Parliament Hansard Report – Wednesday, 30 August 2023 (continued on Thursday, 31 August 2023) – Volume 771 – 001208

Source: New Zealand Parliament – Hansard

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you for the opportunity to take a call on the Parole Amendment Bill, which is a simple bill: it is to amend the Parole Act to clarify that offenders subject to an extended supervision order can reside with their programme provider in a residential setting.

It’s important for parliamentarians in this debate—and in all debates where considerations about the rights of detained people are considered—that we are really clear with what our intention is and the sort of rights balancing exercise that this Parliament is taking into account. The question here—and why we’re debating it—is what Parliament’s original policy intent was with the section 107K(3)(bb)(ii) of the Parole Act. Because New Zealand Bill of Rights Act rights are engaged here, this bill would add a balancing protection by requiring the Parole Act to constantly review the way that those rights are being weighed up by the Parole Board, but it would also remove that section which is the subject of this declaratory judgment.

The point I’m making here is that when we consider those rights—and perhaps the Minister will elaborate on this in committee stage, because it’s useful for us to do that—the two fundamental questions are not the ones that the Hon Paul Goldsmith asked about: when the Government knew and why the plan was not necessarily in place, they’re questions about how specific this Parliament needs to be when we’re making decisions like this. And the first question that we should ask ourselves as parliamentarians is: is this a punishment? Is a rehabilitative programme which is conducted in a residential setting a punishment at all? And that is an important consideration when Parliament designs this kind of legislation which gives people an ability to rehabilitate from what they have done or to continue to be treated because that is one of the goals of our justice system and it was a subject in the declaratory judgment itself.

The second question is whether this is also detention at all, because the degree of freedoms that people have in these settings is different from what the Hon Judith Collins described as putting them in jail. It is intended to be so, and these providers provide a setting where these people can enjoy lots of the freedoms that they wouldn’t be able to enjoy in a prison setting. Those are important questions for us. This Parliament today is coming together to change the way that this operates to be much clearer. This is an improvement in our law and these are the kind of decisions that we should be able to make under urgency.

Parliament Hansard Report – Parole Amendment Bill — Introduction – 001207

Source: New Zealand Parliament – Hansard

WEDNESDAY, 30 AUGUST 2023

(continued on Thursday, 31 August 2023)

PAROLE AMENDMENT BILL

Introduction

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Members, the House is resumed for the extended sitting, and good morning. I understand that it’s the intention of the Government to introduce a bill.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Attorney-General): I present my report under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 on the Parole Amendment Bill to the House under Standing Order 269.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That report is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website. According to a determination of the Business Committee, the bill is set down for first reading immediately.

Parliament Hansard Report – Parole Amendment Bill — First Reading – 001206

Source: New Zealand Parliament – Hansard

ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you for the opportunity to take a call on the Parole Amendment Bill, which is a simple bill: it is to amend the Parole Act to clarify that offenders subject to an extended supervision order can reside with their programme provider in a residential setting.

It’s important for parliamentarians in this debate—and in all debates where considerations about the rights of detained people are considered—that we are really clear with what our intention is and the sort of rights balancing exercise that this Parliament is taking into account. The question here—and why we’re debating it—is what Parliament’s original policy intent was with the section 107K(3)(bb)(ii) of the Parole Act. Because New Zealand Bill of Rights Act rights are engaged here, this bill would add a balancing protection by requiring the Parole Act to constantly review the way that those rights are being weighed up by the Parole Board, but it would also remove that section which is the subject of this declaratory judgment.

The point I’m making here is that when we consider those rights—and perhaps the Minister will elaborate on this in committee stage, because it’s useful for us to do that—the two fundamental questions are not the ones that the Hon Paul Goldsmith asked about: when the Government knew and why the plan was not necessarily in place, they’re questions about how specific this Parliament needs to be when we’re making decisions like this. And the first question that we should ask ourselves as parliamentarians is: is this a punishment? Is a rehabilitative programme which is conducted in a residential setting a punishment at all? And that is an important consideration when Parliament designs this kind of legislation which gives people an ability to rehabilitate from what they have done or to continue to be treated because that is one of the goals of our justice system and it was a subject in the declaratory judgment itself.

The second question is whether this is also detention at all, because the degree of freedoms that people have in these settings is different from what the Hon Judith Collins described as putting them in jail. It is intended to be so, and these providers provide a setting where these people can enjoy lots of the freedoms that they wouldn’t be able to enjoy in a prison setting. Those are important questions for us. This Parliament today is coming together to change the way that this operates to be much clearer. This is an improvement in our law and these are the kind of decisions that we should be able to make under urgency.

