Thursday, 01 August 2024 - Volume 777 Sitting date: Thursday 01 August 2024 THURSDAY, 1 AUGUST 2024 The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m. KARAKIA/PRAYERS BARBARA KURIGER (Deputy 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. BUSINESS STATEMENT Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Leader of the House): Next week, the House will consider the second reading of the Firearms Prohibition Orders Legislation Amendment Bill. It will also consider the committee stage of the Resource Management (Extended Duration of Coastal Permits for Marine Farms) Amendment Bill, the Corrections Amendment Bill, and the Local Government (Water Services Preliminary Arrangements) Bill. The House will also complete the third reading of the Regulatory Systems (Education) Amendment Bill. PETITIONS SPEAKER: No petitions have been delivered to the Clerk for presentation. MOTIONS Typhoon Gaemi—Condolences FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ (Green): Point of order. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to move a motion without notice and without debate to express condolences to those affected by Typhoon Gaemi, also known as Typhoon Carina. SPEAKER: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ: I move, That the House sends its condolences to all those who have lost loved ones and livelihoods in Typhoon Gaemi, also known as Typhoon Carina, in the Philippines that struck a range of countries in South East Asia and North Asia from 19 July to 27 July, and notes that the New Zealand Government stands ready to consider and respond to any requests for assistance from affected countries to aid recovery efforts. Motion agreed to. PAPERS AND SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS SPEAKER: A paper has been delivered for presentation. CLERK: Government Response to the Report of the Petitions Committee on Petition of Kiwilaw Probate and Estates Ltd. SPEAKER: That paper is published under the authority of the House. Select committee reports have been delivered for presentation. CLERK: Report of the Privileges Committee on the question of privilege concerning the conduct of a member during the committee of the whole House Report of the Regulations Review Committee on the complaint about the Building Regulations 1992 reports of the Social Services and Community Committee on the 2024/25 Estimates for Vote Housing and Urban Development and appropriations within Vote Building and Construction that are the responsibility of the Minister of Housing 2024/25 Estimates for Vote Women. SPEAKER: The reports of the Privileges and the Regulations Review Committees are set down for consideration. PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS Privileges Committee Report—Member Conduct Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai): Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave of the House to make a personal explanation. SPEAKER: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: With respect to the report that has been delivered today, Question of privilege concerning the conduct of a member during the committee of the whole House, I apologise unreservedly for my conduct in the House on the evening of 1 May 2024. INTRODUCTION OF BILLS SPEAKER: No bills have been introduced. The House comes to oral questions. ORAL QUESTIONS QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS Point of Order—Punctuation within Substantive Questions Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister): Point of order. Can I just ask you to consider, with respect to question No. 10, and compare it to question No. 7— SPEAKER: Sorry, question which, sorry? Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Question No. 10, as opposed to question No. 7. In question No. 7, the questioner is asking and putting the quotes in inverted commas to signal that it is a quote. When you get to question No. 10, there is no such precision, no such exactitude, and I think it's wrong. SPEAKER: I think it's because it's a quote. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister): Well, continuing the point of order, if it's a quote, it'll be in quotes, won't it? That's the only reason why you'll know that you can verify that. If it's a quote, it'll be in inverted commas so that you can then check to see its accuracy. At this point in time, none of us knows whether that's accurate or not. SPEAKER: My apologies; it's not a quote. Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well, Mr Speaker, if that's the case— SPEAKER: Can I just make it clear— Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does she stand by her statement— SPEAKER: No, hang on—just a minute. For those who are watching, just to make it clear, questions are lodged with the Clerk's Office. They are considered by the Clerks, who have considerable experience of these things. They're signed off by the Speaker later in the morning. But the advice that comes from the Clerk's Office, generally, is that—in fact, most days—all the questions are in order. That has been the case today. But if you've got a point, I'm happy to hear it. