Category: New Zealand Parliament – Hansard

Source: New Zealand Parliament – Hansard

HELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): Thank you. I’d love to just take that point on, Minister, and have a proper conversation about that, because my concern here is that you’re expanding the jurisdiction of people and, as Dr Duncan Webb suggested, they may well be people living in their vans. I know that that might be beyond, hopefully, the experience of most people in this Chamber, but that’s a reality in my suburb that there are people sleeping—I live in a big park, and at the bottom of the park there are people sleeping in their vans in the car park.

What I’m concerned about is the fact that there is such a disparity here in terms of understanding. We know that gangs are often a feature of poverty and alienation, where people find an alternative set of norms and values, which we do not agree with and it is a bad sign, but they find that because they’re displaced from the norms and values of the society that we are lucky enough to live in. It seems to me that by talking about swastikas as not actually meeting the standards—so you can have your Nazi sign, you can have your yacht, you can do that because you’re insulated by where you are. We are laying open a group of people whose intimate space—whose only intimate space—might be their van. And that is a reality. That is not me being melodramatic. Those are the very people that there will be people in that situation in their van, and we are actually opening the door to those people having the door knocked on and people going into that space.

Now, that is an issue. I wondered whether you had had advice on the worry about the bias in that situation, because I take your point that there are some terrible things that happen in gangs—I don’t think I’m ungrounded about that. But I do think there is a real concern about the invasion of space of people who are already fragile in some ways, and it’s going to alienate people way more if, in fact, the only refuge that they have is one that you are invading and you are inviting people to invade without any sensitivity over what that means for them.

So I would really like a genuine answer. I don’t want to hear that gangs are bad—I know gangs are bad. I don’t want to hear that there are victims out there because I know that lots of the people in those gangs and in our criminal system are, in fact, also victims. That does not excuse any bad behaviour or intimidation of others or rape or murder or involvement in issues over drug issues, etc., but neither is it fair to put people into a situation where there is no ordinary, normal refuge, which is so important to our humanity. So I mean this very genuinely—I want a response. Did you have advice that this could actually risk invading people’s privacy to an extent which was out of kilter? And did you have advice on the comparator to people who may be involved in situations where they have an offensive sign like a neo-Nazi sign, like a swastika, like those kinds of signs in their houses, but may be insulated by the nature of their lives and the fact that they live in situations where they’re a lot less vulnerable to a knock on the door.

Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Look, the Minister’s given us some really good further understanding of how the car provision’s going to work. So what he’s stated—and if I heard this correctly—is that you can’t sort of jack it up like that on the back window, that’s out, but if you were driving your car and your patch was on the back, like that, that might be OK. But what happens if he was in a car crash—not a serious one—and he happened to slam up against the window? Would that be out? So I think it’s really important when we’re talking about what is display from a car.

I think that it’s really important for us to understand this because if the provision that was brought in after the select committee process, which has had quite a bit of coverage in the media—the point that there will now be a power for police after someone’s already been warned for wearing a gang patch, they can go right into their home, and even if it’s in a drawer or a chest of drawers or in their wardrobe or under the bed, that’s a penalty. But this one is saying that if they’re not displaying it, that’s not a penalty. So my concern is you’re giving mixed messages to the gang community on what to do with their patches here. So what is “display”? Is that pushing that, as you sort of said, or really that’s pushing it up against the window? But it does seem to be inconsistent with this new search power that you’ve introduced where, if they’ve got it in a drawer in their home, and that’s infringing the provisions that are in the bill.

Also, I would really like to understand, because we haven’t heard this in any of the debate—and I think the general public want to know this—what was the thing that changed your mind, Minister? So in March when police were asking for that additional power, did they discuss this car thing as well? Did that come up back in March? What was it between then and sort of June, July, where you whacked this new search power in, and then now where we found there’s an additional requirement to include a provision for cars and displaying from a car? Was there any sort of particular information or advice that you received from police or from other agencies that caused you to change your mind and include the later provision and this provision so late in the piece?

