Parliament Hansard Report – Crown Apology to Survivors of Abuse in Care – 001446

Source: New Zealand Parliament – Hansard

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Ngā kura mōrehu, kua ngaro, haere atu rā. Ngā kura mōrehu. E whakawhaiti nei. Kei ngā rangatira. Tēnā koutou katoa.

[Treasured survivors, those that have passed, farewell. Treasured survivors that have gathered here. To the esteemed leaders. Greetings.]

I’d like to welcome you all here today on what is a significant, a sorrowful, but a very important day for you and for all of New Zealand. I would also like to acknowledge all those who are watching and listening in all around the country. I know that this day has been a long time coming. [Interruption]

A disturbance took place in the gallery, and a member of the public was removed on the instruction of the Speaker.

SPEAKER: Might I express to everyone in the gallery our disappointment that your day has begun with such an unacceptable interruption. We know that you come here with goodwill, having put up with so much in your lives and how important today is. Accordingly, I’ll ask the Rt Hon Prime Minister to begin his contribution once again.

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I would like to welcome you all here today, as I said, on what is a significant, sorrowful, but very important day for you and for our country.

Today, I stand before you as the representative of not only this Government but of all the Governments that have gone before us, to offer a formal and unreserved apology for the abuse that you suffered while in State care, churches, and other faith-based places. It was horrific, it was heartbreaking, it was wrong, and it should never have happened. For many of you, it changed the course of your life, and for that, the Government must take responsibility. I have said it before, but I thank you again for telling New Zealand with clarity and with honesty what happened to you.

The Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in State Care was the largest, the longest, and the most complex public inquiry ever held in New Zealand. More than 2,400 of you were incredibly brave and shared your experiences of the abuse that you suffered while in State care, churches, and other faith-based places—places where you should have been safe and treated with dignity and respect and compassion, but instead you were subjected to horrific abuse and neglect and, in some cases, torture.

In 16 devastating volumes, page after page, your stories left many of us stunned that this could have happened here in New Zealand, but not you. You knew the truth because you lived it, and you have waited and waited for people to start listening to you. Now New Zealand has listened. Words do matter and I say these words with sincerity: I have read your stories and I believe you.

It is my duty as the current Prime Minister to formally recognise that the abuse that you suffered should have never happened—recognition that is long overdue. Today, I’m apologising on behalf of the Government to everyone who suffered abuse, harm, and neglect while in State care, to make this apology to all survivors on behalf of my own and previous Governments.

You deserved so much better and I am deeply sorry that New Zealand did not do better by you. I am sorry that you were not believed when you came forward to report your abuse. I am sorry that many bystanders—staff, volunteers, and carers—turned a blind eye and failed to stop or report abuse. I am sorry that the State’s oversight of people in care was so poor. I am sorry that many abusers were not made to face justice, which meant that other people experienced abuse that could have been prevented. I am sorry that the State did not act quickly and boldly enough to put much better protection in place for people in all care locations, and that those acting on behalf of the Crown lost sight of you: the people behind the claims.

Everyone in care was vulnerable to abuse, but some people suffered even more because of who they were. Many Māori, Pacific, Deaf, and disabled people suffered harsher treatment than others. Māori and Pacific children suffered racial discrimination and disconnection from their families, language, and culture. Blind children were denied access to braille books. Deaf children were punished for using sign language. Children and vulnerable adults with intellectual disabilities were not supported to learn or communicate. Some children and adults in care were targeted because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. Some mothers were pressured or coerced by the State to give up their babies for adoption, often leading to long years of mental suffering for them and their children who they were forced to give up.

To all of you, I am sorry. I acknowledge the abuse had a devastating impact not only on you but also the people closest to you—your partners, children, and grandchildren.

Some parents were told that putting their children into State care was the right thing to do; very often, it was not. To those parents, I am sorry that we did not care for your children as if they were our own.

