. 3

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Deputy Leader—Labour) (14:11) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Kia orana, Mr Speaker. What is the total number of unemployed people in New Zealand in the June 2026 quarter, and how does this compare to the September 2023 quarter?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (14:12): Unemployment has been rising since 2021 and was always forecast to increase above 5 percent. In September 2023, 119,000 people were unemployed in New Zealand, and in June 2026 this figure sat at 171,000. Importantly, the June 2026 quarter marked the third consecutive quarter of increasing employment growth. Over the year to June, total employment increased by 33,000. This is the highest annual growth rate since the end of 2023. We acknowledge that many Kiwis are finding it tough at the moment. That’s why our Government are so focused on fixing the basics and building the future, and we are seeing positive signs that our economy is growing.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Are 22,000 more women unemployed in New Zealand since the September 2023 quarter?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I don’t have that figure in front of me, so I can’t confirm that, but what I think is really positive is the fact that we have seen job ads experiencing annual growth rate increases for the last four quarters. We do know that annual increases in job ads—

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked a very narrow, specific question. At the beginning of that answer, she said she didn’t have the figure, and she’s gone on to provide other comments that are just completely irrelevant to the narrow question that I asked.

SPEAKER: Well, I never heard the end of the answer, so I can’t tell whether it was irrelevant or not. Have you got another supplementary?

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Are 10,000 more Māori unemployed in New Zealand since the September 2023 quarter?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I acknowledge that, in terms of unemployment, Māori are disproportionately affected, but what is really encouraging is to see that we have had a fall in the Māori unemployment rate in the recent quarter down to 10.8 percent. So we are seeing progress, which is good news.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Was she advised that the reason Māori unemployment dropped in the June quarter is because so many left the workforce, likely heading to Australia in search of work and opportunities that they could not access here in New Zealand?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: No, I’m far more optimistic than that member and I can say that employment growth is being led by fields like manufacturing and like the primary sectors—up by 28,000 and 15,000 respectively—and construction employment has also grown. This side of the House knows that it’s positive to see that there is growth in sectors of the employment. Growth ads are going, and so we are seeing some improvement. It’s not taking away that there are some New Zealanders doing it tough, but I do want to say that there are some positive signs.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Supplementary. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just a moment.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Are nearly 8,000 more Pasifika unemployed in New Zealand since the September 2023 quarter?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Well, as I’ve said with Māori, Pasifika are also disproportionately affected by unemployment, but we’ve seen an improvement this quarter in the Pacific people’s unemployment rate, which I think is good news, and I’m surprised that that member is not celebrating that.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Are over 26,000 more Aucklanders unemployed since the September 2023 quarter?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: We do know that we’re seeing quite a difference in regional unemployment figures. If we look at Canterbury, it’s at 3.6 percent. Auckland is not that low, and we are seeing a much slower recovery in Auckland, which is why when we make announcements like today that the City Rail Link (CRL) will open on 13 September, infrastructure projects are paying off.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Does she think—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: No, just hang on. The House needs to compose itself, and I’ll call you when we have done so.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Does she think that the more than 22,000 women, 10,000 Māori, 8,000 Pasifika, and 26,000 Aucklanders unemployed over the last three years deserve a real plan to get them back into work, rather than a Government whose only response seems to be that they simply should not take it personally?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Well, this side of the House does have a strong plan for economic growth: fast-track consenting, infrastructure projects like the CRL, more development, Investment Boost—which actually grows business opportunities, and I’m shocked that there are parties in this House who would get rid of that at a stroke of a pen and stop our small businesses investing in growing. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: That’s the end of the barrage sort of interjections.

Auckland

Question No. 4

GREG FLEMING (National—Maungakiekie) (14:17) to the Minister for Auckland: What recent reports has he seen on the opening date for the Auckland City Rail Link?

Hon SIMON WATTS (Minister for Auckland) (14:17): Today, alongside Auckland Council, the Government announced that the Auckland City Rail Link—or the CRL—will open to passengers on 13 September. After a long and patient wait—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just wait. That’s just unacceptable. You may have views, but you’ve also got questions. So ask those, and don’t interrupt in such a voluminous sort of barrage as that. The Hon Simon Watts.

Hon SIMON WATTS: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. After a long—

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Sir, we accept your guidance, but the problem there was that the Minister made an error. He said that the Government announced this, but, in fact, it wasn’t announced by the Government; it was announced on a billboard three hours earlier than the announcement.

SPEAKER: Yeah, well, it would have been more appropriate for you to take a point of order to point out that mistake, rather than for your entire caucus deciding to yell the answer at him, which really makes the question a waste of time. But, anyway, the Hon Simon Watts.

Hon SIMON WATTS: I’m sure that when the member listens and reads the Hansard, he will see that his statement—

SPEAKER: No, no, no—you don’t need to make those comments. We’ll take one more supplementary, and then we’ll move on.

Hon SIMON WATTS: Well, take the next supplementary.

Greg Fleming: What does the CRL—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Hang on—Greg Fleming, and no one else.

Greg Fleming: With these recent reports, what does the CRL mean for Aucklanders, and how will the CRL support Auckland’s wider economic growth?

Hon SIMON WATTS: The City Rail Link will fundamentally change the way Auckland’s transport network operates, with faster journeys, more frequent services, and better connections across the city. That means getting around the city faster and easier than ever before. The CRL is one of the most significant transport investments in New Zealand’s history. It was started under a National Government and, in just a few weeks, Aucklanders will see it opened under a National-led Government.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Can the Minister confirm that the CRL announced by the Rt Hon John Key is opening this week, and that the slow tram down to Dominion Road announced by Jacinda Ardern is not?

SPEAKER: No, he can’t announce that. So far three Ministers today have. So we’ll move on to question No. 5.

Social Development and Employment

Question No. 5

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) (14:20) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Does she stand by her statement that “They should be the responsibility of their parents” in response to questions regarding restricting income support for 18- to 19-year-olds receiving jobseeker support (health condition, injury, or disability)?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) (14:21): Yes. Our Government expects 18- to 19-year-old jobseekers who are not in work, education, or training to be supported by their parents. Around a third of jobseeker (health condition, injury, or disability) clients are already working, actively seeking work, or wanting more hours. Recent modelling suggests people under 25 on jobseeker support will spend on average another 20 years on a benefit over their lifetime. That is why our Government is building a more active welfare system that supports more young people into work. Young people will have better future outcomes if they remain close to the labour market, or are studying, rather than being on jobseeker support.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Would she support amendments to exclude jobseeker recipients who are sick, injured, or disabled, including those battling with cancer or ill mental health, from the cuts to benefits for 18- and 19-year-olds, and, if not, what message does she send to parents who may struggle with the cost of living as a result of those cuts?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I accept that when a family member has a child—an 18- or 19-year-old—that has a challenging issue, whether struggling with an illness or mild to moderate mental health, which is why we actually want to see opportunities for those young people. If their parents are on the low income, there is a parental income test that is available so that they could get support. The other thing that I would add, is for a young person in that set of circumstances, they would be entitled to additional support, whether it’s things like accommodation supplement or hardship grants and other allowances.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Is a household with a combined income of $68,000 a year able to afford their current expenses, such as power bills, food, rent, or other accommodation costs?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Mr Speaker, I’ve just answered that question in terms of their being a parental assistance test for an 18- or 19-year-old in that set of circumstances, and confirmed they would be eligible for additional forms of assistance if they required it.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Does she agree that there is not a job available for every single unemployed person, and, if so, what is the point of leaving young people, who are battling cancer, ill mental health, or musculoskeletal disorders without income support when there’s not even enough jobs for them?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Well, we have been clear about the policy being about young people being in employment, education, or training. What we do know is that when people are preparing for work, it increases their opportunities. The other thing I would add is that New Zealand isn’t out of step with other countries, where there are age restrictions on access to jobseeker or an equivalent. In Australia it’s up to 22, Ireland up to 24, and in France up to 25.

Ricardo Menéndez March: What does she say to young people struggling with their mental health who have been deemed by Work and Income to be unable to work full time because of those very same health conditions, who may lose their income support as a result of her changes?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: As I said, it can be incredibly challenging for a young person who is dealing with mild to moderate mental health, and what many professionals would say, actually, for a young person to be participating in something like training or further education—whether part time or full time—is a really important part of someone returning to better mental health.

Ricardo Menéndez March: Can she name a single mental health professional who has told her that cutting income support for people on jobseeker (health condition, injury, or disability) or someone who may be struggling with their mental health will lead to better outcomes?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: It’s pretty obvious that if somebody’s participating in training or education, it improves their opportunities to find work. And, as I said, in many instances we do know that somebody’s mental health improves when they are connected to opportunities, whether it’s part time or full time. If they are unable to do that in the first instance, they would be looked after by their family. There is a parental assistance test, and there is access to additional support if they require it. As I have put on the record today, New Zealand is not out of step with other countries. In fact, the fact that this policy is only for under-20s shows it’s very different from other countries like France, where there is no support under the age of 25.

Health

Question No. 6

GRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland) (14:26) to the Minister of Health: What recent announcements has he made about improving access to diagnostic services for people living in Northland?

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health) (14:26): This Government is delivering better healthcare closer to home for Northlanders. I recently announced a $5.5 million investment to install a CT scanner at Kaitāia Hospital. This means people living in Kaitāia and surrounding communities will be able to access CT imaging locally, rather than having to travel to Whangārei. Around 7,000 patients each year are expected to benefit from the service, which will support the diagnosis and treatment of conditions such as cancer, stroke, injuries, and respiratory illness. This is another example of this Government fixing the basics and building the future by improving access to healthcare.

Grant McCallum: How will this investment make a difference for patients and families in the Mid North and Far North?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Currently, many patients face a round trip of more than 250 kilometres to Whangārei Hospital for a CT scan. For some, that means taking a full day away from work, arranging transport, or relying on ambulance transfers. Bringing CT scanning to Kaitāia means thousands of patients each year will be able to access vital diagnostic services closer to home. This will mean less travel, less disruption, and faster access to the care they need. For rural and regional communities in our Far North, this represents a significant improvement in healthcare access.

Grant McCallum: What impact will this new service have on the healthcare workforce in Kaitāia?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: This investment is not just about new equipment; it’s also about strengthening local health services. As the CT service is established, additional staff will be recruited, including medical-imaging technologists, nurses, and support staff. This will help build local capability, support the expansion of diagnostic services at Kaitāia Hospital, and ensure the community has access to a highly skilled workforce closer to home, as part of our commitment to growing the health workforce and ensuring regional hospitals have the people and resources they need to deliver quality care. I’d also like to thank the member asking for his continued advocacy for this project.

Grant McCallum: What other investments has the Government recently made to improve diagnostic and cancer services in Northland?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Alongside the new CT scanner for Kaitāia Hospital, we recently opened a new CT scanner and Northland’s first linear accelerator as part of the new radiation oncology facility at Whangārei Hospital. This investment is helping bring life-changing cancer care closer to home for Northlanders by improving access to the diagnostic imaging that is essential for cancer diagnosis, treatment planning, and ongoing care. Together, these investments demonstrate the Government’s commitment to ensuring Northlanders can access modern healthcare services closer to home, where they live, reducing travel and improving health outcomes across the region.

Justice

Question No. 7

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour) (14:29) to the Minister of Justice: Does he stand by all his statements and actions?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice) (14:29): Yes, in the context with which they’re given, particularly my statement that this Government is fixing the basics in law and order so that New Zealanders continue to feel safe in their communities.

Hon Willie Jackson: What are the apparent benefits to the review of Treaty clauses, when his own officials, along with the Waitangi Tribunal, have said that there are none, and that it will only result in posing a significant risk to the Māori - Crown relationship?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: The benefits that we anticipate are providing greater consistency and clarity when we’re referring to the Treaty. Over the last 30 or 40 years, all manner of concoctions have been put together—honouring, having regard to, giving effect to, taking into account—so we’re trying to get some consistency into that.

Hon Willie Jackson: To the Minister: does he agree with the Hon Shane Jones’ view that the Waitangi Tribunal’s opinion of the review is fearmongering and an attack on New Zealand First, when the Ministry of Justice, the Auditor-General, the Human Rights Commission, iwi chairs, and his own former colleague Chris Finlayson are all saying that this is a backwards step?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Sometimes I agree with the Hon Shane Jones, and on this occasion, I do.

Hon Willie Jackson: Does he agree with the Waitangi Tribunal that “Māori will be significantly prejudiced by the Crown’s proposed reforms, which, if enacted, could result in poorer environmental and health outcomes for Māori”; and if not, why?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, I certainly don’t believe it will result in poorer outcomes for Māori. What it is, is trying to get some greater clarity in the legislation that we pass. What will make the real difference, in terms of outcomes for Māori, is a strong growing economy, and that relies on investment—and one thing that it shouldn’t be doing is taking away Investment Boost.

Hon Willie Jackson: To the Minister: does he agree with Waitangi Tribunal Chief Judge, Dr Caren Fox, when she suggested that the Ministers had acted in complete disregard for the Treaty partnership, and if not, why?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: We always take notice of the Waitangi Tribunal reports, but, respectively, we don’t agree with that assessment.

Hon Willie Jackson: To the Minister: why did he not attend the National Iwi Chairs Forum last week when he had the opportunity to discuss—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: We did.

SPEAKER: No, hang on—wait a minute. Sorry, Mr Jackson. No one comments while a question is being asked. Start again, Mr Jackson.

Hon Willie Jackson: Thank you, Mr Speaker. To the Minister: why did he not attend the National Iwi Chairs Forum last week, when he had the opportunity to discuss the Treaty clause legislation directly and to explain to iwi why he is ignoring them and progressing with this review anyway, knowing full well that it undermines their interests?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, first point of correction: I have not ignored the iwi leader’s forum. Just because one doesn’t agree, necessarily, it does not mean that one is ignoring. In terms of whether I was to travel to Queenstown to attend that meeting: I had every confidence that my two colleagues the Hon Tama Potaka and the Hon Nicola Willis were more than capable of carrying the conversation with those people. We are very proud of the progress that we’ve made on many issues confronting Māori over the last 2½ years.

Hon Tama Potaka: Mr Speaker, supplementary question—supplementary?

SPEAKER: Wait.

Hon Willie Jackson: Waste of time.

SPEAKER: Wait—the Hon Tama Potaka.

Hon Tama Potaka: To the Minister: can the Minister please confirm that this Government has introduced Treaty principles clauses, such as that in the mental health legislation and also the Hauraki Gulf marine protection legislation, which are consistent, descriptive, and clearly commit to the Treaty of Waitangi?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Absolutely. I think what we find is that the Opposition likes to jump up and down on a whole range of issues, but this Government carries on its work—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Hold on—hold on. If you’ve got a question, ask it when you’ve got the opportunity; not while a Minister’s giving an answer to someone else’s question.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, sir. When a Minister starts talking about the Opposition in response to a question from his own side, and there is no intervention, I think a bit of disorder is expected.

SPEAKER: I don’t—I’m sorry, I didn’t pick up that the was talking about the Opposition.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: That’s exactly what was happening.

SPEAKER: Well, he should avoid doing that.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Point of order, Mr Speaker. Just in my defence, they were yelling and barracking, and that is why I—

SPEAKER: No, hang on. There is no defence. Have you finished, Mr Jackson? We’ll move on.

Justice

Question No. 8

CARL BATES (National—Whanganui) (14:34) to the Minister of Justice: What initiatives is the Government progressing to reduce retail crime? [Interruption]

SPEAKER: The Hon Paul Goldsmith—and no one else, including members from his own side, who seem to think he needs assistance.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice) (14:34): The Government is progressing a raft of changes to the Crimes Act to deal more effectively with retail crime. As part of our effort to restore law and order in this country, we want to see retailers more effectively protected and empowered to stop offending, where appropriate, so that offenders can be caught and deterred from doing it again. That’s why, very shortly, businesses will be able to detain and arrest those stealing from them, and shoplifters will be faced with instant fines. This is part of our effort to help retailers in this country continue to prosper in the absence of retail crime.

Carl Bates: How will businesses be able to detain and arrest those stealing from them?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: It has long been the case that people have been able to perform citizen’s arrest after 9 p.m., and we are changing the law because we think it is possible that, on occasions, it may be relevant at 8.55 p.m. and at 7 p.m. and at 2 p.m. There may be circumstances where retailers will be able to hold on to somebody that is attempting to steal from them, then ring the police, and then follow the instructions of the police. This, of course, is not compulsory—nobody is required to do this—but it is an option that will be available and something that was called for by the retail crime advisory group that came up with a number of very useful suggestions.