I mean, this was legislation that was talked about right through the campaign period, which is nearly a year ago now. There would have been some significant considerations of how this policy would work. But it does seem from the sort of litany of repeat mistakes over this whole course that it has not been very well thought through in terms of how it’s going to be implemented. It doesn’t really give a whole lot of trust and confidence in terms of how it’s going to be effectively implemented if you’re still coming up with new ideas so late in the piece.

The point, I think, that would be really useful to hear, just to recap, is: is it the display? What happens if you’re sitting in the car—where does the line lay in display? But also to understand exactly what the thought process was of the Minister for this second thing in this whole course of legislation to be introduced outside of the normal course of policy and legislation – making, because it does look like it’s kind of policy on the hoof. You’re just kind of throwing everything at the wall in the hope that it’s going to look pretty tough, but the perception that it’s giving is a general sense of disorganisation in terms of understanding how police are going to effectively make this work in terms of law enforcement.

So the main one really keen to hear: patch in a car, what happens and what is classified as display? If they’re wearing the patch in the car, is that OK or not? At what point is turning your back to the window classified as display?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): Thank you. Just in relation to the question of display, I’ve explained that already; I’m happy just to explain it one more time. The element to display will be case specific and will need to be assessed in light of all relevant circumstances, including the degree of visibility, the size and placement of the gang insignia, and the nature of the public place and the overall context. The purpose of the bill is around display of gang insignia in a way that is causing fear and intimidation. So if somebody’s wearing a gang patch in the car and it’s not visible and they’re not particularly displaying it, then that is not covered and it’s not an issue. It’s only if the game patch is being displayed—so that’s, I think, reasonably straightforward.

The member asked about the thought processes here. I can explain the thought process, which is: we’re passing a bill that is designed to give extra tools to police in order to handle what has been a 50 percent increase in gang membership in the past six years, and to provide them with four new tools to push back against the negative influence of gangs in our community. When the police came along—yes, late in the stage—and said, “Well, actually when we’ve looked at the details, there is a gap here that we think should be addressed.”, we decided to address it. Before passing the law, we’ve made this amendment in a belt and braces way to ensure that the legislation is as tight as it can be in order to ensure that the New Zealand members of the public can go about their lives without the fear and intimidation of gangs in their community.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’ll call Lawrence Xu-Nan—I’ll just make the member aware that we have your Amendment Paper now.

Source: New Zealand Parliament – Hansard

GREG FLEMING (National—Maungakiekie):

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

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

Hon TAMA POTAKA (Minister for Māori Development):

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

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

Thank you for that very important question, and just acknowledge everyone for returning this morning.

Look, the vision that I have for Māori development is to ensure the equality of opportunity for Māori across all dimensions of our communities, our society, our political system, and our social system and also our economy. That really revolves around making sure that we have thriving whānau, but also to recognise some of the real confronting deltas that present themselves to us. So, for example, we have a serious social delta between the income of Māori and the income of the rest of New Zealand. That difference, if you accumulate it all up and you add it all up, results in a delta of between $2.5 billion and $5 billion per annum that could be going into whānau Māori, but is not currently going into whānau Māori because of the—let’s call it—pay equity gap. That is particularly so for wāhine Māori, where there is a serious pay equity gap between wāhine and Māori and the rest of New Zealand.

I would sort of observe that part of my role as the Minister for Māori Development is to ensure that I can activate or reactivate methods to ensure there’s a little bit more equality of the opportunity in those social dimensions of our economy and our society. If we’re able to do that, if we’re able to bridge the disproportionate statistics that continue to afflict our communities, whether or not that’s in health or education or housing or law and order—thank you, Minister Metekōura for coming today—and other dimensions of our communities, then Māori will do well and, actually, New Zealand will be a far better place. Because we’ll be able to realise and enable the potential, particularly amongst our young people, especially given that the average age of Māori is around 27, the average age of the rest of New Zealand is around 38, and the average age of Pākehā New Zealanders about 42.