To those of you who were tortured at Lake Alice—young, alone, and subjected to unimaginable pain—I am deeply sorry.

I’d like to acknowledge those who are not alive to hear this apology: today, we feel you are here with us, and I extend this apology to you, your families and whānau.

I want to acknowledge those of you who struggled to get help from Government agencies when you came forward to report your abuse. This has meant you have had to re-live your trauma over and over again. Agencies should have done better and must commit to doing so in the future.

Many of you were denied knowledge of what happened to you because record-keeping during your time in care was so poor or deliberately inaccurate. Your own personal information was often withheld, destroyed, lost, wrong, or incomplete. Often there was no record of your origins, your family and whānau, the harm that you experienced, the complaints that you made, your medical treatments, or what social workers said about you. I am sorry.

I stand alongside the chief executives from seven Government agencies who have, this morning, apologised for the failings and omissions by their own agencies and departments. Some faith-based organisations are making their own apologies. I strongly encourage them all to do so, to honour the survivors who were abused while in their care. The Government has written to church leaders to let them know our expectation is that they will do the right thing and contribute to the redress process.

No apology can right the wrongs of the past. Some of you may feel my words count for little, after so long and so much hurt. But one of my hopes is that today, with this apology and this acknowledgement of your burden, it becomes a little lighter for you.

Clearly, words must be accompanied by actions. For me, there are two big lessons from the royal commission of inquiry that we must act on quickly and we must act on thoroughly. First, we must do the right thing by you and provide you with the support that you need. Second, we must do all we can to prevent abuse happening in the future.

It is important to note that not all care was abusive and certainly not all caregivers. There are many New Zealanders who have formed loving and lifelong bonds with the foster families who have opened their doors and hearts to them. I do want to thank those who have provided loving and appropriate care in the past, and those who continue to do so today. The royal commission itself said that by 1999 there had been improvements to the care system. But we must do better; we must do better at improving the experience of those in care, and we must do better at ensuring fewer people end up in state care in the first place.

The royal commission made 138 recommendations for change. The Government is carefully considering each of those recommendations. I am heartened at the words of support from the Leader of the Opposition and also the other parties in this Parliament to put politics to one side and to work together to achieve lasting change.

Today I want to provide you with some more detail about our intentions. The Government’s response is focused in three areas: firstly, acknowledging the abuse through the tabling of the report and this formal apology, secondly supporting survivors, and thirdly, preventing abuse from happening in the future. I am pleased to announce today the Government has completed or started work on 28 recommendations in the report. To demonstrate our commitment to change, this afternoon a bill that will introduce a range of measures to improve the safety of children and vulnerable adults in state care, will have its first reading here in Parliament.

I know that financial redress is important to many of you, and no amount of money will ever make up for what you have endured, but today I want to provide you with some details around the next steps. Many of you, understandably, do not want to engage with the current redress system. Some parts of it are 20 years old and it can take up to five years for your claims to be addressed. However, there are also 3,500 of you who are engaging with the current system so today I am announcing the Government will invest an additional $32 million to increase capacity in the current system while we work on the new redress system. This funding will increase resources and help ensure the system is more responsive to your needs now. But I want to assure you today that it is our intention to have a new single redress system operating next year.

While financial redress is important to some of you, others of you are looking for easier access to support services, so the Government will establish a $2 million fund that will support organisations that are already working well with you as survivors. This will help you to navigate and access the support that you need more easily.

One of the most important things we can do in light of the royal commission of inquiry is to improve the safeguards to prevent the abuse of children and vulnerable adults in care. The system has already improved markedly since the 50-year period to 1999 that the royal commission focused on. Back then, many people in care were in large institutions. Today, the vast majority are in the care of households or small-scale, community-based care places. There have been improvements in areas like professional standards, staff training and vetting, and complaints procedures. But the royal commission made a number of recommendations around further improvements, which the Government will carefully consider. We have started the process to remove the ability to strip search children in care, provide new search powers for people visiting youth justice facilities, and to strengthen restrictions for people working with young children. We will also change the Crimes Act to better recognise disabled people and will improve record keeping in government agencies. I would like to thank the other political parties for their support in progressing this bill today.