Carl Bates: What additional powers will be provided to target shoplifters?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Well, the reality is that shoplifters will soon face stronger penalties for their actions, with the introduction of an infringement regime. Lower-level offending has often gone unreported and unpunished because it involves a lengthy court process. If you’re caught stealing, this sometimes has led to insufficient consequences. That’s why we’re introducing an instant fine, and it’s part of the coalition commitment between National and New Zealand First, and another idea recommended by the ministerial advisory group.

Carl Bates: Why is the Government progressing initiatives to reduce retail crime?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Because the economic cost of retail crime is very significant and runs into the billions, and we are concerned that retailers, more often than not, are small businesses just trying to make a living and are the basis of our economy. One of the most useful things we’ve done beyond this portfolio, of course, is give them the ability to have Investment Boost so that they can get tax reductions from their investment straightaway—

SPEAKER: Good; that’s great. That’s enough. [Interruption] No, that’s enough.

Food Safety

Question No. 9

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (ACT) (14:38) to the Minister for Food Safety: How is the Government making it easier for food businesses to comply with the Food Act 2014 while maintaining New Zealand’s food safety standards?

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD (Minister for Food Safety) (14:38): Thank you, Mr Speaker. After I became Minister for Food Safety, I visited dozens of food businesses and industry organisations and asked them what changes to the regulatory system they wanted to see. All agreed that high standards of food safety were a non-negotiable, and we quickly identified 13 actions that will make life easier for small businesses and unlock their potential. Some simple changes can make a big difference. For example, I heard from small businesses that food safety training can cost up to $200 per staff member, and in a sector with many part-time and short-term staff, this soon adds up. New Zealand Food Safety, together with the sector, has now developed a suite of online food safety training models, without additional cost to businesses. Two are available now, and the rest will be live in coming months.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: What other changes has the Government delivered to support food businesses?

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: In addition to increased access to staff training, we are also supporting food businesses with ongoing advice about compliance. I heard from many that it’s not easy for businesses when regulators sit back and say, “These are the laws. You decide what you need to do, but we’ll punish you if you get it wrong.” New Zealand Food Safety has put more people in place to give food businesses advice on how to comply. Most food businesses are inspected by local councils for food safety, and many food councils can mean many different approaches. The Government has addressed inconsistency across different areas by delivering centralised training and resources to local councils, and updated guidance on common food-safety issues, like multi-site verification. This won’t work as just a one-off, but it’s now baked into New Zealand Food Safety’s ongoing work. This will include looking at how we can standardise fees and charges.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: What further actions is the Government working on to support food businesses?

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: As I said earlier, we identified 13 broad actions that will deliver value to small food-businesses. I can’t go into a lot of detail there because you’ll get mad at me, but I will highlight three initiatives. We’re developing a range of specialist procedures for slightly niche businesses, like those making artisan sauces or frozen meals or delivering meals, who may find it hard to see where they fit into the regulations. We are simplifying all of New Zealand Food Safety’s templates, which will make them much easier to interact with for busy small-business people. And we will better support companies, especially in the animal products sector, that want to transition to exporting. They need the support because export brings additional market access requirements, which can be very costly when you’re starting out.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: What is the most significant action the Minister has identified to unlock food businesses?

Hon ANDREW HOGGARD: Last year, we removed the requirement to register under the Food Act for home-based cake bakers because the compliance cost was not justified by the risk. This was a reasonably straightforward change following a series of submissions to the Red Tape Tipline. But I want to make sure that all businesses are regulated in a way that is proportional to their food safety risk. That’s why I’ve asked officials to review the relevant schedule in the Food Act so that businesses are not subject to needless red tape that adds costs without any benefit to food safety. I expect that this will see significant cost reductions, especially for small businesses. That initial review is now complete, and I expect to see advice on potential changes before the end of the month.

Health

Question No. 10

Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour) (14:41) to the Minister of Health: Does the Minister stand by his appointments to the Medical Council, and what information did he or his office consider before making these appointments?

Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Health) (14:42): Yes. Under section 120 of the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act 2003, the Minister of Health is responsible for making the ministerial appointments to the Medical Council of New Zealand. The Ministry of Health administers that Act and runs the appointment process, providing the Minister with information on candidates, including, but not limited to, their qualifications, experience, skills, and ability to serve in their role.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Did the Minister or his office ask Roderick Mulgan how he would approach council decisions on doctors who are found guilty of sexual assault or disciplined for sexual misconduct when Dr Mulgan’s professional website advertises his skill in allowing them to continue practising?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: The Ministry of Health went through a process and provided me advice. I went through the process of taking their advice and making decisions based on section 120 of the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: What assurance did the Minister seek that Dr Mulgan would protect patients from practitioners with a history of sexual misconduct?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, the Ministry of Health provides me with advice in relation to the qualifications, experience, skills, and ability for individuals to serve in the role. They undertake due diligence of the individual member and take that into account prior to giving me advice.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Did the Minister or his office discuss with Dr Mulgan how the council should uphold professional standards of behaviour when he had said on The Platform, on 12 September 2023, “This is the sort of thing that needs to be smacked down.”, in relation to proceedings against a nurse who spread anti-vax misinformation?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, the member is aware that I make appointments under section 120 of the Health Practitioners Competency Assurance Act. The Ministry of Health administers that Act and runs the appointment process. They do due diligence of the individual. They provide the Minister with information on candidates, including, but not limited to, their qualifications, skills, experience, and their ability to serve in the role. That’s what I undertook in this process.

Hon Shane Jones: Point of order. It’s clearly articulated both in Speaker’s rulings: that member does not have a free pass to cast aspersion, denigrate, or stigmatise a member of the public.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Speaking to the point of order.

SPEAKER: No, you don’t need to, because in this case it’s not a member of the public as such. It is a member of the public who has been appointed to a statutory body, and the member, therefore, does have the right to question relating to that appointment.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: When was he made aware that Dr Mulgan’s advertising of nutritional supplements was potentially in breach of the Medical Council’s rules on doctors promoting commercial products?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Matters regarding the Medical Council’s own policies and procedures are a matter for the Medical Council.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Does he consider Dr Mulgan’s endorsing pills that he formulates and sells containing turmeric, olive, and pepper extracts for “protecting long-term health” consistent with good medical practise or quackery? [Interruption]

SPEAKER: No, no. Sorry, just a minute. While it’s interesting, and an enormous number of New Zealanders do use supplements which contain all of those ingredients, I don’t think it’s appropriate for the Minister, who is not a medical practitioner, to answer what was effectively a medical question. Use the question again to ask a different one.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Speaking to your ruling just there, Mr Speaker. That is not a question that is asking the Minister to make a medical judgment. It is clear and it’s already in the public domain that the person appointed to the Medical Council—

SPEAKER: Hang on, just let me be clear. The way you put that was, when you listed those ingredients, you asked him if they were consistent with good health outcomes or words to that effect. There are other ways you could ask the same question without requiring that, because that would be an opinion that I don’t think is appropriate for him to give.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Did the Minister seek advice on the appropriateness of Dr Mulgan’s endorsing pills that he sells and formulates containing plant extracts, and making claims about them protecting long-term health, when he was appointing that man to the body responsible for regulating doctors?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, as I said, the Ministry of Health administers the Act and runs an appointment process providing the Minister with information on the candidates including but not limited to their qualifications, experience, skills, and ability to serve in the role. That process was undertaken. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Only Dr Verrall will be speaking.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Does he take responsibility for making appointments to the Medical Council that are in line with public safety and good medical practice?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Yes, and I’m advised and I received advice from the Ministry of Health that the named individual was appointable.

Resources

Question No. 11

Dr DAVID WILSON (NZ First) (14:48) to the Minister for Resources: What recent reports, if any, has he seen on the minerals royalty regime?

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Resources) (14:48): Mr Speaker, before I give this answer, I appeal to the benevolent side of your nature because the initial answer will be slightly longer than usual. Yes, one of the actions that we agreed to undertake as a Government as a part of our minerals strategy—

Ricardo Menéndez March: Longer or slower?

Hon SHANE JONES: I don’t want to hear any more from the arse-end of the vacuum cleaner over there. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Sorry. Because there was so much noise there—I know who made the initial comment—I did not hear the reply. We’ll hear the rest of this without anybody saying anything other than the person answering the question.

Hon SHANE JONES: We have had a review undertaken by Deloitte New Zealand providing a base of information from a neutral source pertaining to royalty levels and company tax, and how this regime, pertaining to the minerals sector, compares with other jurisdictions. The report found that 97 percent of mineral royalty revenue came from permits operating under legacy regimes that predate the current framework. That has led people, from time to time, to make observations that the Crown does not get a fair return. The report lays out the other sources of income that the Crown does derive from mining. The royalty regime was comprehensively reviewed in 2012. The report provides a basis for all political parties and communities in New Zealand to debate and discuss as to how the Crown may, or may not, collect more revenue via the royalty regime.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. I’ve waited until now because you made it clear that you wanted that question to be completed without interruption. Earlier—certainly over the last couple of weeks—there have been instances where you’ve said that you did not hear and were not made aware of at the time. Therefore, I ask you to reflect on whether it is appropriate for Ministers to refer to other members as “the arse end of a vacuum cleaner”—and indeed if it isn’t, whether you will take action on that.

SPEAKER: I’ll certainly look at the Hansard—[Interruption] No, sit down. No, no, I’m not listening; I’m talking at the moment. The member asked me to look at matters yesterday. I did, and they weren’t quite as was presented to me, and that’s why there’s been no comment today. But I will look at that, and see what is recorded in the Hansard. New point of order?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Yes, it’s a new point of order. The “a-f-t” end of the vacuum cleaner is a responsible comment.

SPEAKER: I suppose it is if you’re going door to door and hoping people will buy it off you, but that’s not the situation we’re in here.

Dr David Wilson: How does New Zealand’s royalty regime compare internationally?

Hon SHANE JONES: In some areas, where there have been precipitous changes to royalty regimes, such as Queensland, it has had the effect of shrinking and undermining ongoing investment in mining. However, it needs to be borne in mind that 80 percent of every dollar spent on mining stays here in New Zealand.

SPEAKER: Right, that’s unfortunately the lot, so we’ll going out to question No. 12—

Maureen Pugh: Supplementary, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: Oh, supplementary—Maureen Pugh.

Maureen Pugh: Why are the royalties important to regions such as the West Coast?

Hon SHANE JONES: I would like to acknowledge the diligence of that member, as having been a great advocate and a voice of common sense in that part of New Zealand, in contrast to other representatives, on the need for us to grow mining. An emphasis should be placed on the many skilled jobs—the high paying jobs associated with mining, not the least of which is engineering—and the social contributions that mining does make to that part of the country. I, by that, refer to the local schools and the community facilities that have been supported by mining companies, who have a legitimate role to deliver their services, extract material, and earn money for the country and for the benefit of the West Coast.

Miles Anderson: What benefits, other than royalties, does mining bring to regions such as Otago?

Hon SHANE JONES: Once again, I would like to acknowledge the dedication shown by that member and his patience in the face of the misinformation floating around Otago associated with mining applications and, indeed, the existing mine at Macraes—a location where over $12 billion has been generated through that enterprise and related enterprises that are a part of the owner Oceana’s broader portfolio. We will see more mining development with careful guardrail establishment, but we’ll only see it when politicians are prepared to stand up against the numpties who oppose extractive mining.

SPEAKER: Yeah, that’s good. We were going well there for a while.

Small Business and Manufacturing

Question No. 12

DAN ROSEWARNE (Labour) (14:54) to the Minister for Small Business and Manufacturing: What recent advice has he received on the cost pressures facing small businesses, and what actions is he taking in response?

Hon CAMERON BREWER (Minister for Small Business and Manufacturing) (14:54): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have received and seen a range of advice on small businesses in my role as small business and manufacturing Minister. When I am out there talking to businesses, the one thing that small businesses consistently tell me that they can’t afford is a change of Government.

SPEAKER: Sorry, sit down—sit down! That’s the end of that—

Hon CAMERON BREWER: This is why—

SPEAKER: No, hang on—that’s the end of that answer. Sit down! Next supplementary.

Dan Rosewarne: What “conditions—

SPEAKER: Sit down!

Dan Rosewarne: —for economic growth”—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Hang on. Start again, and the whole House will be quiet.

Dan Rosewarne: Thank you, Mr Speaker. What “conditions for economic growth” did he create for hospitality businesses that face an almost 50 percent rise in liquidations—the highest rate in 11 years?

Hon CAMERON BREWER: This gives me an opportunity to answer the second part of my primary, which is that we are putting in a number of initiatives—

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, sir.

Hon CAMERON BREWER: —and the most successful initiative—

SPEAKER: Just a minute.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Sir, you have cut this Minister off because he was abusing question time—and quite rightly so. For him to then stand up and state that he is going to continue with the answer that you prevented him from doing so, I think, is actually trifling with your judgment.

SPEAKER: Except it will come with a penalty for the Government when the House resumes after the recess. I’m not going to cut him off from answering questions from the Opposition, which is the legitimate purpose of question time. Dan Rosewarne—you can ask that question again, and hopefully the answer will start with a little bit of a difference.

Dan Rosewarne: What “conditions for economic growth” did he create for hospitality businesses that face an almost 50 percent rise in liquidations—the highest rate in 11 years?

Hon CAMERON BREWER: One good policy that is widely acclaimed—from our hospitality businesses right through to our manufacturers—is the policy that was announced in Budget 2025 to much acclaim and has been put into heavy practice, called Investment Boost. That is accelerated depreciation—20 percent off your taxable income on any piece of plant or asset across the hospitality sector, restaurant sector, and right through to manufacturing. It’s been hugely successful—Investment Boost. [Interruption]

Dan Rosewarne: When he said small businesses—

SPEAKER: Just a minute. Sorry, Mr Rosewarne, we’ll just wait for everyone in the House to give you the respect of hearing your question.

Dan Rosewarne: Thank you, Mr Speaker. When he said small businesses should succeed through innovation and adaptation, what exactly does he expect small businesses to do?

Hon CAMERON BREWER: I have been encouraging small businesses, and they have been encouraging us to continue with the good work that this Government is doing. That is the trades academies policy that we announced; that is the “Earn as You Learn” policy that we have announced earlier this week for an expansion; again, Investment Boost, that accelerated depreciation policy; lower taxes—that’s what they want, too. They also want the certainty of lower inflation and stabilised interest rates; they want us to continue on reducing compliance; they appreciate the Regional Business Partner Network that we provide—

SPEAKER: Yep, that’s good—

Hon CAMERON BREWER: —and they appreciate the law and order initiatives which have tidied up retail crime.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order, sir. The question was actually quite clear: it was asking the Minister to back up a comment that he’d made; it was not an invitation to list things that he thinks this Government has succeeded at. The question was quite clearly focused on small businesses.

SPEAKER: Yes, it was, but the question asked what he has either done or, presumably, supported, because he doesn’t do anything on his own—no one does in a Government. That list, whether you like it or not, is not unreasonable as an answer.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Speaking to that, sir. With respect, that was not the question—that was not the question at all. The question was asking the Minister to outline what his expectations of small businesses are, to live up to the quotation that was used in the question. It wasn’t a list of what this Government has done.

SPEAKER: You can’t ask a question that is incredibly subjective like that and not expect that you’re going to get a somewhat subjective answer. I think the question was addressed. Have you got another question, Mr Rosewarne?

Dan Rosewarne: Does he think it’s fair and reasonable that big businesses do not have to pay invoices to small businesses within 15 days?

Hon CAMERON BREWER: We have done some great work as a Government on what we call e-invoicing, and we are now seeing Government pay its suppliers within 10 working days—96 percent of Government are paying their suppliers, across the whole of Government. We are taking a leadership role on e-invoicing. That is going to transfer through the economy. I am part of the e-invoicing leadership team, as are big business and small business. We’re going to get it done; we’re not just going to talk about it for six years, like they did.

SPEAKER: Before I get another point of order, the question did ask the Minister for his opinion on that matter. It would be good if it was very concisely given.

Hon CAMERON BREWER: In my opinion, as far as invoicing, whether it’s small or big, we are looking at a number of innovative solutions, including e-invoicing, which we are leading the charge on. We know the productivity gains that will be made through invoicing, and that is why we are taking the charge and leading the e-invoicing team. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Just a moment. We could be here all afternoon if we like. Ask the question again.

Dan Rosewarne: Does he think it’s fair and reasonable that big businesses do not have to pay invoices to small businesses within 15 days?

Hon CAMERON BREWER: My opinion on who should be paying their invoices and when they should be paying them is, frankly, not appropriate here, nor is it relevant. What we’re focused on is reducing compliance, reducing cost, reducing regulation, getting out of the way of businesses, encouraging businesses, not coming out of the Koru club and talking down business.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. Speakers’ Rulings is very clear that opinions can be sought from Ministers, so the guidance I’m seeking from you is whether it is appropriate for a Minister to state that their opinions on matters that are directly linked to their portfolios are irrelevant, as was stated. It is an appropriate question to ask.