Parliament Hansard Report – Wednesday, 30 August 2023 – Volume 770 – 001205

Source: New Zealand Parliament – Hansard

WEDNESDAY, 30 AUGUST 2023

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

KARAKIA/PRAYERS

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

Parliament Hansard Report – Karakia/Prayers – 001204

Source: New Zealand Parliament – Hansard

WEDNESDAY, 30 AUGUST 2023

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

KARAKIA/PRAYERS

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

Crumbs from the property speculator’s table

Source: Green Party

High-income property speculators will be the biggest winners from a National Party tax plan that will send house prices and rents through the roof, and turbo-charge inequality.

People on low and middle incomes will be much better off under the Green Party’s plan:

  • A retired couple who will be $13 a week better off under National, would be $32 per week off under the Green Party’s plan
  • A family with two children at primary school and a combined income of $120k would be $50 better off per week under National’s plan, and be $188 better off per week under the Green Party plan.
  • Students who get nothing under National’s plan would get support of $385 a week under the Green Party’s plan

“National’s plan is a cynical ploy to do the absolute least for middle income earners in order to get away with tax cuts for the wealthiest few,” says co-leader of the Green Party, James Shaw.

“National has shown yet again that they don’t care at all about those with the least. Under National’s plan, people on the lowest incomes would miss out while high-income property speculators can continue to line their pockets. There are not even crumbs in this policy for students and people on benefits. 

“National’s plan includes enormous tax cuts for people who play the property market, which we know drives house prices higher and squeezes first home buyers. 

“The plan to roll back the bright line test to two years from 10 years and reverse the removal of landlords’ ability to deduct interest costs from their tax bill is a blatant handout for property speculators. It is ripping money away from everyone else in order to support the wealthiest few, and will be the worst possible news for first home buyers who want to be able to buy a place to put down roots. 

“The Green Party is clear that we must urgently stop handouts to property speculators so we can support everyone. 

“There is an inherent cruelty baked into National’s plan. They are providing no additional support for beneficiaries, while giving people on high incomes more money each week. Not only that but they want to double the price of public transport for people on low incomes or with a disability to help pay for tax cuts that benefit high income people the most.

“National also cannot say with any certainty what crucial public spending they will cut to pay for their plan. This is pie in the sky stuff, unlike the Green Party’s costed solution of a Wealth Tax.

“People struggling to make ends meet will be much better off under the Green Party’s plan.  

“Under our plan, everyone, whether in work or not, would have an income that covers life’s essentials; a warm, dry and affordable place to live that is powered by cheap, clean energy; and access to free dental care in communities where people and nature thrive,” says James Shaw.

Below is a comparison between the Green Party’s plan and the National Party’s plan using the examples in the National Party’s policy document:

Nathan – café worker

  • National says Nathan will be better off by $20 a fortnight (or $10 a week)
  • Nathan is an 18-year-old school leaver in Whangārei, taking a year off study to work full-time. Nathan works 40 hours per week on minimum wage in a local café.
  • Under the Green Party’s plan, Nathan will be $18 better off per week or $36 better off per fortnight – 80% more under our plan
  • Under the Green Party’s plan, Nathan will also get $385 a week when he starts studying
  • National continues to ignore students and push people like Nathan into low wage work, rather than supporting them to live a decent life while continuing their education.

Ben and Tabitha – professional couple

  • Each earn $150k
  • Under National’s plan they will get $20 each per week
  • Under the Green Party’s plan they will pay $26 more per week in tax
  • Ben and Tabitha are not the squeezed middle – Ben and Tabitha are very high income earners, and the National Party is giving them more tax cuts than Nathan.

Simon – single parent 

  • Earns 80k a year, and has two children 
  • $45 better off a week under National, compared with $195 better off a week with the Green Party’s plan ($171 from Working for Families increases and $24 from reducing tax). 

Parliament Hansard Report – Tuesday, 29 August 2023 (continued on Wednesday, 30 August 2023) – Volume 770 – 001203

Source: New Zealand Parliament – Hansard

SORAYA PEKE-MASON (Labour): Tēnā koe te Mana Whakawā. Mihi ana ki a koutou. Ata mārie. I’m pleased to take a short call on the Land Transport (Road Safety) Amendment Bill. I want to first of all acknowledge the 377 people who lost their lives tragically in this way. One is one too many and there’s nothing worse than getting that knock on the door to hear such tragic news. So I just wanted to spare a thought for them.