I know that raising public awareness to help prevent future abuse is important to you as, for decades, many of you suffered in silence. Today I am announcing a National Remembrance Day will be held on 12 November next year to mark the one-year anniversary of this apology. This will provide us with an opportunity to stop and to reflect on what you endured and to ensure we are doing all we can to prevent future abuse.

Today I can also tell you we will start work on removing, immediately, memorials including street names, public amenities, and public honours of proven perpetrators. We will also work with local authorities to honour and care for unmarked graves located on sites that were places of care in New Zealand.

Before I close, I want to say that to have hope, however bleak your circumstances, is an important part of being human. I know there are survivors among you who have managed to overcome what happened to you and have gone on to lead full lives and have ensured abuse was never part of your own children’s lives. I applaud breaking that cycle that too often hangs like a curse over families. It does not mean you have forgotten or forgiven what occurred. However, you have been able to pierce the darkness with the light of hope and work through what you endured, to take opportunities and find pleasure in life.

My hope is that today allows more of you to find a little more light, because while today is about your past it is also about your future. It’s also about the future of others who may find themselves in care. They will have a better experience thanks to your voice, your courage, and your persistence. It is on all of us now to do all that we can to ensure that abuse that should never have been accepted, no longer occurs. That will be an enduring legacy of your contribution to changing the system, and this and future Governments’ commitment to implementing that change.

I would like to say again, and to thank all of those who told your stories: you have been heard, and you have been believed. You have helped achieve what you must have wished for yourselves: better protection to prevent the suffering of vulnerable and voiceless people. I would like to acknowledge those of you—the wounded healers—who despite the trauma that you have been through yourselves have helped to advocate for other survivors. That is selfless.

I thank the royal commission staff and commissioners; I thank all those continuing to work on this response. I would like to thank the Leader of the Opposition, Chris Hipkins, and all of the other political parties who have worked with us on this day.

I also want to thank those many, many good people in social services who go out, day after difficult day, to try to help to protect those who are in danger, to strengthen those who are weak, and to support those who are vulnerable.

Finally, to you, the survivors of abuse in care. I hope this apology may help your healing. What happened is part of your life story, but not the only part. This apology, which you may each take as personal, is now part of your story, too. I would like to end with a karakia from Waihoroi Shortland:

Your truth we are challenged to uphold,

Your courage we are bound to honour,

And your right to be heard we receive with privilege.

No reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

Parliament Hansard Report – Thursday, 7 November 2024 – Volume 779 – 001445

Source: New Zealand Parliament – Hansard

Question No. 6—Health

6. Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour) to the Associate Minister of Health: Does she stand by her statement that “Once my office was fully staffed, operational issues regarding management of information was remedied”; and, if so, how was she unaware until yesterday that she never released an unredacted version of the document to the requestor?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Health): Yes. I reject the member’s assertion that I was unaware an unredacted version had not been released, because she has mischaracterised my personal explanation from yesterday, and I would point out that while the member continues to fixate on old news and trying to find links where there aren’t any, this Government is getting on with actually supporting smokers to quit cigarettes through practical tools and approaches. Contrary to the previous Government’s approach, I am interested in the views of front-line quit-smoking providers—who understand the challenges for long-term addicted smokers—rather than implementing headline-catching, misdirected slogans.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Does she stand by the decision she made to redact the phrases “nicotine is as harmful as caffeine” and that tobacco control measures amount to “nanny state nonsense”?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: The Official Information Act provides for withholding information to maintain the effective conduct of public affairs through the free and frank expression of opinions. I have been clear in this House that the document in question refers to statements, policies, and positions of the New Zealand First Party, and when given by a Minister to officials, it is not unreasonable to think that there are free and frank statements within it, as well as public policy positions that are under active consideration.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Does she understand now that she withheld that information under a section of the Act that only applies to information tendered by officials, and, if so, she should be able to say who wrote it or who gave her that document?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: I have not received any notice about a complaint being made about information released. The member could speculate about anything, but has no grounds for the assertion. I note that if the member were concerned about redactions, the information was received by her in March this year, and no complaint has been made, as far as I am aware.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Supplementary.