SPEAKER: It most certainly is, and opinions, as I made clear, can be asked, and they can be given by Ministers. In this case, I would have thought the answer itself was patently clear.

Dan Rosewarne: Will he commit to supporting small businesses by lifting the GST registration threshold?

Hon CAMERON BREWER: I’m not privy here to start talking partisan political policies, and I am not about to. I know they have got a big focus on tax this election, but we have got a big focus on making it easier for business, on lifting productivity, on lifting their profitability, and on getting in behind and supporting small business. We are the Government of small business.

Dan Rosewarne: Why has he not assisted small businesses by increasing the asset write-off threshold?

Hon CAMERON BREWER: I will quote a comment that was circulated today: Labour is taking out $6.6 billion of support—

SPEAKER: No, sorry—[Interruption]

Hon CAMERON BREWER: —by cutting Investment Boost—

SPEAKER: No, no.

Hon CAMERON BREWER: —to fund their tax hole.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Every question time, we’ve got to put up with this.

SPEAKER: That’s right, and so we will end this, Mr Rosewarne, and you’ll see, when the House returns, just what that little exercise has meant for Government questions.

That’s the end of oral questions. We’ll take 30 seconds for those who have to leave to go to other business. [Interruption] Without any calling out or other silly nonsense.

Bills

Crimes Amendment Bill

Third Reading

Debate resumed from 4 August.

TODD STEPHENSON (ACT) (15:05): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT to speak on the Crimes Amendment Bill. ACT is very proud to be part of this Government, which really has tackled law and order. Over the term, we’ve done a number of changes. This is now the latest of these changes. We are obviously going to be extending citizen’s arrest powers, which I think is great and is going to tackle retail crime. We’re dealing with people smuggling and trafficking offences and penalties. I know that’s actually something that’s supported across the House, which is great. They’ve also added some new offences related to coward punches, response on first offenders, and actually putting in place a new penalty regime around theft to actually try and again address retail theft.

This is just the latest suite of changes that this Government is making to really tackle law and order, make sure New Zealanders feel safe in their homes, their places of business, and in their communities, and I commend this bill to the House.

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Minister of Customs) (15:06): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on the Crimes Amendment Bill, and, firstly, to applaud the effort that this Government has put forward to restore law and order and confidence in our communities, so that they can live safely within their neighbourhoods, within their homes, within their businesses.

This is a complex piece of legislation and has been navigated with careful consideration and thought throughout. It is bringing together a number of pieces of work that is collectively about bringing together a stronger response to the safety of our communities. New Zealand First has been a long and strong advocate for law and order in New Zealand and it is why we included significant components within our coalition agreement with National to ensure that we were recognising the issues that we had long since campaigned on.

We have supported the bill and we will continue to support the bill, but we have, as a party, invoked our agree to disagree on two key areas of the legislation. That is not because we disagree with the offences that have been included, but that we do not believe they have gone far enough. We have been the advocates for protecting our first responders. We are the party that is committed to defending and protecting the hard-working Kiwi battlers that enable us to live in this great country. But, unfortunately, in the development of this legislation, the important component that we considered necessary in the protection of first responders was a minimum mandatory sentence.

It is important to ensure that when we bring in legislation, we carefully consider the impacts of that legislation and we do recognise the challenges and difficulties of minimum mandatory sentencing. But we believe, in this case, it is relevant, and that is why we included it specifically in our coalition agreement commitment and we thought it was so important. We recognise that a lot of work has gone into bringing this legislation to the House and we do not want to denigrate the work that has been done and the huge issues that are being tackled in this piece of legislation. But I think it is important, on behalf of New Zealand First, that we recognise that it hasn’t quite finished the job, that more work needs to be done.

That leads me into the discussion about the coward punch legislation. Our coalition agreement commitments specifically referred to the introduction of coward punch legislation to create a specific offence. It was always our intention to ensure that to make that offence achieve the outcome it needed to do, it also required a minimum mandatory sentence component. We tried in the committee of the whole House to put forward amendments in this which were unsuccessful. Again, this is an area where we believe that our work has not yet finished and there’s more that we need to do.

Coward punch is, of course, a difficult piece of legislation. It is a difficult offence because of the nature of its criminality, of the mens rea and the actus reus that brings this offence to its fruition. But I think it is important to recognise that the harm caused and the defencelessness of the victim have to be considered in this debate. So that is why we have invoked agree to disagree. We think that the job is not yet done and we think more should be done.

In reference to the other pieces of the legislation, I would like to really highlight the fact that we have challenged the offences around trafficking and that we have changed the way criminal prosecutions are decided, and that we have removed the need for the Attorney-General to consent. I think that is moving forward to the changing environment that we have and the fact that trafficking is not always across borders, and therefore the international component that would require an Attorney-General consent is no longer relevant.

This has been a difficult piece of legislation to traverse. There have been a lot of submissions in this space and a lot of recognition of the impacts of this. But it is consistent with this Government’s commitment to law and order, to allowing people to be assured that they are living in their homes, they are working in their businesses, and they are moving around their neighbourhoods with a degree of comfort and safety that they deserve. So on that basis, we do commend the bill to the House, we do endorse it, we realise that we have more work to do, and I commend the bill to the House.

ORIINI KAIPARA (Te Pāti Māori—Tāmaki Makaurau) (15:11): I rise today on behalf of Te Pāti Māori and the people of Tāmaki Makaurau to voice our unyielding, absolute opposition to the Crimes Amendment Bill. Is this really all that this Government can come up with to protect our communities? Seriously. This piece of legislation isn’t a shield of protection for our communities; it’s a political sledgehammer wrapped in the illusion of justice. It doesn’t cure the disease of crime; instead, it builds a bigger, darker cage of symptoms. This Government is trying to sell Aotearoa information that falls short of the facts. They claim that harsher sentences and lower thresholds will somehow keep us all safe, but we have to look at the hard truth and not the hollow headlines.

Let’s start with the changes to retail theft, shall we? Under this bill, stealing an item worth less than $500 could land any single one of the people of Aotearoa in jail for a full year. In a cost of living crisis, where some whānau are resorting to this type of petty theft, taking kai from the shelves of supermarkets to feed their tamariki, their parents, and themselves; instead of providing short-term relief, investing direct into our foodbanks and front-line community services or sorting out the supermarket duopoly, this Government would rather throw mums, dads, and kids in jail for a whole entire year. How the hell is that OK, e te Whare, when this House knows from the Office of the Auditor-General himself that it costs taxpayers more than $200,000 per year to send just one person to prison and keep them locked up for one year—those on remand cost the country around $150,000. So let’s set the record straight. The fastest growing industry under this Government isn’t opportunity; it is incarceration.

Here we have another example of this Government weaponising the law against the poorest among us.

[Authorised reo Māori text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

[Authorised translation to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

Our young people. This isn’t justice; it’s a tax on poverty. But the most reckless, short-sighted part of this bill is the changes to citizen’s arrest and property defence. This Government want to deputise the public. They want the people of Aotearoa to do their dirty mahi. Even the business community is against this. Retail New Zealand—hardly a radical leftist group—has aggressively submitted against this bill. Their chief executive, Carolyn Young, gave us a chilling warning that this legislation will spark an explosion of “violence on violence” in our stores. The New Zealand Council of Trade Unions laid it bare: they called this bill an active workplace hazard. Even legal experts have dismantled this bill’s headline grabbing coward punch laws. They warned us that by making the criteria so hyper-specific it will actually be harder for prosecutors to secure a majority jury verdict.

This bill is a symptom of a Government that has run completely out of ideas. They’re treating the symptoms of a broken system, while actively feeding the root causes: poverty, inequality, and systemic neglect. Last night, this House hosted a formidable group of wāhine toa who have solutions, real lived experience. They launched their book, penned by State mōrehu Paora Moyle and presented with integrity by Wāhine Toa Mongrel Mob leader Paula Ormsby. I give rise to Paula’s kupu from late last night that there is no such thing as a hard-to-reach community, only whether we are willing to truly reach them.

Aotearoa doesn’t need any more cells; we need more support. Whānau heal communities; prisons separate them. Justice without healing leaves every single one of us carrying the hurt for generations. When whakapapa is ignored, the justice system becomes another form of intergenerational trauma.

Te Pāti Māori will not stand by and allow this House to trade human rights for political points. Te Pāti Māori opposes this bill because it’s built on the failed philosophy that harsher punishment equals better outcomes—it absolutely does not. The bill is a step backwards into a darker, more violent past.

TAMATHA PAUL (Green—Wellington Central) (15:16): Bill English—somebody that the other side of the House recognises as a leader—said that prisons are a moral and fiscal failure of society. The amendments to the Crimes Act, particularly those that increase the penalties for shoplifting, are a perfect example.

Now, when we talk about the justice system, it’s almost hollow to talk about the costs of it, but it seems like dollars are the only thing that that side of the House are interested in. So let’s ask ourselves why it makes any sense for somebody who shoplifts property worth more than $1,000 to be put in prison for a maximum term of up to seven years, costing $1,410,360 to keep that person incarcerated? If somebody shoplifts between $500 and $1,000 worth of property, their imprisonment term will cost $201,480. If somebody shoplifts for property valued at less than $500, their prison term will cost $49,680.

Now, that side of the House likes to argue that prisons are in place to protect the community from the most violent, serious offenders, right? There is some truth to that—there is absolutely some truth to that. But the problem is that half of the people in our prisons are in there for non-serious, non-violent offending—a claim that I made that I was absolutely torn to shreds for, which Corrections data backs up. It’s a complete waste of money. It’s a total waste of money to have people in there. This bill makes it worse, because this will increase the prison population, at a cost where the items that have been shoplifted are completely dwarfed by the amount of money that taxpayers will have to put into imprisoning those people.

I’ll put a face to the people who will be imprisoned by increasing penalties towards shoplifting: it’s women. I don’t know if the House realises, but there has already been a dramatic increase in the number of women in prison before these changes were made. In fact, I believe it’s an increase of 24 percent of women being imprisoned for crimes of poverty—for crimes of trying to feed their families and shoplifting. Shoplifting is the most common charge for women. It’s not violence; it is crimes of dishonesty and crimes of poverty. I can guarantee you that not one woman shoplifts because it’s fun and because they get a thrill from it. It is because they are desperate to feed their families. People have projected what these changes will mean to the prison population. These changes mean there will be a 63 percent increase in the prison population from these changes alone. What an absolute waste of the court system, which should be prioritising reducing violence in our communities, dealing with family violence, sexual violence, and actual serious crimes. But our courts, which are already backlogged, will now be taken up by somebody shoplifting a Red Bull. Well done! You can all go home and pat yourselves on the back now for tackling the real crimes. Because here’s the thing: just because you make something a crime, doesn’t stop it from happening—just because you make something a crime, does not stop it from happening. So you get up there and you say to victims: “We’ve made coward punches illegal. We’ve made all of these things illegal”—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Please don’t bring the Speaker into your debate.

TAMATHA PAUL: Sorry, what?

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Please don’t bring the Speaker into your debate. I am not responsible for shoplifting.

TAMATHA PAUL: Right, well, the Government is going to make these things illegal. It does no service to the victims—it does no service to the victims. What it will mean is that our prisons are getting fuller and fuller and fuller and have to be built for billions and billions of dollars, to house who? To keep who in custody? Shoplifters. Someone who shoplifted a loaf of bread, someone who shoplifted some meat—that is economic insanity.

Not to mention the flaws of our criminal justice system that doesn’t even rehabilitate people. Our recidivism rates in this country are an indictment on our so-called criminal justice system. Congratulations, because the Government will be backlogging our prisons and our courts even more, so that they can punch down on poor people who are just trying to feed their kids. So well done, Government—I hope you feel really proud of yourself!

TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty) (15:21): Boy oh boy, the scaremongering on that side of the House on this piece of legislation has hit an entirely new level. One of the parts of this legislation I am so proud of is the protection it is giving to our front-line men and women, our first responders, who are the ones that run towards danger. Yet we have political parties, like the Green Party and Te Pāti Māori, who are voting against this legislation.

The priority of first responders is not a priority for them. They’re saying, “We’re going to back the criminals who are committing those crimes. We’re not actually backing the men and women who put on that uniform to help protect our communities and keep them safe.” What a shame. The record will show that they have voted down this legislation and have put the priority of the criminals ahead of our first responders in this country. What a shameful day. For people like my brother, a police officer, the Green Party and Te Pāti Māori are saying, “We’re not putting you first. You’re not a priority to us. We are saying that we are going to back the criminals who are committing the crimes and not make them a priority.” What a shameful day.

What about the men and women who have been smuggled and trafficked in this country? This legislation is bringing in greater accountability and greater protections in that space. They’ll be voting against that as well. Why? It is so frustrating and disgusting to see that political parties can’t get past the fact that they don’t want to improve legislation that is going to protect men and women who have been trafficked and smuggled in this country. That’s what this bill is doing: it’s protecting men and women across our country who are so vulnerable, and I commend it to the House.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) (15:23): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’d like to congratulate the chair of the Justice Committee on actually giving a speech in the House. That was a minute and 30 seconds long—I think it’s the longest he’s ever spoken, so how about that!

He’s fair to point out, on the modern slavery provisions, that we support them, but you can’t put one good thing in a piece of legislation—I was going to use some colourful language around arse ends, but I won’t.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): I think you just did.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: But you can’t put one thing into a piece of legislation that is full of absolute rubbish and then say, “Well, you’ve got to support it.” The rest of the bill is pretty much unadulterated rubbish. I mean, if we look at the changes around citizen’s arrest, there’s only one good point that the Minister makes, which is the arbitrariness of the time. But in terms of giving expanded powers of citizen’s arrest to use force, including on children, and then having a framework where you’ve got to call the police and do what the police tell you, is absolutely unworkable and quite dangerous.

We know that this will be in force soon, and yet the police have no idea what to do with this provision. They don’t have any operational guidance as to what they’re going to do when someone calls them up and says, “I’ve got my knee on the back of a 6-foot-3 guy and I’ve got some cable ties around his wrists. He’s pretty angry. Can you come?” And they’ll say, “Well, we’re a bit busy attending to another serious matter.” They don’t know what they’re going to do in those kinds of situations.

In terms of defending property, this piece of legislation deletes a prohibition on striking a person who was a trespasser, not just moving them off the property but it more or less explicitly says that you can strike or do bodily harm to the trespasser. So it is State-sanctioned violence, and it’s truly alarming that this Government’s answer to civil order is to give citizens the right to strike and do bodily harm to other people. That’s their answer.

I do want to talk about the provision on causing death by strike to the head or neck. This is an example of terrible lawmaking for entirely political purposes. The three-headed monster that is the current Government simply can’t agree on what to do with this. So what we have is a mishmash piece of legislation which creates this new manslaughter offence with all kinds of elements to it. But it’s really important to recognise that you’ve now got what the Government, and particularly those two smaller parties, would call a “coward punch” offence that is harder to prove than manslaughter but has exactly the same penalty. So you might as well have, you know, other offences of shoplifting in a disorderly manner with exactly the same penalty as shoplifting. So you’ve got to prove something extra but it has no different result.

So there’s a really legitimate question to ask, and it’s this—and it’s a pity Tom Rutherford can’t answer this one—what is the point? If it’s a coward punch and it’s not murder, then it’s already manslaughter. So manslaughter by coward punch already exists, but the legislation is creating this complicated coward punch framework where you’ve got to prove that they weren’t suspecting it, prove they didn’t have an opportunity to defend themselves, prove that it struck them in the head or the neck—wherever that exactly starts and stops—and all of those other elements, and an intention to do grievous bodily harm. You’ve got to prove all of those things. The irony is this: if you punch someone and didn’t intend to cause grievous bodily harm and they die, it’s still manslaughter. So, in fact, the original manslaughter offence is more effective than the coward punch offence in capturing the right category of offenders and offences. So it just perplexes me.

And, of course we had in this House the most extraordinary situation in committee stage where both minor Government parties put amendments on the Table that cut across Government policy. The National Party voted alongside the Labour Party in saying that’s a dumb idea and we don’t do minimum mandatory sentences for those kinds of offences. So at least they saw some sense there. Of course, in committee there’s a letter that’s on the record where the Minister essentially says to the committee, “Look, these offences are problematic and I’d invite you to look at them very carefully.”, or words to that effect, which, of course, was code for “Please get rid of these offences. Please make them go away.”