But that economic delta also that presents itself to our Māori businesses is something that I’m really geared around and energised around. The estimated difference in revenue between Māori-owned businesses and the rest of New Zealand – owned businesses is estimated to be in the vicinity of $35 billion to $40 billion per annum. The estimated asset gap is around $120 billion to $130 billion. So those dimensions alone really drive me into considering the best way to activate Māori into business and into economic development, hence why we have platforms like the RIF, Regional Infrastructure Fund. We’re looking at the access to capital issues that were touched on last night. We’re also looking into different ways where we can uplift and progress local procurement, although I do acknowledge the comments last night in relation to the target under progressive procurement, which has been done away with. However, we will continue to have a progressive procurement policy and we will continue to look into how we can uplift and elevate local and regional procurement.

The other item that I just touch on and acknowledge at this time, given Minister Metekōura is here in the House today, is Treaty settlements. They have been a serious reinvestment into regional New Zealand through iwi and acknowledging the wrongs of the past, acknowledging that there have been some breaches of the Treaty, but also investing back through those iwi that can help with Māori and iwi economic and social development in the regions.

Finally, the other item that I’d mention, especially given this is Te Wiki o Te Reo Māori—kia kaha te reo Māori, ake ake ake—is our continued commitment both in this House through the Budget and elsewhere to ensure the cultural and language revolution and renaissance of our people continues to flourish. Certainly, the legacy of the National Party, which I mentioned last night and one that pervades today, is such that you even see our Prime Minister going to Tūrangawaewae on a couple of occasions recently for the Koroneihana and the uhunga for Kiingi Tuheitia and here in the House, was using te reo Māori more and more. I wanted to acknowledge Minister Metekōura for his grasp of whakataukī, or proverbs, the pithy sayings of our ancestors. It’s something that I think we should all try at least once a day to say one whakataukī. Mine for today is this:

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

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

Kia ora tātou katoa.

Source: New Zealand Parliament – Hansard

GANGS BILL

SENTENCING AMENDMENT BILL

Recommittal

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): I move, That the orders of the day for the third readings of the Gangs Bill and the Sentencing Amendment Bill be discharged and that the bills be recommitted immediately to consider Amendment Paper 111 in my name.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Point of order. I seek leave of the House to move an amendment that the committee also be instructed to further consider Subpart 2 of Part 3, being that part dealing with non-consorting orders, and clause 8, being that clause which deals with mandatory gang insignia prohibition orders.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Source: New Zealand Parliament – Hansard

Questions No. 2—Prime Minister

2. Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his Government’s statements and actions?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON (Prime Minister): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Yes, especially our action to support young families with the cost of living. As of yesterday, low to middle income families with young children can register for the new FamilyBoost payment to help them meet the cost of early childhood education. That’s good news for all those families in the squeezed middle, who have been hit hard by the cost of living crisis in recent years. The last few years have been tough, especially for those young families juggling work and childcare. As this is a Government for working Kiwis, FamilyBoost is just one of the actions, along with tax relief, to get on top of the rising cost of living and support Kiwis to get ahead.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Is the Government still committed to meeting its emissions reduction obligations under the Paris Agreement; if so, is it the Government’s intention to meet those obligations solely through domestic emissions reductions within New Zealand?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Yes, the Government is on track to deliver on its commitments for 2050.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order. I was asking the Prime Minister whether he was intending to meet those obligations through domestic reductions within New Zealand.

SPEAKER: Well, he addressed the question.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Is it the Government’s intention to meet those emissions reduction obligations within New Zealand by reducing New Zealand’s emissions?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: This is a Government that is deeply committed to delivering on our net zero goals for 2050. We have a comprehensive climate strategy that involves transport, energy, waste, agriculture, public EV chargers, doubling renewable energy, and, obviously, giving more tools to farmers, including gene editing.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: If the Government doesn’t meet its emissions reduction obligations by reducing New Zealand’s emissions, will it purchase international carbon credits to offset its failure to reach those targets?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: What I’d say to the member is that we are on track to hit the first and second emissions budgets. We have actually been consulting on our draft emissions reduction plan. It is out there—[Interruption] It is now, and we look forward to reporting back on that in the fourth quarter of this year.