SPEAKER: One more.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Why did she claim on Tuesday that her acting contrary to the law was the result of short-term operational issues, when the fact is she continued to inappropriately withhold information while being under investigation by the Ombudsman well into June?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: Yet again, I have not received a complaint in relation to the document in question. So the member can make the assertion, but, frankly, she is not qualified to make that assessment. There is active consideration, as she’s fully aware, around the Official Information Act management.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could the Minister please explain to the original questioner, very slowly, that one requestor already had an unredacted copy, which was leaked to him and, no doubt, her?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: Yes. This whole issue arose from a leaked document, for which the ministry has offered apologies.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Does she understand that whether there’s an Ombudsman complaint or not, she needs to be able to explain the decisions she made, according to the Act?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: Yes. All of the explanations around redaction have been made. There is active consideration around policy positions, which is covered for under the Official Information Act, and that has been fully responded to.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister as to whether or not in this inquiry she expects to get the information from the original questioner that she had already received an unredacted copy, and what is all this nonsense, therefore, about?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: What I can say is that I apologise to New Zealanders who are trying to give up smoking and are being distracted by an Opposition who has absolutely no ability to understand what important work needs to be undertaken. The previous Government failed to deliver a proper, effective policy position, and we are fixing it.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: So this week are we going to have that sort of theatrics, or are we going to have what we had last week—

SPEAKER: No, no, just ask a question.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Is she going to continue to blame everyone but herself—officials, the Opposition, the media—or will she fess up and just say how the document ended up in her office?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: Could I have the question again, because I missed it with the noise?

SPEAKER: I think a fair warning has been given to the House about people making a noise or whatever during a question being asked, so just don’t push it any further. Would Dr Ayesha Verrall please ask that question again.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Is she going to continue blaming everyone but herself—officials, the Opposition, the media—or will she fess up and just say how the document ended up in her office?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: This topic has been fully traversed. I have explained repeatedly to this House where the document came from. I’m not sure what the mystery is to the member. She has not made any concerns about the redacted version she’s received.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister: has she or her department, reformed as it now is, been able to work out why on earth you would be trying to seek a redacted copy when you’ve already got an unredacted one?

Hon Kieran McAnulty: There’s no responsibility there.

SPEAKER: Yes, she does.

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: I again would reflect on the fact that this issue is about some advice that was being used to form policy positions. There is a big programme of work going forward, and I hope that when the next legislation comes to the House around vaping controls, we will get support across the House to introduce proper policy positions.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: How has she continued to find herself trapped in the web of her self-contradictions, and how does that reflect on her ability to manage her portfolios in a way that benefits the New Zealand public?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order. Mr Speaker, you cannot open with a statement like that and expect it to be a satisfactory parliamentary question. I mean, with the greatest respect—and you’re a most experienced person—she should’ve been stopped in her tracks and asked to get some advice about how you conduct yourself in Parliament when it comes to question time.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Speaking to the point of order—

SPEAKER: OK, you can speak to the point of order.

Hon Kieran McAnulty: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. The Minister that is being questioned has on at least two occasions had to correct responses to a number of questions that Dr Ayesha Verrall has asked her. They themselves are contradictions, and so it is entirely appropriate, reflecting on the scope of the question and the history leading up to it, to use that phrase in a question.

SPEAKER: There’s nothing wrong with using the phrase about there being contradictions, but there is a problem with the further descriptors that were put around that. Dr Ayesha Verrall might like to ask the question in a way that brings it into order.