But do you know what? The National Party members on the committee couldn’t bring themselves to do it. They couldn’t actually do the decent thing and say, “These coward punch offences don’t make our law any better. Coward punches are a genuine issue. The law should address them properly, but this is not the way to go about it.” And so we’re in committee and we’ve been invited by the Minister to solve the problem for him and recommend to this House that that part of the bill not progress. Understandably, New Zealand First and ACT both wanted to press on, but the National Party couldn’t see sense and couldn’t actually do what the Minister wanted: they insisted on proceeding with these ridiculous and duplicative offences.

I just want to talk a little bit about the shoplifting offences as well, because these infringement offences are quite unusual. It’s actually not shoplifting or stealing; it’s actually leaving the premises without paying—many people have in fact done that. Now, it’s not theft if you don’t have dishonest intent. So if you accidently leave without paying, then it’s well established that that’s not a crime under the Crimes Act. But under this offense, if you do that, there is no mental element—you don’t have to have dishonest intent. This was put to the Minister at committee stage by me. I said, “Do you have to have a dishonest intent? Is there, in fact, any intention element to this offence?” He stood up quite clearly—and to his credit, very clearly—said, “No, there is no intent element.” So if you accidentally take something out and you haven’t got a reasonable excuse to have done so, then you’re going to be guilty of this infringement offence for which a fine can be imposed. It is quite extraordinary that we now have an offence in respect of taking, which has no intention element. It could be entirely an omission, but because you haven’t got an excuse, you didn’t have a positive belief that you’d paid—perhaps that might be a reasonable excuse, “Oh, I thought I had paid, I put my card in, I didn’t know it didn’t go through”—that’s probably a reasonable excuse. But putting it in your bag thinking “I’ll pay that when I get to the check out” and you pay for those two things, but not that one, that’s not a reasonable excuse, you’re going to be in all kinds of trouble!

Hon Member: Why not?

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: One of the members says, “Why not?” Because it’s not a positive state of mind. This is a strict liability offence, if that person had gone to a decent law school, he would know that having to actually prove a positive belief of your innocence is the defence to a strict liability offence. This is a strict liability offence. We’ve got real problems in here. We’ve got a Government which seeks to address some of these problems but does it in the most ham-fisted manner. Of course, the other thing about this is the police don’t want this either, and the reason they don’t want it is they haven’t got the IT system to back it up. They actually don’t have the resources to issue infringement notices for non-traffic matters. So you’re going to have this infringement offence system and it’s going to be impossible to administer because the police don’t have the resources—the IT infrastructure—to issue these infringement notices. Once again, a flurry of activity from the Government to make themselves look busy but absolutely ineffective, and I’m looking forward to that member’s call next.

NANCY LU (National) (15:33): I think about the shop owner that I visited during the campaign in 2023, and then further on in 2024, who was robbed numerous times, and asked me in her tears and said, “Where is this justice for them?”. Where is the justice? Where was the last Government who put victims first, maybe, to actually protect those hardworking New Zealanders? That’s why we were elected in 2023, to come in to restore law and order, to put the country back on track, and to fix the basics and build the future. I commend the bill to the House.

SPEAKER: This is a split call, Dan Rosewarne.

DAN ROSEWARNE (Labour) (15:34): Thank you Madam Speaker. There are parts to this legislation that deal with genuinely serious issues. Human trafficking is a horrific crime. The exploitation of children deserves a strong response—no one on this side of the House disputes that. The problem is that, taken as a whole, this bill is more focused on looking tough than being effective.

One of the clearest examples is the expansion of the citizens arrest powers in clauses 4 through to 7. Most New Zealanders understand the frustration that retailers feel when they are repeatedly targeted for theft. We all want safer communities, and we all want offenders to be held accountable, but the question Parliament should ask is whether pushing ordinary members of the public into potentially volatile situations is actually a good idea. At select committee we heard repeated concerns about escalation, mistaken arrests, injuries, vigilantism—retailers, legal experts at community organisations, they all raised these concerns about asking untrained people to detain alleged offenders. Even officials acknowledge that those were risks and accepted that police will need to issue guidance because the public may increasingly find themselves in situations that were previously left to trained law enforcement.

Our view is that we should be investing in police and crime prevention, not creating circumstances were shop staff and members of the public are expected to fill the gap. Another example is in clause 20, the so called “one punch offence”. Every member of this House understands the devastating consequences that can follow a coward punch, and we’ve all heard stories from families who have lost loved ones. But good law making requires more than good intentions, and the Hon Dr Duncan Webb highlighted that in his contribution. What struck me during the select committee was that officials themselves recommended removing the separate manslaughter one-punch offence from the bill because it would be harder to prove. It could create confusion for juries and may actually make prosecutions more difficult. They concluded that the existing manslaughter provisions already captured that conduct. If officials are telling you that this new offence may make the law more complicated or add little practical benefit, then we should actually listen to that.

I am also unconvinced by the Government’s approach to creating a range of new offences where existing offences may already exist, and we see that in clauses 22 and 23, where they create new offences for assaults of first responders and corrections officers. Anyone who assaults a police officer, firefighter, paramedic, or corrections officer deserves to face consequences. These people do difficult jobs under difficult situations. But the question isn’t whether the behaviour is unacceptable; the question is whether creating yet another offence actually improves outcomes. Existing assault provisions already apply and existing courts already have sentencing powers. The Government has spent a lot of time creating a new offence—it’s a label, and not nearly enough time is given to demonstrate how it will actually change behaviour.

I also want to touch on clause 25, which creates a new offence of theft in an offensive, insulting, or disorderly manner. Again, everyone understands the concern about brazen retail offending, but even here the departmental report identified overlap with existing robbery and assault offences and recommended changes to the drafting. That seems to be a reoccurring theme throughout this bill: announce a new offence first, figure out how it fits into the existing law later. The wider issue for us is this: the Government talks a lot about consequences, tougher penalties, and getting harder on crime, but what we hear much less about are the things that actually reduce offending in the first place. Those are the concerns we have on this side of the House, and for that reason, we don’t support the bill.

Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National—Ilam) (15:39): It’s interesting—the last speaker talked about reducing crime. Under the last Government, their record was appalling: ram raids were up 500 percent; violent crime jumped 51 percent. Under our Government ram raids are down 86 percent, so there’s 49,000 fewer victims of violent crime. This bill means that criminals will soon face stronger penalties for attacking first responders, coward punches, and human trafficking. These are horrendous crimes, we’re dealing with them with this bill, therefore I commend it to the House.

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa) (15:39): Thank you Madam Speaker for the opportunity to speak on this bill, the Crimes Amendment Bill. This is a bill that Labor does not support. When I think about the impact that it will have on New Zealanders now, as well as future generations, I can only say that I hope this represents a number of changes that will get assigned to the scrap heap at the election. There are some changes in here which make sense and that Labour could have supported and built some sticky consensus around—changes like the tougher penalties for human trafficking, which are good and would happily be something that we could continue to support—but things like the citizens arrest provisions are dangerous.

No one is asking for these. This is the perfect example of where a party like National, that is out campaigning right now to revisit our entire democratic order, in proposing a referendum on the efficacy of MMP, should hold up and reference. This is the bill where National has had to bend over backwards for the people who are really calling the shots in that coalition Government: Winston Peters and David Seymour. This is a bill that no National Party has ever stooped so low to introduce to this House as a part of the ordinary legislative process. It is worrying not only that it has been led around by its two minor coalition parties, who did not seek a mandate for these changes, but that some of its own backbench now think that this is what National stands for. This is not National politics. This is not the proud record of Prime Ministers like Keith Holyoake, who offer New Zealand some impact from a place of centrist, sensible politics of the National Party. This is not the proud record of a party that has claimed the centre and governed in the interests of most New Zealanders who elected them. This is petty minor party politics that has leaked into the normal legislative process. The worrying thing is that some National MPs think these are their values now.

Where does that leave us? This leaves us in a position where we are considering legislative changes which will not make things better for the average New Zealander. When backbench National Party MPs stand up and say, “Well, I’ve spoken to shop owners and they want tougher penalties for crime.”—we also want to work with the National Party to find tougher penalties that actually work, that are tough not only on crime but on the causes of crime. I have never spoken to a shop owner who said to me, after their roller door was attacked, like the one last week in the main street of Manurewa, or the shop owners who have dealt with the hammer attacks of teenagers who walk in their shop, that they wanted to see more powers for them to chase and apprehend the people who attacked their wives and children who work in their shops.

I have spoken to shop owners who say very clearly to me that they want those crimes never to have happened. The last Government put in place programmes like Kotahi Te Whakaaro in South Auckland, which have been disbanded by this Government and had their funding stripped. What was that? It meant that a group of people from the Public Service and from local associations—local leaders who knew our communities—sat around a table every morning and considered every youth offence that had come in overnight, every ram raid, every hammer attack, every incident, and they worked out where the police should be involved, what should be done with their families, who should support those families to get those kids back on track, what should be said to the principals, who should also have responsibility for these kids while they are at school, what kind of social work support should be in place, what kind of Corrections support should be in place.

All of that had an 80 percent rate of improving these young people’s chances and keeping them out of a life of crime. The recidivism rates under a traditional justice system are so much worse than the efficacy of something like Kotahi Te Whakaaro, but we now have a Government that is, frankly, not coming up with these ideas under its traditional frameworks and its traditional values and its traditional ideologies but one that is being led by chasing headlines in Facebook tiles on a Sunday night. What will the impact be? Sixteen- and 17-year-olds who are consigned to the scrapheap because of crimes that they have done in the worst moments of their lives. The worst days of their lives they will be judged for for the rest of their lives. Not only now do the police have new powers, but so does the chap who runs the dairy, so does the chap who works at Dick Smith and that’s his first job. That’s the answer of this Government, not only to judge our young people by harshest standards but to let everyone do it. What kind of a New Zealand is that? What kind of a vision for our future says to our young people that everyone in your community will judge you by the worst thing that you have ever done and that they will use violence against you and we condone that. It is a sad vision for Aotearoa and it is something that I hope is repealed after 7 November, when we have a change of Government.

I want to specifically address some of the things that I think are a worry in this bill, so that we have some way of looking back on these things. The citizen’s arrest provisions in this bill were submitted on by a range of businesses, but I want to really highlight and thank Retail New Zealand and its chief executive, Carolyn Young, for her advocacy not only at the select committee stage but with Ministers and with other spokespeople within the community. It is important, when Retail New Zealand was appointed by this Government to advise on these changes, including as specialist advisers in its retail crime group, that they took a stance that was brave and stepped out of that appointment by Government to be able to make some comments that they felt represented their members best.

Those comments were measured. They were about setting out how more violence at the store level would be more dangerous for the people who worked within those stores. For their members, who range from big box retailers, like Harvey Norman, right down to the very smallest, where it’s one person in the shop or one person and their family members, they could not see a way through to make this law something which was actionable in a safe way. Those comments were further supported by unions and other employment advocates, and by businesses too. This was something that nobody asked for and that there was no mandate for, because the real-world impact of this change will mean that there is more violence within a store context and that employees now have a very complex area to navigate, because they are responsible for the health and safety not only of their workers but of other people within their stores as well.

It makes it more difficult to run a small business in New Zealand. This makes it more difficult to understand not only the law but the norms, the cultural expectations, of someone who works in a shop. It’s hard for even trained security guards to know how to de-escalate someone who is causing a ruckus in their shop and who might be causing violence. Though there are more tools to be able to address this, useful New Zealand businesses like Aura, which are promoting better mapping and technological tools which help people to de-escalate and to notice the signs of violence erupting in their stores before they happen, we’re still not there. We’re still going to be asking, through this law, the 18-year-old, for whom this is his first job, to take pretty extreme actions. That is not the sort of setting which is going to result in less retail crime; it’s going to result in more use of physical force in these stores, which will be bad not only for the people who use them but also for the store owners.

I really just want to touch on the strike to the head or neck coward punch offence. This harm and the provisions around manslaughter are simply confusing. They will be harder for the Crown, which has to act as a responsible and honourable litigant, to be able to bring prosecutions of manslaughter and of grievous bodily harm under the normal provisions. Often Crown prosecutors will want to run a case that is made out and has bigger impact at sentencing on the grounds that it was a coward punch; now it will be harder for them to do that, because they won’t be able to make out all of the reasons why someone should be sentenced more harshly because of these factors, if they’re not running the provision, as the Government has formulated it, of the coward punch law.

I agree; I find myself agreeing with the Hon Casey Costello when she says the job is not done yet, because addressing this sort of behaviour is important and shouldn’t be something that our young people are facing and are worried about outside of nightclubs. You shouldn’t have to worry, if you are a mum, that your 19- and 20-year-olds, when they go to uni, might be subject to this kind of fight that could end of the life. That is something we should be addressing, but this is not a law that does that; this is a law that looks like it does it and will end up having worse outcomes for prosecutions. This is a bill that doesn’t work. It is a dog’s breakfast, and we should repeal it.

RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini) (15:49): We had someone from the Green Party say that I can guarantee you that not one woman shoplifts for fun. Also, I don’t know if she’s talking about her former colleague Golriz Ghahraman, but I think she was shoplifting for fun. I don’t think it was easy for those shop owners, those business owners. One of my first speeches in the House was that I have no shame about standing up for the rights of victims, and I still say that today, and I’m sorry. I’m sorry to our shop owners in South Auckland that have to listen to Labour and Greens and Te Pāti Māori say that their rights are actually not important. I’m sorry to firefighters, to police people, to nurses in ambulances that have to listen to them saying across the House that their rights are not important when they’re bashed by people that are violent and off their face on drugs. On this side of the House, we actually support victims. I commend this bill to the House.

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

Ayes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 53

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Climate Change Response (Tort Liability) Amendment Bill and the Oranga Tamariki (Responding to Serious Youth Offending) Amendment Bill.

Climate Change Response (Tort Liability) Amendment Bill

Committee of the whole House

Debate resumed from 5 August.

Clauses 1 and 2 (continued)

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members, the House is in committee for further consideration of the Climate Change Response (Tort Liability) Amendment Bill and for consideration of the Oranga Tamariki (Responding to Serious Youth Offending) Amendment Bill.

We start with the Climate Change Response (Tort Liability) Amendment Bill. When we were last considering this bill, we were debating clauses 1 and 2, “Title” and “Commencement”.

CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (15:52): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m keen not to lose the opportunity to make my contribution, as I previously indicated before the lunch break, on commencement. Commencement, as I said before, is often overlooked as a minor provision, but actually, the timing of when bills come into force can really impact the way that they are received by the community. It can impact the preparation that the community is able to do in advance of something coming into law, and it can actually really affect whether the law is sustainable or not. We had a bill recently, the Health and Safety at Work Amendment Act, that does not come into force until well after the election, and therefore, probably won’t ever become law—so you can see that this commencement provision, clause 2, is not a minor provision at all.

This provision is more of a standard one, which says that it will come into force the day after Royal assent. Now, that is likely to be not until next sitting week now, as I understand we won’t be doing the third reading today. I could be wrong on that, but that will be a time period that is quite close if the Government does decide, in fact, to put the third reading on the Order Paper as a matter of priority.

I’ve actually tabled an amendment to clause 2, and I wouldn’t mind if the Minister in the chair, the Hon James Meager, wouldn’t mind responding to whether he is in support of this amendment, which is to change the Royal assent date to one month after Royal assent. The reason that I have done that is not to be contrary to the purpose of the Act. The committee will not be surprised that this is not a bill that the Labour Party agrees with; however, it is not contrary to the objectives of the bill in the sense that I think there are actually good reasons to delay the commencement.

The reasons are, as I put in the explanatory note, that this particular bill is unusual in the sense that it has active litigation. The fact that it has active litigation means that there are court registries—the High Court registry—and the Supreme Court has obviously delivered its decision. I don’t know if it has a file currently still open on this particular case. It may well do that because, obviously, if the High Court determines that there is a liability for climate-related tort, it may be that that decision would be appealed possibly up to the Supreme Court again on the finding of actual material fact in this case. They may have a file open; the High Court may have a file open.

We heard submissions, which I think were valid, around costs. Now, we know that this bill, and it was clearly set out by the Minister, that this bill will not provide compensation for the fact of the bill coming into force, and we’ve gone through that provision. Now, that is relevant to the courts because the courts may—and I didn’t answer this question in the relevant part, so I won’t put it to the Minister now—but I do think it may be relevant for the courts to, within their own jurisdiction, consider the question of costs if such an application was to be made by one of the parties.

Now, two weeks is probably not enough time for a thoughtful and considered application in respect to costs if it now becomes clear to Mr Smith that this bill will shortly be passed; but a one-month period of time could allow the idea and the concept of costs brought by Mr Smith to be raised in the relevant court, and considered by that court, and determined on before this bill comes into force. I do think that that is relevant because there are significant access to justice issues raised in this bill, but they could be mitigated by a slightly longer commencement date allowing the courts to consider that, and the Minister may be able to get advice on whether that was foreseen by this particular bill. I’d be interested to know if it was in fact intended to get rid of all of the potential claims in relation to previously accrued costs when the cause of action was allowed to take place.