SPEAKER: Just calm it down. The general sort of, what would you say, interjection across the House, when it’s coming from more than one person, is very difficult.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, does he agree with Simon Watts that it wouldn’t be realistic for New Zealand to use overseas carbon credits to meet the 2030 target; if so, how does he intend to meet New Zealand’s obligations under the Paris Agreement, given the latest emissions reduction plan indicates the Government will fall short of the target?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: I do agree with Simon Watts. He’s doing an excellent job as the Minister of Climate Change, and what I’d say is that we have sent a draft emissions reduction plan out. Consulting, I think, is now closed, and in the next quarter you’ll see a final emissions reduction plan that will lay that out exactly.

Hon Shane Jones: How does a trip to London by a parliamentarian seeking economic and political salvation contribute to the reduction of global emissions?

SPEAKER: Well, the Prime Minister would have to answer for half the House if he was going to do that.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order. This is a Parliament where you’re allowed to debate ideas and concepts, and it’s a very innocent question as to whether our country’s carbon footprint is enhanced by this needless travel or not.

SPEAKER: That might be true, but, if you go to the heart of it, the arbiter of whether or not a question can be asked is actually the Speaker. And, obviously, that one can’t be.

Hon Shane Jones: Point of order—

SPEAKER: No, no. Don’t argue with the Speaker’s ruling.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Mr Speaker, the arbiter is not just the Speaker; otherwise, we are going to be the victim of—

SPEAKER: Hang on—wait on.

Hon Willie Jackson: No!

SPEAKER: Who spoke then?

Hon Willie Jackson: Me.

SPEAKER: Just do not speak while there is a point of order in progress.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Mr Speaker, the arbiter is not the Speaker’s personality; it is tradition and precedent, and I’m afraid this Parliament is being—excuse the words—negatived by unfair rulings. This is a place of waging war in terms of political ideas and debate. We welcome it. We’re one of the world’s great democracies, so please don’t spoil that development.

SPEAKER: And I quite agree with you, but if you look at the Speakers’ rulings that I quoted today, you’ll find that that’s where your argument is. Come along to the Standing Orders Committee and make a case, but, in any event, the Prime Minister has no responsibility for anything that the Opposition does.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Is he aware that the Government’s decision to scrap the clean car discount and lower the clean car standard increased New Zealand’s emissions by more than the annual emissions of Tuvalu, Nauru, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Tonga, Vanuatu, Palau, Solomon Islands, Samoa, and Fiji combined?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: Well, I am well aware that we are going to deliver emissions reduction budget No. 1, emissions reduction budget No. 2. We have an emissions reduction plan that is out there, which you’ll see in the fourth quarter, but I’d just say to that member: if you’re very serious about delivering on net carbon zero 2050, actually support our fast-track legislation; actually support ending the oil and gas ban, because all we’ve had is a just transition from stopping getting domestic gas to importing foreign coal, and that doesn’t seem right.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Will next year’s Budget account for the New Zealand Government’s financial liability in the event that the Government doesn’t meet its emissions reduction targets; if not, why not?

Rt Hon CHRISTOPHER LUXON: You’ll have to wait till next year’s Budget.

Rt Hon Chris Hipkins: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I can’t see how that could possibly be Budget sensitive. It’s asking whether the Government is actually going to be accounting for the significant multibillion-dollar financial liability that New Zealand will have in the event that it doesn’t meet its targets.

SPEAKER: Well, that’s a hypothetical, to say the least, and the Budget for next year clearly hasn’t been set. Do you have another question?

Source: New Zealand Parliament – Hansard

WEDNESDAY, 18 SEPTEMBER 2024

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

KARAKIA/PRAYERS

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

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

Source: New Zealand Parliament – Hansard

PETITIONS, PAPERS, SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS, AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

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

CLERK: Annual reports for the Electricity Corporation of New Zealand Ltd and Television New Zealand Ltd.

SPEAKER: Those papers are published under the authority of the House. A select committee report has been delivered for presentation.

CLERK: Report of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee on the Companies (Address Information) Amendment Bill.

SPEAKER: That bill has been set down for second reading.