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: How has she found herself needing to apologise again for her self-contradictions in the House, and how does that reflect on her ability to be a Minister in the New Zealand Government?

Hon CASEY COSTELLO: I reject the assertions in that question. I did not apologise yesterday; I sought leave to make a clarification and correction of what was said.

Parliament Hansard Report – Wednesday, 6 November 2024 – Volume 779 – 001444

Source: New Zealand Parliament – Hansard

ORAL QUESTIONS

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Question No. 1—Finance

1. RYAN HAMILTON (National—Hamilton East) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has she seen on the economy?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Today, Statistics New Zealand released its labour market statistics for the September quarter. This release includes information from the household labour force survey, which looks at people’s labour force status, and the quarterly employment survey, which captures earnings, paid hours, and jobs. The household labour force survey showed that the unemployment rate increased from 4.6 to 4.8 percent in the quarter, and the quarterly employment survey showed that average hourly earnings increased 3.9 percent over the previous year.

Ryan Hamilton: Why is unemployment rising?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Unemployment is rising and has been rising since 2001 because New Zealand has been in a prolonged recession, with monetary tightening used to drive high inflation out of the economy. Sadly, recessions have a human cost. My heart goes out to people who’ve lost their jobs and who are struggling to enter the labour market. Rising unemployment is a reminder of how letting inflation get a grip on the economy is so damaging.

Ryan Hamilton: Was the increase in the unemployment rate as much as expected?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: No. The increase from 4.6 percent to 4.8 percent was lower than forecasters had been predicting. In its August Monetary Policy Statement, the Reserve Bank had forecast 5 percent unemployment and the Treasury had forecast 5.2 percent in the Budget update in May. To give some historical context, I would also point out to members that over the last 15 years, the average unemployment rate in New Zealand has been 5 percent.

Ryan Hamilton: What is the outlook for unemployment?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Today’s results reflect where we are in the economic cycle. Typically, when the economy starts underperforming, the unemployment rate is slow to rise. Then when the economy starts to pick up, it can be slow to fall. In other words, unemployment is a lagging indicator. Now, there are clear indications that the economy has turned upwards, but even so, I would expect the unemployment rate to rise a bit further before beginning to fall. In the August Monetary Policy Statement, for example, the Reserve Bank was forecasting the unemployment rate to rise to a peak of 5.4 percent early next year, then steadily decline.

Parliament Hansard Report – Karakia/Prayers – 001443

Source: New Zealand Parliament – Hansard

WEDNESDAY, 6 NOVEMBER 2024

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

KARAKIA/PRAYERS

TEANAU TUIONO (Assistant Speaker—Green): E te Atua kaha rawa, ka tuku whakamoemiti atu mātou, mō ngā karakia kua waihotia mai ki runga i a mātou. Ka waiho i ō mātou pānga whaiaro katoa ki te taha. Ka mihi mātou ki te Kīngi, me te inoi atu mō te ārahitanga i roto i ō mātou whakaaroarohanga, kia mōhio ai, kia whakaiti ai tā mātou whakahaere i ngā take o te Whare nei, mō te oranga, te maungārongo, me te aroha o Aotearoa. Amene.

Parliament Hansard Report – Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers – 001442

Source: New Zealand Parliament – Hansard

ORAL QUESTIONS

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Question No. 1—Finance

1. RYAN HAMILTON (National—Hamilton East) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has she seen on the economy?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): Today, Statistics New Zealand released its labour market statistics for the September quarter. This release includes information from the household labour force survey, which looks at people’s labour force status, and the quarterly employment survey, which captures earnings, paid hours, and jobs. The household labour force survey showed that the unemployment rate increased from 4.6 to 4.8 percent in the quarter, and the quarterly employment survey showed that average hourly earnings increased 3.9 percent over the previous year.