Those are genuine questions. I also have tabled amendments in writing now relating to the two amendments that I foreshadowed that I would put on the Table in relation to title, and I wouldn’t mind if the Minister had an opportunity to respond to that.

Hon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing) (15:57): Thank you, Madam Chair. We don’t support an amendment to the commencement date. The bill provides a statute bar for the liability in tort for the climate change tort for the prevention of tort being, I guess, promulgated into law by the courts. The bill doesn’t do anything around the procedural issues of costs for previous litigation, so changing the commencement date would have an impact on that.

If there are procedures that litigants need to go through or want to go through to pursue, that’s entirely up to them in their own time, so changing the commencement date wouldn’t have an effect on that. We don’t support a change to anything other than it coming into force on the day after Royal assent. In terms of change to the title, we are very comfortable that the title accurately reflects the content of the bill, which is that it amends the Climate Change Response Act, and it does it in relation to the issue of tort liability.

FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ (Green) (15:58): Thank you, Madam Chair. I rise to take what is probably my final call on this Climate Change Response (Tort Liability) Amendment Bill. It’s good to be here on a Thursday afternoon. I’m not normally here; normally, I’d be on a plane back to Dunedin by now. But look, I am speaking around the clause around the commencement, and I support the call by the previous speaker, Camilla Belich, to delay the commencement of this bill. I want to take a slightly different angle from the angle that she’s taken. The angle that I want to take is that tomorrow, as we all know, members—and I’m sure you’ve had plenty of reminders from your whips and such—is the start of the regulated period, that it’s time to change the authorisations on your social media profiles.

Now, the start of the regulated period is significant because, by constitutional convention, it is, of course, when we do tend to enter a caretaker mode. That means that, in the past, Governments have taken restraint in terms of appointing people to various roles and positions in the Public Service and the public se, and it’s also taken care not to potentially advance policy that might be irreversible. While this bill is not necessarily irreversible, it is of constitutional significance, because it does take away the right of New Zealanders to have their day in court on a topic which is one of the biggest issues that we face today, climate change, without compensation.

So it’s significant enough that I am appealing to the Government that they should delay the commencement of this legislation. We’ve heard from Minister Goldsmith, during the quite lively debate during the committee of the whole House stage, that the question of climate change policy rightly belongs on the campaign trail. If that is so, if the question of climate policy rightly belongs on the campaign trail, then they should live by their statements and actually delay this bill so that the people of New Zealand can actually have their say in it during the general election.

If the Government gets reelected, then the commencement date will happen, no problem; but if this Government doesn’t get reelected, then a future Government will have the opportunity to, potentially, reverse the passage of this law. But if the commencement date, as it’s set is currently, then it will pass and it will be set in law before voters have had a chance to have their say. It’s not really that much longer to wait before the election. I believe it’s 94 or 93 or 92 days away. So we’re not asking for much. I mean, this probably won’t affect that many cases by that time—if it commences now, anyway.

So my appeal to the Government is to respect the constitutional conventions around the regulated period, and allow this bill to be delayed so that, as the Government’s own speakers have been saying, that we allow the people of New Zealand to have their say on this bill and have it be decided by the ballot box. Thank you.

Hon JAMES MEAGER (Minister for Hunting and Fishing) (16:02): Just to repeat: we won’t be accepting amendments to the commencement date. We want the bill, the Act, to come into force on the day after Royal assent.

Just to correct the member: there is no caretaker convention in the pre-election period.

Francisco Hernandez: There is.

Hon JAMES MEAGER: No, there is not. There is Cabinet Office—

Francisco Hernandez: I’ll forward you the library request.

Hon JAMES MEAGER: No, there is not. There is Cabinet Office—

Francisco Hernandez: Yeah, there is.

Hon JAMES MEAGER: I can repeat it for a third time: there is not. There is a Cabinet Office circular which expressly says there is no caretaker convention in the pre-regulated period. There is restraint shown in appointments and there is restraint shown on policy which may result in advertising campaigns but there is no caretaker convention in the pre-regulated period. So the changing of the date has no constitutional impact; we will be having this Act come into force on the day after commencement. Tomorrow is the regulated period, you are correct. More importantly, it’s 7 August, it’s my mum’s birthday—so happy birthday, Mum.

STUART SMITH (Senior Whip—National) (16:03): I move, That debate on this question now close.

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

Ayes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 53

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Steve Abel’s two tabled amendments to clause 1 are out of order as not being an objective description of the bill.

The question is that Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to clause 1 regarding “Prevention of Tort Liability and extinguishment of Smith v Fonterra Co-Operative Group Ltd litigation” be agreed to.

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

Ayes 53

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to clause 1 regarding “Prevention of Tort Liability” be agreed to.

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

Ayes 53

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

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

Ayes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 53

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Clause 1 agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Steve Abel’s tabled amendment to clause 2 to “three years after Royal assent” be agreed to.

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

Ayes 53

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Steve Abel’s tabled amendment to clause 2 to “four years after Royal assent” be agreed to.

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

Ayes 53

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Steve Abel’s tabled amendment to clause 2 to “five years after Royal assent” be agreed to.

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

Ayes 53

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The question is that Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to clause 2 to “1 month after Royal assent” be agreed to.

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

Ayes 53

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

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

Ayes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 53

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Bill to be reported without amendment.

Oranga Tamariki (Responding to Serious Youth Offending) Amendment Bill

Committee of the whole House

Part 1 Substantive amendments to principal Act

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members, we come now to the Oranga Tamariki (Responding to Serious Youth Offending) Amendment Bill. We begin with the debate on Part 1, which is the debate on clauses 4 to 40, “Substantive amendments to principal Act”. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

Hon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children) (16:12): Thank you, Madam Chair. We know that the system has not served most serious youth offenders or our communities adequately in the past. This has been turned around with a huge reduction in youth offending since this Government took office. The initiatives in this bill are designed to build on those gains and lock them in, keeping our communities safe while giving young people the opportunity to turn their lives around.

This bill creates a young serious offender declaration and this will unlock stronger powers for both the Youth Court and New Zealand Police. The Youth Court will have the ability to make a military-style academy order longer, make Youth Court orders, and increase the use of electronic monitoring. For every young person declared to be a serious youth offender, it will trigger a far more intensive operational response.

The bill provides new police powers to ensure that if a young person who is declared a young serious offender reoffends or does not comply with conditions of any Youth Court orders, we can respond far quicker before their offending escalates. The bill creates a military-style academy order where the most serious youth offenders can spend three to 12 months in a youth justice residence undertaking a military-style academy programme. The order is about young people facing tougher consequences but also having support wrapped around them with intensive case management, rehabilitative support, enhanced transition support, and whānau engagement.

In Part 1, there is an Amendment Paper of mine, so I’d just like to speak to the amendments that will be in Part 1 from myself. I’m proposing two amendments to Part 1 of the bill through my amendment. The first amendment relates to clause 4 and it addresses a technical issue which mistakenly limits the effects of changes recommended by select committee and accepted by this House. The select committee recommended that in some limited cases, the Youth Court should be able to make back-to-back orders when, for example, a young person reoffends just as their young serious offender declaration is ending.

Currently, section 285(5) of the Oranga Tamariki Act prevents the Youth Court from making two orders at the same time back-to-back. My amendment is to ensure that the select committee’s changes can work as intended. This change is important because it ensures the Youth Court has access to consistent sentencing lengths for all young people, regardless of when their declaration expires.

The second amendment relates to the Schedule and is a simple technical amendment to update the bill to ensure that young people on military-style academy orders have the same access to their youth advocate as other young people in youth justice residences. I commend these amendments to the committee.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Before I take the first call, can I just point out there are quite a few clauses in this first part, so it would be helpful if you could identify which clause you are speaking to, please.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) (16:15): Thank you. Yes, as you point out, there are a number of clauses and then changes to the particular section and then under that section, there are many, many pieces. We’re going to be talking about section 320 a lot, but it’s not repetitive, because there’s a lot in there.

But can I first start by saying that this bill legislates boot camps, an experiment that has never worked in the past and didn’t work in this Government’s military-style academy, aka boot camp. Here we are at the committee stage, progressing with legislating serious young offenders and the military-style academy into law.

I want to speak to Part 1. This is tabled amendment 7.05.16 in my name where I am proposing that we replace “young serious offender” with “young person that meets specified offending criteria” in every instance. Also in Part 1, replace “YSO” with “young person that meets specified offending criteria” in every instance. This does also apply to Part 2, but I’ll just deal with Part 1 at this point.

The reason for this proposed amendment is because we heard through the select committee process that there is no need for a label. There is no administrative need to have the “young serious offender” label put on a young person. This is simply political and it is dangerous, because names and labels matter, and the evidence internationally shows that names and labels matter. It could become a self-fulfilling prophecy for these young people.

As I said, there is no administrative need to label these young people “young serious offenders”. We had submissions from many submitters pointing out that this risks stigmatising them far beyond their youth, and could have negative impacts. My question to the Minister is: why is the young serious offender label necessary? The evidence we received said that you are able to identify the age of the person, so “young” is unnecessary; you’re able to identify their record of offending, so it is unnecessary to have the label, but there could be stigma and negative consequences.

My question to the Minister is: will she consider my proposed amendment to change the label “young serious offender” to “young person that meets specified offending criteria” and “YSO” to “young person that meets specified offending criteria”? It is unnecessary and it should be removed due to the potential to cause harm.

TAMATHA PAUL (Green—Wellington Central) (16:19): Kia ora, Madam Chair. My questions relate to new section 320A, inserted by clause 4.

The first thing is around this interpretation of “proved” in here. One of the ways that this can be proved is through an admission. What a lot of the submissions said to us was around admissions of offending made during a family group conference and how that being used as evidence against the young person, or evidence in building a case towards designating them as a young serious offender, could actually undermine the whole purpose of a family group conference.

My question regarding that is, did the Minister consider the adverse effect of including admission of offending at a family group conference as an eligibility criteria? I think that is a really important point, and I know that in this committee of the whole House stage, we will talk a lot about family group conferences and the roles that they play in this process of the declaration, which does warrant scrutiny and interrogation, because family group conferences are one of the innovating, world-leading parts of our juvenile justice system. If that environment becomes one in which a young person being honest and admitting an offence can then be used against them, it can undermine the entire purpose of a family group conference, which is for a young person to take responsibility for their offending and to put their hand up and say, “Yes, I did do that wrong”.

That admission is really important, because it also means that rehabilitation for that young person is just not going to work without an admission of guilt—otherwise, they deny that it happened, they deny the harm that they’ve caused. The reason that young people currently can make those admissions in family group conferences is really undermined by that then being able to be used against them. Can the Minister talk to us about why that admission is needed to be proved within this context?

Another part within this new section 320A that is really important, as Willow-Jean Prime outlined previously, is this title of “young serious offender”. That is defined in this new section and in this clause. We could talk about this “young serious offender” label for a really long time, because this was probably one of the biggest areas of scrutiny by the submitters. People really questioned the psychology behind that label itself and what psychological impacts that can have on the young person who gets that label.

I guess one of my beginning questions on that, to build on what the previous speaker talked about, is has the Minister considered not just the self-fulfilling prophecy narrative that this young serious offender label carries but has the Minister considered also the kind of glorification of the offences that comes about through young serious offenders? I think probably the best example that everybody knows of labelling young offenders and having it backfire is actually the Mongrel Mob. The Mongrel Mob’s name came from a judge, in Lower Hutt, I believe, saying to a group of young offenders that they were a pack of mongrels. They didn’t take that as, “Oh, I better go and look at my actions”; they took that as a badge of honour.

That is what a lot of the experts who submitted on this bill raised—that in creating this “young serious offender” label, any Minister and any official must consider the badge of honour that it might create for some young people. That is one of the reasons why some of these offences are live-streamed and videoed and broadcast—to skite about it. Unfortunately, there is that risk that that “young serious offender” label will also be something to skite about and something to be earned, and that could actually lead to more crime—people trying to earn that label. That’s just the beginning, but there’s so much to dig into with this new section alone, so I’ll start there.

Hon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children) (16:24): Thank you, Madam Chair. In response to Tamatha Paul’s question, what does an admission in a family group conference actually mean? That’s a really good question, and I appreciate it being brought up, because I think there is a lot of concern there, so I’d just like to clarify it.

The bill defines “proved” as a finding by the Youth Court that the charge is proved following admission in a family group conference (FGC), a guilty plea, or through a defended hearing. This legislates for current practice that already happens in the Youth Court, where the court is provided a report from an FGC including an admission by the person of the charges or charge. The Youth Court, if satisfied that the charge is proven, then records on the court file “proven by admission in a family group conference”.

Eligible offences for a young serious offender declaration are offences carrying a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment or more, and all young people charged with these serious offences must have legal representation at an FGC.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) (16:25): Thank you, Madam Chair. As has been put out already, this is a chunky bill, and there are a number of amendments on the Table; I see that the Clerk has kindly bundled Labour amendments together.

I’m, essentially, going to invite the Minister to talk and to respond to some questions about the purpose and intention of this legislation. Amendment Paper 662, if we go through them roughly consecutively, is actually just behind the tabled amendment that the Hon Willow-Jean Prime talked about, which suggests that there should be a purpose clause inserted. It’s actually a little bit more; the clause as drafted—very ably drafted by Willow-Jean Prime, I see—does a little bit more than that.

We disagree pretty strongly on the strategies adopted in this bill, but I do believe the Minister does genuinely want to achieve the purposes that are set out here. Whilst, for example, the young serious offender framework is framed as a kind of “turning up the temperature” on punishments, if we unpick it, there are some aspects of it that just enable more intense interventions. If we look at the tabled amendment, it would insert a purpose clause just saying, essentially, that the purpose of this set of amendments in this bill is actually to promote the rehabilitation of children and young persons who offend and also support their reintegration into their families, whānau, hapū, iwi, and communities.

I think that’s a really important point, and I think it’s really important at the outset to say that youth justice is quite different from criminal justice. In the kind of framing of it, criminal justice for adults does have, essentially, a punitive aspect—a deterrence aspect—whereas, in a youth justice framework, that is pretty much non-existent, and it’s worth pointing that out in a purpose section. The whole objective of youth justice is to “correct the ways” of this young offender by providing them with the necessary support and interventions. That’s the proposed purpose section in subsection 1(c): “prioritise and enhance the wellbeing of those children and young persons, including their physical, emotional, cultural, and developmental needs.” Because, look, this piece of legislation will pass—this is how these things work—but it would be worth, particularly for the military academies, to point out that that third purpose is, in fact, I hope, their purpose, which is to enhance the wellbeing of those young people. It’s against that background that, perhaps, that service will be delivered more effectively.

The second part of that purpose section sort of says that in performing their functions, Oranga Tamariki must, essentially, take a particular approach. In particular, a shout-out to our outgoing Children’s Commissioner, who is such a fantastic advocate for young people, and really did go hard on the Government—and rightly so—because she was so passionate about it. She would absolutely say that the Government, and any Government, should adopt a child-centred and strength-based approach—you put that child first. I think if we do take that approach, then when we come to ask what a military-style academy actually looks like and what it delivers, it’ll be quite different from one that, essentially, takes, for example—to use the language of one National Party member in particular—a victims-based approach.

That victim may well want retribution, but retribution doesn’t play a part in the youth justice system; that belongs elsewhere. A child-centred approach is really important. It also just recognises, every step of the way, family and whānau relationships and that this child is interconnected. Strengthening those networks is an important part. It’s not just about the person; it’s about their community and their family as well. I haven’t gone through every line of the proposed amendment, but it’s there on the Table, and I’d be very interested if the Minister was interested in adopting it. Thank you.

Hon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children) (16:30): Just in response to the Hon Dr Duncan Webb, who has spoken to a couple of amendments—I will respond to the amendment in regard to inserting a purpose clause—I do not support this amendment. The existing purposes and principles of the Oranga Tamariki Act, including the youth justice principles, will apply in these new provisions.

In regard to another amendment he spoke to, amending the definition of “proved”—there’s another amendment there—I don’t support that amendment, and it has also been spoken to by a couple of speeches already. The current definition of “proved” already covers applicable pathways.

There is another amendment that has been spoken to as well, around removing the use of the term “young serious offender” throughout. I do not support this amendment because the “young serious offender” declaration is purely an administrative label, which will only be used by the Police, and the Youth Court and will not be publicly available.

MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI (Te Tai Tokerau) (16:31): Thank you, Madam Chair. Clause 40, new section 320X, requires the Youth Court to make a supervision order immediately following any military-style academy order, with the combined term capped at 24 months, under section 320X(1)(a)(ii)(B)—gracious! I am discussing this, not because I’m passionate about this but because I am experienced in it. I have, over the years, convened a number of youth justice family group conferences, care and protection family group conferences, so I know what I am talking about. This isn’t passion; actually, this is probably just quiet rage about how bizarre we get to this point. Here we go again and we’re discussing boot camps in this Chamber.

Section 320S(5)(b) further allows the military-style academy programme itself to include an overnight component delivered outside the residence established. Under section 335, the court can only approve an activity if delivered by the chief executive or a qualifying provider not yet defined in operation. This committee is being asked to authorise an order whose most institutionally risky element—overnight placement outside a residence—is left to a plan that a court approves without any regulatory standard yet in force under section 447.

Before I ask the question, Minister, I wonder if the Minister has had any insight into the 13 recommendations that were put under Pūao-te-Āta-tū. I was in the department and worked in that space and understood the possibilities that existed in those 13 recommendations, which, of course, this particular piece of legislation just nails to the wall. It kicks it out of the park. It has no real understanding and knowing of the importance of that time and what it meant for whānau, what it meant for Māori communities, what it meant for mokopuna Māori. Sadly, it has failed; this piece of legislation fails us yet again. I ask the Minister: under new section 320S(5)(b), what specific activities constitute the overnight component that may be delivered outside a section 364 residence, and what safeguards, under section 335(3), will apply to a plan approving a component before any court has tested this provision in practice?

This is one of several amendments, and they all sound very numbery and all very technical in way. I mean, we need to speak that way because that’s the way this process was designed, but I guess the fundamental question that I want to ask is: why would you even consider bringing a thing like military-style camps—I mean, “military”? We all know what that word means, right? It isn’t good for us. They’re our young people. Boot camps—a big boot with a dirty big rubber heel on your throat. Those are the memories that come back.

I know this stuff. This isn’t passion speaking; this is experience speaking. I look forward to any reasonable responses that the Minister may provide.

Hon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children) (16:35): In response to why we considered allowing outside providers to play a role in this space, it’s because—even the member Mariameno Kapa-Kingi herself has spoken many times about allowing iwi, hapū, and communities to do what they do well and enable them to be able to actually do some of this work in this space, and this legislation allows for that. I have had many iwi and hapū come to me and say that they would like to be stepping up in this space, they would like to be working with these serious youth offenders, rather than them ending up in a youth justice facility, but the current law doesn’t allow that. This law will allow that, with oversight.

TAMATHA PAUL (Green—Wellington Central) (16:36): All right, so we did just kind of jump all the way forward to new section 320X, but I wanted to bring it back to new section 320A, inserted by clause 4, because new section 320A is about 15 pages long. We kind of jumped to the end, but I’m bringing it back to the start.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Have you got a page there?

TAMATHA PAUL: Yes, page 7 of the bill. I’m just going to bring it back, because there is a lot to interrogate.

Back to new section 320A, under “specified offence”, paragraph (b)—that’s “punishable by a term of imprisonment of 10 years or more”—I wanted to ask the Minister for Children, and I wanted to say to the Minister also that we all have very strong feelings about this bill, but I would be really keen to go through it clause by clause, just so that the record will show that we really did think about each part of this bill.

I wanted to ask the Minister whether she might consider my table amendment which amends paragraph (b), “punishable by a term of imprisonment of 10 years or more”, and replaces it with “punishable by a term of imprisonment of at least 14 years”. The reason for that is because crimes that have a term of imprisonment of 10 years or more can be quite broad, and I believe it was the Criminal Bar Association that brought that point up, and that perhaps amending it to 14 years might more accurately capture the seriousness of the crimes that the Minister is intending to be targeting within this bill and, really, reduce the risk of overcharging young serious offenders, which is, essentially, when a prosecutor charges a defendant with a more severe crime or a greater number of offences than the actual evidence or circumstances warrant. I would be really keen to hear the Minister’s view on whether she might be open to looking at that as a way to, I guess, pinpoint the seriousness of the offending that she hopes to capture within here.

Then, to move to new section 320B, which is around “Young persons in respect of whom application for YSO declaration may be made”, I wondered whether she might also consider my amendment which is to delete subsection (1)(b). New subsection (1)(b) is around “who is currently charged with 2 or more unrelated specified offences that have been proved, and in respect of which …”, and what I want to do is delete that. The reason for that is to remove that eligibility to avoid capturing young people who are appearing in the Youth Court for the first time. I think one of intents of the bill, if I’m understanding what the Government has been saying about this bill, is to capture serious repeat offenders; however, the way that that part of that new section is drafted means that the Minister might capture people who are actually appearing before the Youth Court for the first time. I wanted to ask the Minister whether she might consider that amendment so that first-time offenders can, instead, be diverted away from the criminal juvenile justice system and towards, maybe, rehabilitation or something that isn’t such a serious consequence for someone who might be appearing before the Youth Court for the very first time.

Hon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children) (16:40): In regards to removing 320B(1)(b), to avoid capturing people appearing before the court for the first time, I don’t support this amendment because the intention of this bill is clear. It is a response to serious and persistent offenders. This is why we have the requirement of two qualifying offences to ensure that only those who are known to the youth justice system are eligible for declaration, not just first-time offenders.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) (16:40): Thank you, Mr Chair. I just want to talk to a proposed amendment in my name, which is around what amounts to “proved”. I know my Green colleague touched on this definition—

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Have you got a number for your amendment?

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Yes, so this is clause 320A, and the tabled amendment is one that was lodged at 7.05 and it’s got 17 on it. Clause 320A is on page 7 of the bill. My point is this: that if we get a have a trigger of “proved” for young serious offender declarations, then “proved” needs to cover all eventualities where there is an affirmative finding of some kind in response to the charge.

An admission of a guilty plea in a defendant hearing looks like it covers all options, but in fact it doesn’t. It doesn’t actually cover the possibility of an undefended hearing, which does occur. And so my proposal is that you add a paragraph (d) in here to make it comprehensive, and it’s a hearing where the charge is not opposed. It could say “undefended”, because one of the frustrating things that some defendants do, with a little bit of legal advice, is nothing. They don’t want to admit it, that it’s a guilty plea or an admission. They don’t want to fiercely defend it. They will just sit on their hands and do nothing. The court has to go through a process, but it’s not being defended; it’s being, essentially, formally proved by the prosecution. And so it’s not a defended hearing, it’s not a guilty plea, and it’s not an admission; it’s simply that the charge is not opposed and the court, from that lack of opposition, goes on to make an adverse finding.

The reason it’s really important to put this in is that if you don’t, every young person will simply not oppose the charge. They’ll simply not enter a plea and do nothing. Even if there’s an adverse finding made, it doesn’t fall within the definition of “proved”, and therefore, you can’t make a young serious offender declaration. It’s a technical point, but in going through this, this is an extremely technical piece of legislation, and rather than talking about the charge, a guilty plea, or a finding against the young offender, if you’re going to have the special meaning of “proved”, you need to have it comprehensive. It’s a small point, but it’s one which lawyers love because if they can find a crack like that, they’ll get their clients to drive through it. Of course, now that I’ve said it here, they all know about it, right?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children) (16:44): Thank you, Mr Chair. Just in response to Tamatha Paul in regards to an tabled amendment around section 320A, “specified offence to include only 14-year offences”, I just thought I’d give you a response to that because you’d spoken to it, so it deserves a response.

I don’t support this amendment because both 10- and 14-year offences represent serious offending by young people, so these should both form part of the eligibility criteria. Offences carrying a penalty of 10 years of imprisonment are serious offences. They’re not small things. They can cover robbery, serious assault, sexual offending, ram raids, all proven, so they’re serious enough for me to consider them.

TAMATHA PAUL (Green—Wellington Central) (16:44): Totally, Minister. Not at all acting as if those offences aren’t serious, but the intention was more that the 10-year limit could capture people appearing before the Youth Court for the first time. That’s not saying that they shouldn’t have consequences at all, but it’s just to say that perhaps there’s still a chance at that point when they’re first there to actually really turn their lives around before getting them wrapped up in the juvenile court system.

But while I’m here, I might also speak to—we’re still obviously speaking to clause 4, but I’m looking at new clause 320C, or it might be under clause 320B, and one of my other tabled amendments. Sorry, yes, it is the new clause 320C, which is around police and their ability to “inform the youth justice coordinator of possibility of application for YSO declaration being made in respect of a young person”. There is a time—

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Can you just confirm the timestamp on that?

TAMATHA PAUL: Oh, yeah. It was today at 11.50.04 a.m. Is that helpful? OK, cool. Within that, this is basically around police. This is when police will notify that they intend to apply for a young serious offender (YSO) declaration, and I believe, in the bill, it does that in seven days. This amendment is basically asking to extend that period of time, so extending it to 21 days ideally.

This is, basically, just so that there is time for more thoroughness, so that if we allow for a bit more time, as was recommended by Te Tira Whakamātaki, this will allow for more thorough assessments of what’s going on. It means the family or the guardians or the community of that young person are able to prepare better for the family group conference so that, hopefully, fairer decisions can be made, and better preparation can go into it. That is an amendment asking for that notification to just be pushed out, I think tripled potentially, just to three weeks rather than one week to allow for a bit more time for preparation and assessment.

Hon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children) (16:47): This is in response to Tamatha Paul in regards to the amendment to clause 320C to make the notification period for a young serious offender application to family group conferences (FGC) from one day to three weeks. I sympathise with what you’re speaking to, but I don’t support this amendment for a reason, because this bill is intended to provide a swift response to those who are persistent and serious offenders. These matters should be disposed of in the youth justice system quickly, and adding three weeks at the FGC stage will simply just delay outcomes.

Just thinking about this across the whole of youth justice, a lot of young people sit on remand with no certainty of what’s going to be happening because the FGC process may take a bit longer and hold things up. This is just about making sure that we have a very swift response to this.

The other thing that I’d just like to reiterate again, just in case there’s some confusion later, is that no one appearing for the first time is eligible for a young serious offender order. This is why they have to have committed two unrelated offences on top of that. No one for the first time will be declared a serious youth offender.

VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour) (16:48): Thank you, Mr Chair, and thank you to the Minister for Children for her responses. I didn’t have the opportunity to examine the bill at the Social Services and Community, but I do believe that this is an extremely important piece of legislation because of the time I spent as a solicitor and then as a manager at YouthLaw Aotearoa where a lot of the young people who would present in these circumstances would come to us for help.

My question relates to clause 320B(3), and when I was reading through that, it just felt like there was—sorry, I’ll go back. Clause 320B(3) and clause 320B(4), which I read together, and when I read them both, it felt to me like there was a serious natural justice issue potentially at play. The Minister for Children can correct me of course if I’ve read it incorrectly, but subclause 320B(3) appears to allow a previously declined application to be revived using the very same specified offence once a fresh application is later filed.

So I just wanted the Minister to speak, in terms of subclause (3), as to how this is not, in substance, a second attempt at a case the State has already lost once, and what natural justice principles permits the State to, essentially, relitigate a matter, potentially, because the first outcome simply failed.

Subclause (4) appears to go further in that it lets offences from an earlier declined application to be treated as current offences. So the two subclauses are linked. Again, even though the Youth Court has already made a section 283 response disposing of those charges, those could then be brought up again. What I’m worried about with subsection (4) is that it’s triggered, essentially, by a breach. It could be something like absconding under sections 296B or 316. Is there a risk, in terms of the Minister’s assessment, that someone who breaches a curfew or supervision conditions, which might arise because of housing instability reasons or family circumstances, that they end up, essentially, being punished twice for circumstances that are well out of their control? If the Minister could address those two subclauses, I’d be very grateful. Thank you.

Hon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children) (16:51): Thank you, Mr Chair. Just in response to the the Hon Dr Duncan Webb talking about “proved”. I just wanted to reiterate the definition of “proved” in this bill reflects current practice in the Youth Court. It is entirely appropriate that when a young person admits offending, that counts towards the eligible offences.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) (16:52): This is my first time taking a call on this important debate. Like Vanushi Walters, I did not have the privilege of sitting on the Justice Committee, but I want to acknowledge those who did. I want to also acknowledge Tamatha Paul who has tabled several amendments.

I want to speak to one of those—timestamp here of 11.50.05. This is making changes to clause 4 under new section 320E, “Applications for young—

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Can you say the timestamp again?

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: 11.50.05.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): And it’s Tamatha Paul?

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: That’s right. It’s under the name of Tamatha Paul, Wellington Central MP.

This is the one that changes, in clause 4 new section 320E, “Applications for young serious offender declaration” and for suggesting that we replace “constable” with “senior police officer”. Now, for people watching, constables do make up the sort of greater proportion of people in the police force compared to senior police officers. One of the reasons why my colleague Tamatha Paul and the Greens back this amendment is because we wanted to test, with the Minister for Children, whether she thinks that having senior police officers being the ones who can make these applications as opposed to constables, just addresses some potential concerns that members of the public or advocates may have around biases and to manage risks. Also, to acknowledge that the sort of seniority component of that would additionally come with, you know, the respect and as well as connections to the community that they’re supposed to protect and be accountable to, also for their use of discretion or, potentially, the influence of any unconscious biases that may be part of it.

In the interest of, I guess, the Government meeting its objectives, we did wonder—you know, despite us obviously not supporting the bill, but in acknowledgment of what the Government is trying to do—if the Minister would be open to considering this amendment simply for the nature that it elevates that decision making to a more senior position, and, in my view, that just also encourages trust amongst the people who, ultimately, will be affected by this legislation—then at least those that end up making these applications will come with more experience and the recognition that they have served to the degree of being worthy of that title.

If the Minister is not keen to support this amendment, I guess I would be interested in knowing what steps the Minister hopes to undertake in her role as Minister to address any concerns that may arise within the community around the sort of use of discretion and biases that may occur via constables being able to make these applications. I do think this warrants careful consideration, and if the Government is keen to make this bill work as they intend to do, we would suggest that elevating the title to a more senior position when it comes to the applications for young serious offender declarations would be more appropriate. I’m keen to get the Minister’s reflection on this issue, and acknowledging my colleague Tamatha Paul for bringing this amendment forward.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) (16:55): Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to speak to an excellent tabled amendment in the name of Glen Bennett, who’s got a very thoughtful amendment on the table—it’s in the Labour bundle 7.05.18.

Now, there’s a couple of things—this is around offences that are of the same or similar kind. There are two questions I have: the first is, in response to the member Tamatha Paul, the Minister for Children appeared to say that no person will be subject, or could be subject, to a young serious offender declaration when it’s their first time in court. Now, I don’t quite get that because in the example that I was talking about with a colleague, that if a young person, you know, one Saturday night, steals a car or commits one serious offence that crosses the threshold and then a week later commits a serious assault that crosses the threshold, and the police put those two charges together before the Youth Court—it strikes me that on the wording of the Act, because they are not of the same or similar kind, different courses of events, that those two offences together would cross the threshold, and the court could, in considering those offences, impose a young serious offender declaration. If the Minister could clarify that, that would be really good.

The second thing is, in terms of the amendment I have, because “offences are not of the same or similar kind”, is actually quite a tricky concept and there’s always the kind of like rampage problem—it’s not very tidy phrase—but if someone goes and smashes a window in a shop, steals a car, and then pushes someone into the gutter; now, do those three offences meet the “not the same or similar kind”? It’s a novel phrase in the law and I actually searched the legislation to see if it appeared anywhere else; it doesn’t. That’s why I have suggested the use of the phrase in my amendment, “not of a similar kind” or “part of a connected series of offences”.

The reason I propose that is because it’s drawn from the Sentencing Act. When you sentence someone, there’s the possibility of either a cumulative or concurrent sentence. If you do one set of events and it’s all, kind of, the same melee, then you’ll usually get a concurrent sentence. You might be sentenced to six months for that and a year for that, but it served concurrently, so it’s only a year. Whereas, if you do entirely separate, not of a similar kind or part of the connected series of offences, then you’ll get a consecutive sentence. It strikes me that the use of that test is actually exactly what the Minister is trying to achieve.

“Same or similar kind” actually is problematic as well, because, to take my example, a young person who does these three things, essentially, in five minutes—there was smash a window, steal a car, and push someone over—they are not of the same or similar kind; one’s property damage, one’s a dishonesty offence, and one’s a violent offence. They’re about as different in class as you can get, but it is a connected series of offences. Actually, they’ve probably got the same cause—probably some anger- or drug-induced rage or something. They should be dealt with as a single offence or single kind of legal proceeding, and that’s what my amendment would address.