I welcome this bill and I welcome what it means. In particular, I just want to acknowledge the impoundment of the fleeing vehicles. I think six months is reasonable. It gives those drivers time to reflect and to think about their behaviour, and hopefully in a way that is going to make some changes in their lives. I am also supportive of the vehicle impoundment for failing to provide that information. This is very, very important. It’s just unfortunate with the world today that this sort of behaviour happens. So here we are—we have to do what we have to do to help protect our communities.

Also the vehicle forfeiture—yes, absolutely. Support the idea of having to seize these vehicles and to use those proceeds to retain by the Crown for purposes that I’m sure we can always find for that. Also the point-to-point cameras and the automated infringements.

Our heart is fully in this bill. It needs to happen. Yes, this is the right direction. I commend this to the House. Kia ora.

Parliament Hansard Report – Land Transport (Road Safety) Amendment Bill — Third Reading – 001202

Source: New Zealand Parliament – Hansard

SORAYA PEKE-MASON (Labour): Tēnā koe te Mana Whakawā. Mihi ana ki a koutou. Ata mārie. I’m pleased to take a short call on the Land Transport (Road Safety) Amendment Bill. I want to first of all acknowledge the 377 people who lost their lives tragically in this way. One is one too many and there’s nothing worse than getting that knock on the door to hear such tragic news. So I just wanted to spare a thought for them.

I welcome this bill and I welcome what it means. In particular, I just want to acknowledge the impoundment of the fleeing vehicles. I think six months is reasonable. It gives those drivers time to reflect and to think about their behaviour, and hopefully in a way that is going to make some changes in their lives. I am also supportive of the vehicle impoundment for failing to provide that information. This is very, very important. It’s just unfortunate with the world today that this sort of behaviour happens. So here we are—we have to do what we have to do to help protect our communities.

Also the vehicle forfeiture—yes, absolutely. Support the idea of having to seize these vehicles and to use those proceeds to retain by the Crown for purposes that I’m sure we can always find for that. Also the point-to-point cameras and the automated infringements.

Our heart is fully in this bill. It needs to happen. Yes, this is the right direction. I commend this to the House. Kia ora.

Parliament Hansard Report – Tuesday, 29 August 2023 – Volume 771 – 001201

Source: New Zealand Parliament – Hansard

Question No. 6—Finance

6. NICOLA WILLIS (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Finance: What concerns, if any, does he have about the performance of the New Zealand economy, and what impact is the performance of the New Zealand economy having on New Zealanders?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): The New Zealand economy has strong fundamentals, with the IMF, this week, noting that New Zealand had experienced cumulative growth of 10.2 percent since the second quarter of 2020, compared to 8.8 percent for Australia, 7.6 percent for the United States, 7.1 percent for the euro area, and 6.1 percent for the United Kingdom. The impact of the strong underlying performance of the economy means that more Kiwis are in work than ever before, with Stats New Zealand data showing that another 6,000 people entered the workforce in July. I do have concerns, though, which is why the Government is acting to mitigate them. As a small, open economy, New Zealand is at risk from changes in the global economy. We’ve seen over the past few weeks the impact of a deteriorating outlook in China—for example, on our domestic milk prices here. This makes it all the more important that we signed the free-trade agreements with the European Union and the United Kingdom as part of diversifying our export markets. We do see impacts in New Zealand from global interest rates feeding through into higher mortgage rates for New Zealanders, even though the official cash rate has remained steady. As a Government, we are doing our bit to help protect our economy from this global fallout—this includes supporting jobs through new investment in infrastructure, and rebuilding communities devastated by recent weather events. But it does also include cutting our cloth to take pressure off inflation and ensure that the Government’s books remain in a sustainable position, all the while balanced by investments in critical public services, like health, education, and housing.

Nicola Willis: Is he concerned that during his time as Minister of Finance, New Zealand’s inflation rate has been out of control for 27 months so far, leaving New Zealanders to struggle through a cost of living crisis seemingly without end?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As has been noted many times in this House, this is a global inflation crisis. Here in New Zealand, what I can say is that I’m proud of an economy that’s 6.7 percent larger than before COVID. I’m proud that employment has risen in 15 of the past 16 months. I’m proud about the fact that ASB’s economist said, today, that New Zealand’s fiscal metrics remain world class. Throughout this period, we have looked after New Zealanders by supporting them through increases in the family tax credit, childcare assistance, main benefits. All of the things we did to support people through that period of time—opposed by the National Party.