Ryan Hamilton: Why is unemployment rising?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Unemployment is rising and has been rising since 2001 because New Zealand has been in a prolonged recession, with monetary tightening used to drive high inflation out of the economy. Sadly, recessions have a human cost. My heart goes out to people who’ve lost their jobs and who are struggling to enter the labour market. Rising unemployment is a reminder of how letting inflation get a grip on the economy is so damaging.

Ryan Hamilton: Was the increase in the unemployment rate as much as expected?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: No. The increase from 4.6 percent to 4.8 percent was lower than forecasters had been predicting. In its August Monetary Policy Statement, the Reserve Bank had forecast 5 percent unemployment and the Treasury had forecast 5.2 percent in the Budget update in May. To give some historical context, I would also point out to members that over the last 15 years, the average unemployment rate in New Zealand has been 5 percent.

Ryan Hamilton: What is the outlook for unemployment?

Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Today’s results reflect where we are in the economic cycle. Typically, when the economy starts underperforming, the unemployment rate is slow to rise. Then when the economy starts to pick up, it can be slow to fall. In other words, unemployment is a lagging indicator. Now, there are clear indications that the economy has turned upwards, but even so, I would expect the unemployment rate to rise a bit further before beginning to fall. In the August Monetary Policy Statement, for example, the Reserve Bank was forecasting the unemployment rate to rise to a peak of 5.4 percent early next year, then steadily decline.

Parliament Hansard Report – Tuesday, 5 November 2024 (continued on Wednesday, 6 November 2024) – Volume 779 – 001441

Source: New Zealand Parliament – Hansard

LAN PHAM (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning. I really take the Minister’s comments about wanting clarity with this bill, and I would love to hear from the Minister whether he would consider the adoption of this amendment to clause 14. Now, this is clause 14(2A), which seeks to replace the word “dishonestly” from (2A). So this is “A misrepresentation made dishonestly must always be taken as showing lack of reasonable care.” Now, the Green Party proposed to replace this word with “fraudulently”. We’re doing this because the word fraudent—”fraudulently”, if I can get that out properly—sets a more appropriate, clear, and specific standard for policy holders to actually show reasonable care. Now, these policy holders—we know that they have this duty of reasonable care not to make a misrepresentation when actually entering into these insurance contracts. And an honest mistake, really, I don’t think, should be grounds to deny insurance cover. The bill actually previously stated that misrepresentation made fraudulently must be taken as a lack of reasonable care. However, we really disagree with the select committee’s change to this to replace “fraudulently” with the weaker and vaguer term of “dishonestly”.

What we’re really clear about, when it came to submissions that came before select committee, was the submission from the Insurance Council of New Zealand, and they argued that fraud and dishonesty are really different concepts. They stated that—and this is a quote from their submission—”Dishonesty and fraud are related but distinct concepts. Dishonesty is a broad term that refers to actions that are not honest or lack integrity and can manifest in many ways, including lying, omitting important information, or otherwise misleading someone.”, whereas they say, “Dishonesty does not necessarily involve a deliberate attempt to deceive for personal gain.” Now, this is really serious definition content, and I think it’s really important that we take the advice of the experts in this field and actually clarify these definitions. So I’d love to hear from the Minister whether he would consider the adoption of this amendment to improve the clarity.

Hon ANDREW BAYLY (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Yeah, thank you. Again, we’ve actually traversed this statement. I’ve discussed it before, but just to reiterate what I covered previously, it is an important definition, and the member’s right to raise it, but there are different tests, and they’re quite distinct, and one has a criminal implication; one has a civil implication. Fraud is used in civil compared to criminal cases, so the meaning is much less clear. The criminal standard of fraud describes crimes for personal gain or depriving someone of something by deceit. This implies criminal behaviour proved to a criminal standard of proof, which is different from civil, by the way, and which would not be appropriate here. The civil law standard of fraud, which we have focused on why it is in civil law. It’s been quite deliberate why we’ve used this definition, because the test is different and it’s actually much, much more appropriate, because we’re not talking about criminal stuff; we’re talking about a civil thing. And, actually, like the bill, the UK legislation uses “dishonestly” to discourage deliberate wrongdoing. So, again, I’ll just reiterate, we have covered it, but it is quite a deliberate approach.