So I actually have quite a lot of concerns about the use of that unique phrase. I can understand why someone in youth justice didn’t look across to the Sentencing Act to find out something that’s got an established legal meaning, but now that I’ve drawn it to the committee’s attention, I’m really hopeful that you’ll adopt that, because I think it’s actually a pretty good one.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) (17:00): Thank you, Mr Chair. I may have missed it, but I was wondering if the Minister for Children was going to respond to the questions and points raised by Vanushi Walters. I just point out to the Minister that that also, I think, speaks to one of our tabled amendments, time stamped at 7.05.19, which is the proposal to delete paragraph (b) in new section 320B(4), inserted by clause 4. I understand she was talking to 320B(3) and 320B(4)(a) and (b). So it would be helpful if the Minister could respond to the points made and the questions asked by Vanushi Walters, and also to that tabled amendment, because those are some serious issues around justice.

I want to speak to new section 320C(1) and the tabled amendment in the name of Arena Williams, which has the timestamp of 7.05.20. It proposes that in new section 320C(1), after the words “constable who”, the word “reasonably” be inserted. This amendment is important because it qualifies the belief required of a constable by providing that it must be held reasonably. As it is currently drafted, the provision allows action to be taken where a constable believes that the statutory criteria may have been met. Without an express requirement that the belief be “reasonable”, there is a risk that the threshold for the action could be too low, potentially enabling decisions to be made on the basis of subjective or insufficiently grounded views.

So by inserting the word “reasonably”, it would align the provision with established legal principles which generally require that discretionary power, exercised on the basis of belief, be supported by reasonable grounds. This ensures that the exercise of power is grounded in objective justification and is capable of scrutiny. The amendment promotes consistency across the statute book and supports fair and proportionate decision-making by requiring that the belief relied upon is one that is reasonable and that a reasonable person in the circumstances could hold. It therefore enhances legal certainty, safeguards against arbitrary use of power, and strengthens confidence in the integrity of the process.

So my question to the Minister is: will she consider the proposed amendment by inserting the word “reasonably” there, for the reasons that I have outlined? The concern is that the threshold could be too low, subjective, and insufficient.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) (17:03): Thank you, Mr Chair. We’re still in roughly the same area, new section 320B—which is a chunky section, isn’t it?—and new section 320B(4), inserted by clause 4. My suggestion in my amendment, lodged at 7.05.19, is to delete paragraph (b). If the Minister for Children can point out that I’ve got this wrong, then please do. But it strikes me that paragraph (b), essentially, creates retrospective effect. We’re still on the convictions which can lead to young serious offender declarations being made. What paragraph (b) of subsection (4) here says is that “for the purposes of the subsequent application, the earlier offences may be treated as current offences (despite the Youth Court having made a response under section 283”—and that’s kind of the orders that can be made on a finding—“in relation to charges filed in respect of those earlier offences).”

So the young serious offender regime is a kind of supercharged intervention regime which gives significant powers to Oranga Tamariki to, essentially, place limits on the liberty of the young person. And certainly if this was a sentencing regime, you know, it would be seen as a very serious thing to say: “We are introducing a brand new regime, the young serious offender regime, and for offences that have already been committed and arguably resolved, they can count towards this new regime.” I mean, if you think about the three-strikes regime, it was pretty problematic, and there was no suggestion, when it was first introduced, that offences which had been committed prior to its passing into law could count as a strike.

What we, essentially, have here is a kind of mini - strikes regime. It’s like a two-strikes regime, but something that you’ve done and been dealt with for already can count as your first strike under the young serious offender regime, which is retrospective. I’ve got to say, despite the philosophy underpinning youth justice, I am of the view that this is a retrospective punishment: you are being punished again for something which has already been dealt with. So it’s a double punishment and it’s retrospective, because the law is changing under the feet of the person who’s already been dealt with by the justice system.

If I’ve got that entirely wrong, I’d be very pleased to know. But if I haven’t, and it has in fact got that kind of retroactive quality, I’d be very keen to hear the Minister’s justification for, essentially, creating a law which looks backwards and says, “Things which have already occurred can have consequences under this brand new regime.” Because that’s very uncommon and is seen as constitutionally very problematic. The Minister’s response on that will be appreciated.

Hon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children) (17:07): I just want to reassure the member who’s just sat down, the Hon Dr Duncan Webb, that this is not retrospective. So any laws broken before this law is passed will not be able to go towards the young serious offender (YSO) declaration.

In response to Vanushi Walters, I’m just being reassured around natural justice issues. The member was concerned about whether a YSO declaration was declined and reapplied for using an earlier offence, and whether that would be a natural justice issue. The purpose of the YSO declaration is to address those young people who are likely to have reoffended or who have had previous interactions and have been unsuccessful. The YSO declaration is not actually an order. It is not a response by the Youth Court under section 283 of the Act. It’s purely an administrative label, and therefore I have no issues with natural justice. Natural justice was carefully considered as part of the bill’s development when the bill was vetted for human rights, and it was found to be consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. To reiterate, the declaration is not an order; it is an administrative label. The Youth Court responses still respect natural justice principles.

VANUSHI WALTERS (Labour) (17:09): Thank you, Mr Chair, and thank you to the Minister for Children for those responses. I have another natural justice issue across different clauses of the bill. I am just reviewing new section 320C and 320D, inserted by clause 4, not in their entirety but just in terms of a common issue that I was reflecting on as I read both of them.

In my view, a right that carries no remedy for its breach is not a right at all. I do think that although the Minister has said that they are administrative labels and they’re not orders, they do have an implication for the young people against whom they are made. I will go back one step.

There’s an obligation in new section 320C, inserted by clause 4, for the police to inform the youth justice coordinator of the possibility of an application for a young serious offender (YSO) declaration being made in respect of a young person, and they’re to do that as soon as it becomes their belief. The language is that they must do that; there’s no discretion permitted in the drafting of that clause. Similarly, in new section 320D, police “must inform the family group conference of that belief” if they believe there’s a possibility of an application for a YSO declaration being made in respect of a young person.

My question is really about what happens in terms of natural justice if those obligations are not met. If the police person fails to meet their obligations under new section 320C or 320D, would that mean that a subsequent declaration that’s made is deemed ineffective? What is the natural justice right that the young person holds, given that there is clearly a right being given to them by use of the word “must” in both those sections? Unless the Minister would like to point me to an appropriate clause of the bill, there doesn’t appear to be a consequence of failing to deliver on those two obligations. A brief question from me spanning those two clauses. Thank you, Minister.

Hon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children) (17:11): In response to that member, I’m happy to wait for further information and might stand up again and reiterate on this, but both new section 320C and 320D that you spoke to were actually amended as part of the select committee process. I would assume that if the Social Services and Community Committee amended this, they would have gone through what those would have meant, but I will come back if there’s any further information.

TAMATHA PAUL (Green—Wellington Central) (17:12): I’m actually on the same bit that Vanushi Walters was as well—new sections 320C and 320D, inserted by clause 4, around police informing the youth justice coordinator—except I’m not talking about the “must”; I want to focus in on their belief.

A lot of those two there—new sections 320C and 320D—are that constable informing “the youth justice coordinator of their belief as soon as”, etc. My question for the Minister for Children is: what evidence constitutes a belief? What evidence might a constable communicate to that youth justice coordinator, or indeed in the Youth Court, to give evidence of the belief that they hold? Is it that they simply have to say, “I believed that this was happening, and therefore I reported it”, or do they need some kind of evidential basis that says, “I believed this was the case because I observed this, and I recorded this, and I have got this information”? I’m just keen to know what evidence constitutes a belief.

I also wanted to thank the Minister for her engagement in our tabled amendments, and I wanted to ask whether she might consider supporting, actually the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment at 7.05.21 p.m. yesterday, which talks about inserting the words—

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Don’t steal my material!

TAMATHA PAUL: Ha! They took all the amendments before I could lodge them today—nah! This amendment inserts “the facts giving rise to”. What I imagine this amendment is trying to tease out is a requirement for that constable to actually set out the facts that gave rise to that belief. We’re not sure that just simply the belief, as written within the bill as it stands, is enough of an evidential basis. We think that by putting in just those five words, “the facts giving rise to”, that that might then require a bit more evidence, which, as stated in the tabled amendment, does align with those established principles of good administrative practice and does favour reasoned and evidence-based decision making. If the Minister would please give us a response to whether she might support inserting those five words.

Hon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children) (17:14): In regards to the tabled amendment that has just been spoken to about inserting “the facts giving rise to”, I don’t support this amendment, because current process gives all parties adequate notification of the possibility that a young serious offender declaration may be applied for.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) (17:15): Thank you, Mr Chair. I am talking to new sections 320C and 320D, inserted by clause 4, and I specifically want to talk about the tabled amendment in the name of Helen White, and the timestamp is 7.05.23 p.m. The proposal is that the words “or may be charged” are deleted in every instance that they’re mentioned in new sections 320C and 320D, thereby restricting the intention of the young serious offender (YSO) process to cases where a charge has actually been laid.

As it’s currently drafted, the provisions allow the YSO process to be triggered on the basis that a person may be charged with a qualifying offence. That introduces a degree of speculation and uncertainty into the statutory scheme as it allows significant procedural steps to be taken before any formal charging decision has actually been made. This amendment reflects the principle that coercive or consequential processes should be grounded in concrete and established facts rather than the possibility of future action. Initiating the YSO process prior to the laying of charges risks engaging the young person and their family in a process that may ultimately prove unnecessary—particularly in cases where no charge is subsequently filed. This concern is heightened by the mandatory nature of the obligation that we’ve been talking about on constables where they must notify the youth justice coordinator.

In its current form, the provision requires notification in any case where there is a possibility that charges may be brought, which may lead to the process being initiated in a wide range of cases that do not proceed further. This risks inefficiency and may place unnecessary stress on the young person and their whānau. By limiting the trigger for the YSO process to cases where charges have actually been laid, the amendment promotes clarity, fairness, and proportionality, and it ensures that the process is engaged only when there is actually concrete legal basis to do so, supporting a more disciplined and principled application of this regime. My question to the Minister is: would she consider deleting “or may be charged” in every instance?

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) (17:18): Thank you, Mr Chair. Two things: just first of all noting that we’re still engagement on the amendment at 11.50.05 on changes to new section 320E, inserted by clause 4, in relation to constables versus senior police officers.

Moving now to new material under new section 320E, I wanted to ask—particularly in the provisions where constables may apply to the Youth Court for a young serious offender (YSO) declaration—what level of resources are intended to be used for the preparation around that in relation to making sure constables are using discretion responsibly? Have any training materials been already developed? Are there any sort of materials that will be developed? I’m interested to know, if that is the case, who will be in charge of developing those materials. In new section 320E(4), for example, the way that it’s worded “may apply”, there’s a level of discretion.

If the Minister for Children wasn’t to accept the tabled amendment I’ve discussed earlier, perhaps the Minister would like to talk a little bit about whether there’s any resourcing that will be deployed to ensure that those provisions are used responsibly and we account for any unconscious bias that may or may not exist otherwise. If she would like to maybe outline that, it would be useful.

Additionally, a new question would be whether the Minister, at any point in deciding the provisions under new section 320E, thought that perhaps a Youth Aid officer would be better suited for, say, being the one that would be able to apply to the Youth Court for a YSO declaration, or someone else within the workforce who perhaps has specific experience or training in relation to young people. So if she’d like to address and engage with the amendment from Tamatha Paul, that would be amazing, but also, if she’d like to engage with questions on preparation for this provision and the level of resourcing that may or may not have already been started to be created and used, that would also be great. Thank you.

Hon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children) (17:20): In response to new section 328E, inserted by clause 4, Police have developed guidance to support making applications for a young serious offender declaration (YSO).

In response to Tamatha Paul and also Dr Duncan Webb on new sections 320C and 320D, inserted by clause 4, around evidence of belief, the belief is that the criteria has been satisfied, with the criteria that two unrelated specified offences have been committed. The constable will then communicate this belief to the family group conference (FGC) coordinator and the FGC itself.

This carries on to Vanushi Walters’ question. The FGC is required to consider the YSO declaration. Under section 320H, inserted by clause 4, a YSO declaration cannot be made unless the FGC has made that consideration and made recommendations.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) (17:21): Just moving to Arena Williams’ excellent tabled amendment 7.05.24. It relates to new section 320F, inserted by clause 4, and it proposes inserting a new paragraph. It’s about service, and sets out that if there is an application for a young serious offender declaration, then you’ve got to serve this application on a number of people. There’s a bit of a twist in the tail for this because the way in which proceedings in the Youth Court are served is actually set out in the Oranga Tamariki Rules 1989, and it provides default rules for service. It says that if you’re going to serve a young person, you can do so by serving their lawyer, and the same goes for the adult as well. The difficulty here is that you’re being told to serve four different people, but under the rules as they stand, you could serve three of them by delivering the documents to the lawyer, which is clearly not what’s intended by this legislation. That’s why I have suggested—or Arena Williams, in fact, has suggested—that after paragraph (d) you need to kind of tweak the Oranga Tamariki Rules by saying, “provided that service on the person’s name in paragraphs (a) and (d) must be effected by leaving that document with the person to be served, or if that person does not accept it, by placing it in that person’s presence and drawing it to that person’s attention.”, which is the normal thing to do when someone tries to run away from serving a document—that last bit is kind of a necessary addition.

This is to make sure that those people who clearly the legislation intends to be served and have the application explicitly drawn to their attention are, in fact, served, and that this overrides the rules in the Oranga Tamariki Rules 1989, which basically says just give it to the lawyer and service is effected. Once the thing’s under way, you can return to that default position for any subsequent applications, an affidavit, or whatever else might follow from this proceeding. But for the application itself, that there is an application extant clearly should be drawn directly to the attention of both the young person and the parent or guardian, by actual service.

Now, I think other kinds of service—because the legislature has leaned towards email service, the postal service, and so on, but for an application of this nature, and given the likely nature of the people upon whom they are being served, I would suggest that actual personal service, the handing over of a physical and official document, is a good idea. But if the Minister’s intention in the drafting this legislation was that you can serve three people—lawyer, parent, and child—simply by delivering it to one person, namely, the lawyer, then please say so; but if it’s to serve those people separately and individually, then that certainly needs some pretty serious attention.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Labour) (17:25): Thank you, Mr Chair. I just wanted to come to new section 320H, inserted by clause 4, the area dealing with that family group conferences, and the amendment put forward by Helen White and an opportunity to consider the matter set out in 320H(1).

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Is that timestamp dated 7.05.25?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Yes, 7.05.25. It is a very important and serious matter. Having myself dealt with family group conferences extensively before I came to Parliament, it is not right to—I’d ask the Minister for Children—restrict the Family Court process or the scope. By broadening the scope of consideration here, our amendment will support the core purpose of a family group conference, which includes participatory decision-making and whānau involvement. The worry here, I think, for the Minister, and for all of us, is that whānau will be somewhat restricted by what’s being proposed at the moment.

We need to have total whānau involvement, and rehabilitative responses need to be put in. This new amendment promotes more balanced and holistic advice to the court, and I think it will give more integrity to the process. I note that the Minister has been working closely with some of her Māori advisers, which is good. I spoke with one of them, at length, over the weekend, Mark Solomon, who has been working with the Minister and working on this kaupapa. He himself has expressed to me some of the concerns he has in this particular area, because the whānau, being the centre of this, needs the opportunity to participate, needs to be part of the whole decision-making process. What we have at the moment is a far too restrictive process, and when you get people like Mark Solomon, who is one of the key advisers, speaking about this and wanting to help the kaupapa, is something, I think, that the Minister needs to take into consideration.

Understanding the family group conference area—and I’ve seen so much be resolved through that family group conference process—we want it to continue to be a success. If we can see that it’s being too restrictive, then we will go backwards. So I would ask the Minister to consider this amendment. It’s an amendment that is being put up in Helen White’s name. I think, when we look at where we are, particularly with serious offenders, we need to bring forward members of the family who know those serious offenders better than anyone else, who can speak on their behalf; who don’t normally speak, but through this process are able to come out with views and ideas in terms of the offender that no one would have known in the past. So I’d asked the Minister to consider this.

Hon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children) (17:29): Just in response to the Hon Willie Jackson’s question around Helen White’s tabled amendment, new section 320H(1)(a) relates to a youth serious offender (YSO) declaration following a breach of orders, so consideration of charges is irrelevant in that scenario, and so I don’t support that amendment.

Tamatha Paul’s tabled amendment around requiring a senior police officer to make a YSO application—I don’t support that because it’s actually not necessary. “Constable” applies to all police with constabulary powers. Applications of YSO declarations will be made by experienced police or youth aid officers.

MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI (Te Tai Tokerau) (17:30): Tēnā koe. If I may, I do want to touch on the family group conferencing aspect of this, because I think what is lacking is understanding. Now, the Minister for Children may not be aware, but family group conferencing is a concept that came out of tikanga Māori. The committee should know that. The whole family group conferencing activity and its fundamental understandings were born out of Māori thinking, out of a Māori world view. It’s called “family group conferencing” but it used to be called “whānau hui”, that was the origin of it. Mr Jackson will know, and several of us who have been around in that space will know that.