Nicola Willis: Is he concerned that during his time as Minister of Finance, the official cash rate has risen quicker than at any other time during its history, leaving New Zealand mortgage holders scrambling to meet super-sized mortgage payments, as commercial rates, effectively, double?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: And, indeed, this, again, is a global trend. I do note for the member that when the Reserve Bank, who are responsible for decisions about the official cash rate, began increasing the official cash rate in, I think it was, October 2021, just days later, the leader of the National Party proposed more spending to increase what would happen with inflation.

Nicola Willis: If high inflation and interest rates are simply a global phenomenon, then why does America have so much lower inflation than New Zealand, and why is it that our domestic inflation rate is higher than our imported inflation rate?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: As the member knows, by referring to something that doesn’t exist, called the “domestic inflation rate”, she’s not actually representing the facts on that accurately. The New Zealand economy has recovered earlier than many other countries. That affects the different rates of growth and the different rates of inflation that we see. But what I know 100 percent is that if we had followed the advice of the member and her co-leader, we would have had inflationary tax cuts in the last Budget that would be making things far, far worse for New Zealanders when it comes to inflation.

Nicola Willis: Is he concerned that after six years of him managing the economy, our country is now the slowest-growing in the Asia-Pacific region, in recession, and predicted to be one of the slowest-growing countries in the world next year?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: If the member cared to look at the particular table that that number comes from, she would discover that, actually, if you look at the period of time through 2020, through 2021, and through 2022, New Zealand grew above average compared to the countries within that survey. As I said before, our economy began to recover earlier. But now we have the prospect of a member who has told us, time and time again, that she can afford the tax cut that she wants to deliver, now delivering those via four new taxes. The thing that will really cause problems for the New Zealand economy is unfunded tax cuts, a fiscal plan that doesn’t add up, and more inflationary pressure on New Zealanders.

Nicola Willis: Speaking of fiscal plans that don’t add up, can he confirm that under his stewardship of the New Zealand economy, net Crown debt has risen from $5.4 billion in 2019 to $73.3 billion today, and can he guarantee to the New Zealanders that every dollar he has borrowed has been put to good use?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I congratulate the member on her graduation to professor of hindsight economics! Throughout the period of COVID, I stood in this House, sometimes with the support of members opposite, to say “We need to look after New Zealand households, businesses, and the health system”. Sometimes, members opposite asked us to spend even more on that. I’m proud of the fact that New Zealanders emerged from COVID with one of the lowest excess mortality rates in the world, and I’m proud of the money that we spent on things like the wage subsidy, which members opposite went around the country supporting, asking me, writing to me, saying “Why aren’t you spending more?”. The member cannot now look back and change that position. We stood by New Zealanders through the difficulties of the pandemic, and we continue to stand by New Zealanders.

Nicola Willis: Well, is he proud that under his economic management, New Zealand has the largest current account deficit in the developed world, and does he have another excuse for that one too?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The member will be well aware that New Zealand, as an economy that relies, for example, on the foreign exchange earnings from tourism, has suffered during a period of time when tourists couldn’t come here. Our net international investment position is improving. The current account deficit is coming down. But, again, all of the credibility that’s been built up in the New Zealand economy that means that Moody’s have endorsed what we’re doing, that means that the IMF have supported what we’re doing—all of that credibility would be frittered away by unfunded tax cuts for millionaires; that’s what the member’s promising.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Does the Minister of Finance believe that more tourists might come here if we didn’t have prominent politicians travelling around the world, describing New Zealand as wet, whiney, and miserable?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Absolutely that would help—and, in fact, generally speaking, I think it would help if politicians such as that didn’t travel overseas at all.

Nicola Willis: Isn’t it the case that despite his many attempts to blame others, in fact his legacy to the New Zealand economy is a cost of living crisis, recession, deficit, and debt, and is it the case that he is simply carrying on Labour’s proud tradition of leaving the New Zealand economy in tatters?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The member might want to reflect on the level of unemployment when we came into office, which, if I recall, was around 4.8 percent, and the fact that, as the Prime Minister’s already said, we’ve had record low unemployment over a long period of time. We prioritise having people in work. We prioritise making sure that we look after the most vulnerable in our society, that we lift kids out of poverty, that we get people into skills and into training. All of that is at risk from a potential Government obsessed with making sure that they deliver tax cuts for millionaires.

Parliament Hansard Report – Karakia/Prayers – 001200

Source: New Zealand Parliament – Hansard

TUESDAY, 29 AUGUST 2023

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

KARAKIA/PRAYERS

SPEAKER: Members, today I’ve asked Dr James McDowall to say the prayer in the Ukrainian language.

Dr JAMES McDOWALL (ACT):

[Ukrainian text to be inserted by the Hansard Office.]

Amen.