Parliament Hansard Report – Crown Minerals Amendment Bill — Second Reading (continued) – 001440

Source: New Zealand Parliament – Hansard

Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National—Ilam): I rise to speak in support of the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill. This bill represents a crucial step towards securing our energy future as we head to net zero 2050. Let’s be clear. The 2018 ban on oil and gas exploration was shortsighted policy that has hampered our nation’s progress. It not only stopped exploration needed to identify new energy sources, but it also discouraged investment in further development of our existing gas fields, and the result is that our annual natural gas production has peaked and has been lower than we ever predicted, putting our energy security at risk.

Also, let’s be clear. If we don’t use gas until we have renewable energy, we will have to rely on coal. The other side of the House seems to be happy with this, or maybe they’re trying to mask it with their virtual signalling, but the reality is we need thermal generation until we can get our renewable energy on track. When we’re looking at emissions—and we’ve heard cries of flooding in Spain and the effects of climate change—when we burn coal, it emits up to 75 percent more carbon dioxide than if we do gas. That means, if we look at it, 93 to 103 kilograms of carbon dioxide per thermal unit if we use coal and 53 kilograms if we use gas. Some might argue that this bill is a step backwards in our climate change efforts. But let me reiterate: if we burn coal, we are producing 75 percent more carbon dioxide per unit of energy produced. Natural gas does produce carbon dioxide, but it’s a vital transition fuel that will help us achieve our ambitious goal of net zero emissions by 2050.

We need to work to double our renewable energy, and I think nobody is disagreeing with that. But that is why we need the fast-track legislation. Because we’ve seen this winter, when the lake levels are low, the sun isn’t shining, the wind isn’t blowing, that we actually need a back-up source. Gas provides a reliable source of energy to supplement those renewable energies. Without gas, we risk the increased reliance on coal, which is a more polluting fossil fuel, or we face switching off our power altogether.

Parliament Hansard Report – Contracts of Insurance Bill — In Committee—Part 2 (continued) – 001439

Source: New Zealand Parliament – Hansard

LAN PHAM (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning. I really take the Minister’s comments about wanting clarity with this bill, and I would love to hear from the Minister whether he would consider the adoption of this amendment to clause 14. Now, this is clause 14(2A), which seeks to replace the word “dishonestly” from (2A). So this is “A misrepresentation made dishonestly must always be taken as showing lack of reasonable care.” Now, the Green Party proposed to replace this word with “fraudulently”. We’re doing this because the word fraudent—”fraudulently”, if I can get that out properly—sets a more appropriate, clear, and specific standard for policy holders to actually show reasonable care. Now, these policy holders—we know that they have this duty of reasonable care not to make a misrepresentation when actually entering into these insurance contracts. And an honest mistake, really, I don’t think, should be grounds to deny insurance cover. The bill actually previously stated that misrepresentation made fraudulently must be taken as a lack of reasonable care. However, we really disagree with the select committee’s change to this to replace “fraudulently” with the weaker and vaguer term of “dishonestly”.

What we’re really clear about, when it came to submissions that came before select committee, was the submission from the Insurance Council of New Zealand, and they argued that fraud and dishonesty are really different concepts. They stated that—and this is a quote from their submission—”Dishonesty and fraud are related but distinct concepts. Dishonesty is a broad term that refers to actions that are not honest or lack integrity and can manifest in many ways, including lying, omitting important information, or otherwise misleading someone.”, whereas they say, “Dishonesty does not necessarily involve a deliberate attempt to deceive for personal gain.” Now, this is really serious definition content, and I think it’s really important that we take the advice of the experts in this field and actually clarify these definitions. So I’d love to hear from the Minister whether he would consider the adoption of this amendment to improve the clarity.