If you were to understand that, then you must realise that when family group conferences—by the way, the ones that are facilitated these days have three people in them; barely three, maybe seven at most, and an $18 budget for a family group conference. In the first family group conference that I ran for youth justice, we had more than 85 people—85 people concerned about a young Māori man who was failing, right? We gathered for more than two days. That’s family group conferencing in the most sincere and good way.

Can the Minister give absolute confidence that that is the approach, that is the sincerity of family group conferences in this context? I fear that it is not, because it is not understood from that world view. I’m really, really keen to get that understanding in a genuine and authentic way before we go to new section 320I, inserted by clause 4. Thank you.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH (Green) (17:32): Thank you so much, Mr Chair. I wanted to actually start moving on to new section 320I, inserted by clause 4, but I acknowledge that some members may still want to re-tread other bits, so just noting that.

I wanted to speak to Tamatha Paul’s amendment. It’s 11.50.06—

Tamatha Paul: Oh, ah—

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: —yes. Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Can you say that again?

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: It’s 11.50.06.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): All right. Cool.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: Thank you. Have you got it there, Mr Chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Yep.

RICARDO MENÉNDEZ MARCH: OK. Cool. I just didn’t want to go ahead before you identified it. Basically, this is the stuff around what must be considered. The amendment just simply adds a declaration after new section 320I(j), in relation to matters that the Youth Court must have regard to when considering an application for a young offender: “(k) any medical condition or disability that may affect the behaviour of the young person.”

I guess I wanted to test out with the Minister for Children whether she believes that this is something that should be considered. If she thinks so, that’s great, but if not, I would like to know whether the Minister in designing these provisions sought to get a sense of, I guess, how many people who were going through the Youth Court are deemed to have a medical condition or disability that affects their behaviour, like, what proportion of young people would have traumatic head injuries or other disabilities that may impact them? We have heard that disabled people are often criminalised and face a particularly challenging time through the court systems. With young people in particular, many of them may not have had access to, say, for example, diagnoses that allow them to receive additional support.

Often, actually, going through the Youth Court can be an opportunity for young people to be able to receive a diagnosis and receive adequate support, but we simply think that adding that a medical condition or disability is something that should be able to be considered just simply accounts for that. I’m interested to know if this is something that the Minister would be inclined to consider.

Finally, if there was engagement with whaikaha in the design of this bill, I wonder whether they gave any feedback in relationship to new section 320I and whether she received any feedback from Whaikaha or others that disability or medical conditions that affect someone’s behaviour should be included in here. Thank you.

Hon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children) (17:35): I understand where the member’s coming from, but I won’t be supporting this amendment because it’s not necessary. In the existing principles of the Oranga Tamariki Act in these provisions, including the serious offender declaration, the courts are already required, under the principles in section 5 of the Act, to put the wellbeing of a young person at the centre of decision making, and this expressly includes, for example, the young person’s experience of disability.

MARIAMENO KAPA-KINGI (Te Tai Tokerau) (17:35): If I can go to new section 320I, inserted by clause 4, “Matters the Youth Court must have regard to when considering application for YSO declaration”. Straight away, I’m looking at “(a) the nature and circumstances of the specified offences” and “the personal history,”. What I know in this space is when the judge, when the court needs to know and consider seriously, they need to have good evidence, solid information about a particular individual. When you think you’re going to get “the nature and circumstances of the specified offences proved to” blah-blah-blah—the personal history, you need two years. You need time. You need good people that know how to collect that information from an individual and their family.

If you’re talking about my family, you would need whoever it is and then 75 other people in the room to give you all of that context. Sadly, Minister, this whole activity is so poorly understood, but you think it’s going to be dealt with by something as unproven and hopeless, in my view, as a military camp and boot camp and all of that kind of thing.

But I will go on, if I may. Let’s go into “the attitude of the young person”. Quite honestly, do you think you’re going to capture that in a seven-minute conversation in a Ministry of Social Development office with a social worker that they’ve just met that day? Honestly, where do you think this information is going to come from—out of a hole in the ground? It cannot.

Very often, with these things, the lead-up to this is trauma and it’s disconnection—long-term disconnection. It’s nowhere to belong. You’ve also got the elements of self-harm, the suicidal ideation. You think you can capture all of that in, like, I don’t know, a one- or two-hour session overall to get a decent report so it goes to the court staff and then to the judge to make an application? This is serious, serious stuff, which, foolishly, it’s considered as if you can give it a name and you can give it a process then you think you’re dealing with it. You’re not. You’re not at all dealing with it.

Can I take us down to “(e) any measures taken or proposed to be taken by the young person, or the family, whanau, or family group of the young person,”, right? Again, a whānau—you’re talking about at least 25 people, if not 105 people. It is not two parents and two cars and a comfortable garage with a blinking boat outside. That’s not the reality for a lot of young Māori people, our young ones. It is not. I think they might want it, but that’s just not the privilege that they have, Minister.

Again, family group conferences came out of the Māori mind and hearts of good people in that time, in the time of Puao-Te-Ata-Tu, in the time when lots of good work was done. Sadly, this is an undoing of it, whether you realise it or not. I want to draw your attention to that. And sorry, if I can—OK, I’ve got one more minute.

I do recall, in a court, making a proposal to a judge, who said, “Mariameno, you’ve got this boy who’s ripped off this car from this couple—he took it out of their driveway and he took it for a drive and he smashed it up.” And I said, “OK, judge, this is what we’re going to do: this boy has a dog, this boy has a fishing rod. I’m going to take those off him. He’s going to sell them, he’s going to give them to that family, and he’s going to spend time with them.” Now, we were able to process that, we were able to do that, because we applied tikanga, we applied Māori ways of thinking and practising, and we did all of that at the marae. Unfortunately, you undid all that in 7AA, and with a whole bunch of other crazy ideas.

In my 27 remaining seconds, all of this material here continues to criminalise young Māori people and their families, Minister, though you might think otherwise—and you’re thinking this way because you’re poorly advised. Explain this for me: try and help me explain this if you’re on my marae in Te Kao; I’m interested to hear your response to that.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Just before the Minister for Children takes a call, just to remind members not to use “you”—don’t bring the Chair into the debate.

Hon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children) (17:41): Just in response to Ricardo Menéndez March’s question around whether Whaikaha was consulted, I’ve just been informed that agencies, including Whaikaha, were consulted on both the policy decisions and the legislation as it was developed.

TAMATHA PAUL (Green—Wellington Central) (17:41): Thank you, Mr Chair, and thank you for that answer, Minister. I’m staying on that part that my colleague Mariameno Kapa-Kingi has begun the conversation on, and it is quite a big section. Obviously, these are all the matters that the Youth Court has to take into consideration when considering granting that young serious offenders declaration. There is a lot in here, and, you know, you could interrogate each piece of this, and we intend to.

One of my questions to the Minister for Children is about my tabled amendment, which is the one lodged at 11.50.06, which my colleague Ricardo Menéndez March has asked some questions about. That tabled amendment is about inserting disabilities into that consideration, but I wondered whether that might already be captured under (b) in terms of “the personal history, social circumstances, and personal characteristics of the young person”, or whether that might be captured under (i), which is “the causes underlying the young person’s offending, and the measures available for addressing those causes”. If the Minister could just let me know whether those elements might address the amendment that I’ve presented around disabilities, that would be really helpful to know.

Moving through some of these considerations, I wanted to ask whether cultural reports were applicable within the Youth Court. That’s a question that I am generally not sure about. Obviously, the funding for those have been removed in this term, but people are able to commission their own these days—so whether a cultural report being produced would be a consideration that is captured under these points from (a) to (j).

The other question I had is around (b), so that’s talking about the “personal history, social circumstances, and personal characteristics of the young person”. The bit I’m most interested in the phrase “so far as those matters are relevant to the specified offences”. Another question for the Minister that I’m genuinely interested in is what aspects of a young person’s personal history or social circumstances and personal characteristics could be deemed relevant in terms of that offending. So that’s another question.

Moving down to (d), in terms of the response of the young person’s family, whānau, or family group, this bit is really important, and I know that the Minister understands that a lot of these kids are coming from really abusive households and whānau. No child is born with the ability or knowledge of how to be violent. They’re reproducing behaviour that they had seen another adult do. So what happens when you’ve got a young person who comes from a family who thinks violence is OK and normalises it? What if that family’s attitude towards that young person’s offending is that it’s all good and fine? I’m really worried about the detrimental impact of the family’s views around the offending that might be a detriment to that young person, who has obviously been failed in those circumstances by the adults around them.

Another point, really, is just to circle back to the inclusion of disabilities within this list of considerations. I was really keen to understand whether that disability is captured within these considerations, because when you look at the adult criminal justice system, you can really see the prevalence of a number of different disabilities. I’m thinking, in particular, of fetal alcohol spectrum disorder (FASD) and all sorts of different neurodivergences like ADHD. This does matter, because disabilities like fetal alcohol spectrum disorder—they’re not recognised as a disability but they’re also not well understood by the criminal justice system in terms of the ability of that disorder to inhibit someone’s brain from even considering what the consequences of their actions are. That’s not to say that everybody with FASD goes on to offend, actually; I’m not by any means saying that. But it does say that that disability can impair good decision-making, and even impair the ability to have an adult’s brain, really, and to even consider that actions have consequences for other people. Also traumatic brain injuries—the way that that impairs the brain from being able to make those decisions.

So I’m really keen to understand from the Minister whether those elements might be captured within these considerations.

Hon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children) (17:46): This is just in response to Tamatha Paul. I really do appreciate some of the issues that you are raising. I was listening to your comments around the families and their responses to a young person’s offending behaviour. I think that’s why a young serious offender (YSO) declaration is so important: as part of the YSO declaration, it enables a stronger response, and that response also includes family. It’s not just about that young person; it’s about whānau. For far too long, we have sent young people back into the same environment that they came from, and expected a different result. So we want to be working with their family as well as them, putting supports in place so that it is a nice environment to go home to, but also so that the family feels supported when that young person does go home.

Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) (17:47): Thank you, Mr Chair. Just talking about the matters that the court must have regard to when considering an application for a young serious offender (YSO) declaration—so that’s new section 320I—there’s an amendment in my name, lodged at 7.05.26. Whilst all of those things listed there are kind of legit, if you like, and they all make sense, it’s what’s not in there.

My first speech in this debate was around the purposes of this legislation and the approach that should be taken, and the fact that it should be a child-centric approach. I’ll be perfectly honest: these are kind of child-adjacent, but they’re not focused on the child. That’s why my tabled amendment suggests that you look at explicitly including subsection (2) there, which actually focuses on the child. For example, to touch on what the member Tamatha Paul was talking about, this is about taking into account the young person’s physical and mental capabilities, including any disability or impairment.

So if we look at the list of matters there, it doesn’t really capture them or say how the young person could benefit from learning work habits or skills through any order that could be made. So it’s asking the question: what’s the match between a stronger response—I’d like to think it was an enhanced response; I’d like to be able to use that word—or this enhanced response and the nature of the child that is going to be subject to this declaration, and also any cultural circumstances that are relevant?

The member Mariameno Kapa-Kingi has made some really good observations about having a response which is appropriate in that cultural context. If that young person has a particular cultural context that can be accommodated, especially by a YSO, then perhaps it’s appropriate, but surely we need to take that into account, and also the outcome of any restorative justice processes. I was surprised, in fact, that I didn’t think that that outcome of any restorative justice approach was actually already in that section.

I do think kind of reorienting the question to say this is all about this young person, and whilst wider contexts of the justice system, the nature of the offending, previous offences, all of those things, yes, they’re relevant, but the real question, if we’re taking what’s essentially a therapeutic approach—which is what youth justice is—we should say: will the chances of a better outcome for this young person and the chance that they will be less likely to offend in the future be enhanced given who they are, what they are, where they come from, and what they’ve done? Will they be enhanced by this order? Because that’s the only real question. You can look at all the other stuff. At the moment, those child-focused considerations don’t appear there, so that’s why I’m asking the Minister for Children to adopt my tabled amendment 7.05.26.

Hon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children) (17:51): Thank you, Mr Chair. The amendment 7.05.26 that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb has just spoken to is very similar to the amendment that I already answered this question to for Tamatha Paul around adding additional matters, including disabilities or any other issues that may arise. I’ll repeat it again so that it’s very clear that it’s not that I’m not supporting this amendment because I don’t care; I’m not supporting this amendment because it’s not necessary.

The existing principles of the Oranga Tamariki Act apply to these provisions, including the young serious offender declaration. The courts are already required, under the principles in section 5 of the Oranga Tamariki Act, to put the wellbeing of young persons at the centre of decision making, and this expressly includes, for example, the young person’s developmental potential and their experience of disabilities. I think I’ve really covered this area quite well already, so hopefully that closes that issue off.

In regards to Tamatha Paul’s, I really was still thinking about some of the things you spoke to around neurodiversity issues, around physical disabilities, and around meeting their needs. There is a more intensive response here so that we do get the right clinical response in front of these young people so that we can get what they need in front of them so that they can unlock their potential like they never have before; a real, holistic therapeutic approach that hasn’t been done before.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) (17:53): “A real, holistic therapeutic approach” that has never been done before that is called a military-style academy (MSA). It’s just a publicity stunt. It’s anti-child. It’s not child-centric. I want to speak to new section 320J(1), inserted by clause 4. It’s all been very polite in our exchanges this evening, and I’m conscious that we are almost at the end of the day.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): I have appreciated it being polite.

Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME: I will try and keep it polite, but I am concerned that the Government is talking tough on crime rhetoric, punitive approaches, and introducing a military-style academy, which I want to understand what are the military-style components of it, because the Minister for Children is saying it’s holistic, therapeutic, wraparound, and so on. It just doesn’t compute. But what I want to ask the Minister is: would she consider the amendment 7.05.27 in my name, which would insert new section 320J(1)(c): “satisfied that there is no less restrictive or less intrusive order available that would reduce the risk of the young person committing another specified offence within the period for which the order would be in place to an acceptable level.”?

It is almost like we jumped straight to the declaration of a young serious offender. We’re going to give them this label. We’re going to tick the box on being tough on crime, the punitive approach. By accepting this amendment, it would be requiring that we are satisfied that there are actually no other less restrictive and less intrusive orders that have been considered before going to the young serious offender (YSO) declaration. This would be consistent with the Act. It would be consistent with ensuring that the intervention in the life of a young person is the least restrictive, consistent with their welfare and the safety of the public.

As currently drafted, section 320J does not expressly reflect this principle within the threshold decision to impose a YSO declaration, despite the significant consequences of such a declaration. The amendment makes the principle explicit by requiring the court to consider whether alternative orders could sufficiently reduce the risk of the young person committing another specified offence within the relevant period. This ensures that it is a proportionate response and reinforces that the YSO declaration should actually be a measure of last resort. The effect is to strengthen the statutory safeguards around the use of the YSO regime, promote consistency with the wider purposes and principles of the Act, and ensure that the court’s powers are exercised in a manner that is both targeted and proportionate.

These military-style academies, we’ve asked many questions about the funding. How much funding is this Government putting behind military-style academies and the services that are provided through that? How safe are these military-style academies, this YSO declaration and sentencing to a military-style academy? How safe are those? Is this the best, less intrusive intervention that the court could be giving this young person before going to YSO and before going to these military-style academies? I have asked the Minister about the pilot. Eight out of nine reoffended in the first pilot, and in MSA 2.0, we had two young people voluntarily leave the in-residence component of the military-style academy. Why did they leave? Is the Minister satisfied that these military-style academies are the best response and are the safest place for these young people? I want her to consider my amendment about whether we could ensure that the court has looked at every other less intrusive intervention that these young people should have the opportunity before.

Hon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children) (17:58): Look, I don’t support this amendment, because the existing youth justice principles in section 208 of the Oranga Tamariki Act apply to these provisions. We already require the courts to consider a number of principles, including that the court consider the least restrictive form of response that is appropriate in the circumstances. There’s no need to add it because it is already in place.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Members, the time has come for me to report progress.

Progress to be reported.

House resumed.

Climate Change Response (Tort Liability) Amendment Bill

Oranga Tamariki (Responding to Serious Youth Offending) Amendment Bill

Report of Committee of the whole House

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Mr Speaker, the committee has considered the Climate Change Response (Tort Liability) Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment. The committee has also considered the Oranga Tamariki (Responding to Serious Youth Offending) Amendment Bill and reports that it has made progress on the bill. Mr. Speaker, I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

SPEAKER: The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. Tuesday, 18 August 2026.

The House adjourned at 5.59 p.m.