Hon ANDREW BAYLY (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Yeah, thank you. Again, we’ve actually traversed this statement. I’ve discussed it before, but just to reiterate what I covered previously, it is an important definition, and the member’s right to raise it, but there are different tests, and they’re quite distinct, and one has a criminal implication; one has a civil implication. Fraud is used in civil compared to criminal cases, so the meaning is much less clear. The criminal standard of fraud describes crimes for personal gain or depriving someone of something by deceit. This implies criminal behaviour proved to a criminal standard of proof, which is different from civil, by the way, and which would not be appropriate here. The civil law standard of fraud, which we have focused on why it is in civil law. It’s been quite deliberate why we’ve used this definition, because the test is different and it’s actually much, much more appropriate, because we’re not talking about criminal stuff; we’re talking about a civil thing. And, actually, like the bill, the UK legislation uses “dishonestly” to discourage deliberate wrongdoing. So, again, I’ll just reiterate, we have covered it, but it is quite a deliberate approach.

Parliament Hansard Report – Tuesday, 5 November 2024 – Volume 779 – 001438

Source: New Zealand Parliament – Hansard

Question No. 3—Children

3. TAMATHA PAUL (Green—Wellington Central) to the Minister for Children: Will private for-profit organisations be able to run military-style academies and use force against young people?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children): I want to make two points. Firstly, the member is referring to the development of a bill which is still subject to Cabinet consideration. Secondly, as is already publicly available, Cabinet has agreed that a military-style academy provider and their staff—whether Oranga Tamariki or another agency—would have the power to use minimum force as reasonably required. This would be to prevent a young person from being harmed, harming themselves, or harming others, or to stop them from absconding from any location. These are our most serious offenders, who must have committed at least two serious crimes with convictions of at least 10 years or more, which could be a range of things including sexual violence, aggravated robbery, or injury with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. We need to make sure that anyone working with them has the ability to keep themselves safe, keep the community safe, and keep other young people safe.

Tamatha Paul: Will she, in this House, promise that for-profit organisations will never run these military-style academies?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I would have thought that the member on the other side would have wanted to create any ability for iwi and hapū to have some involvement in self-determination for what happens to their young people. This will give them the ability to be able to run a programme in the future. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Let’s wait for the House to calm down.

Tamatha Paul: If it was her intention to allow iwi and other community organisations to run these academies, then why didn’t she or her officials consult with them?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: There is a process to go through when decisions are being made. No decisions have been made yet, and when those decisions can be spoken about, we will.

Tamatha Paul: How can she make the recommendation to Cabinet that third-party providers should be able to use force on young people, without speaking to the Children’s Commissioner, when there are very obvious children’s rights implications and risks from her proposal?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: The Children’s Commissioner and I meet regularly face to face, and I always say to her if there’s any concerns that she would like to speak about, I’m open to speaking about them. If she raises this issue with me, I will speak to her about it.

Tamatha Paul: Does she support for-profit organisations being able to run military-style academies and use force against young people?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I would just like to reiterate again that it is the power to use minimum force as reasonably required. There are situations where young people may absconder, put themselves in danger, put the community in danger, and put a whole lot of people in circumstances that they shouldn’t be put in. So we need to make sure that staff have the ability to deal with that.

Tamatha Paul: Does she understand how disingenuous it looks to label something as a pilot and then seek Cabinet agreement to cement it in legislation before it’s even finished and before it’s even been evaluated?

Hon KAREN CHHOUR: Look, I’m proud of what we’ve achieved this year. I’m proud of the fact we’ve managed to step up a pilot, have 10 young people have a chance to turn their lives around, and invest in making sure they have every opportunity to be the best that they can be. I’m proud of that and I’m looking forward to seeing many more children have that opportunity.

Parliament Hansard Report – Karakia/Prayers – 001437

Source: New Zealand Parliament – Hansard

TUESDAY, 5 NOVEMBER 2024

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

KARAKIA/PRAYERS

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