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister): Well, my point is that, if it's a quote, it should be in quotes so that we can, therefore, check against the evidence to see whether it's honestly reported or not. If it doesn't have any quote marks to it, no one knows what's going on here, and with the greatest respect to the Clerk of the House, if this was a court of law, they'd ask for that as well. SPEAKER: Yes, I know, but we're not quite a court of law just yet. Rt Hon Winston Peters: We're the highest court in the land. SPEAKER: That's right, and we should do things properly. I'm assuming that the Clerk's Office has done the right thing here, and if that's not the case, they'll clearly review it, but we're not going to review it in time to rectify it for this question time. So we'll come to question No. 1, in the name of the Hon Carmel Sepuloni. Question No. 1—Social Development and Employment 1. Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Does she stand by her statement that "We are focused on lifting New Zealand families out of hardship and giving them more opportunities to get ahead by helping all who can work into jobs"? Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Yes. This Government is implementing a more proactive welfare system to support New Zealanders into work, because in the six years before we came to office the number of people receiving the jobseeker benefit increased by 70,000, or 57 percent. For part of these six years, businesses were desperate for staff, which underscores why the welfare system needs to do more to support job seekers into work. We've already taken action, such as providing 4,000 more young job seekers case management over the phone and requiring job seekers to attend a work seminar in the first two weeks on benefit. This is to make sure the welfare system is more proactive. Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Will the additional 21,000 people on benefits since she took office lead to an increase in children living in poverty? Hon LOUISE UPSTON: What we do know from what we have inherited over the last six years: the number of job seekers increased by 70,000; the number of children living in benefit-dependent households increased by 44,000. So now there are one in five New Zealand children growing up in a benefit-dependent household. That is why our Government is making sure the welfare system is more proactive in supporting those off welfare and into work. Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Did officials warn the Government that the number of children living in poverty would likely increase by 7,000 as a result of her benefit indexing changes? Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Of course, Ministers receive advice around changes that may be made, including the Budget 2024 tax changes, which will reduce the number of children in poverty by 17,000. Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Can she confirm that the Government received advice from Treasury on 23 February, stating 9,000 beneficiaries would be worse off as a result of the tax changes, and how does this support families to get ahead? Hon LOUISE UPSTON: As that member has asked before and we have traversed, changes around tax and tax refunds are the responsibility of the Minister of Revenue. Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Why won't she admit that her policy decisions are leading to increased numbers of New Zealand children forced to live in poverty? Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I'm very proud of Budget 2024, of tax relief, of focusing on the cost of living because the cost of living crisis is the single biggest impact on the number of children living in poverty today. That's why our side of the House is unwilling to tolerate that level of hardship. Question No. 10 to Minister SPEAKER: Before I call Sam Uffindell, can I just say to the Deputy Prime Minister, I reread the point that he was making. Question 7 is a quote; it was a quote from Hansard yesterday. Question No. 10 is not a quote; it's more general. If there's a presentation issue here, then we'll take it up with the Clerk's Office for the future, but thank you for bringing it up. Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Point of order. Perhaps I can explain the situation to the House so everybody understands. The reason that it wasn't put in quotes is because there was a misspelling of the Minister's name, and we didn't want to include that. We provided authentication to the Clerk's Office, and as such they've approved it accordingly. SPEAKER: Thank you. Question No. 2—Finance 2. SAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga) to the Minister of Finance: Why were tax thresholds increased yesterday? Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): As I've said in the House previously, incomes rise over time due to inflation and growth in the economy, but if tax rates and thresholds remain the same, more and more of people's incomes are taxed at higher marginal rates, and they will pay a higher and higher proportion of their income in tax. Periodically, Governments should adjust tax thresholds or rates to address that, at least in part. Otherwise, we get into the ridiculous situation which existed the day before yesterday, where a person could work full-time on the minimum wage and be in the 30 percent tax bracket. The Government has done something about it. Sam Uffindell: How do other countries deal with fiscal drag? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Almost all OECD countries either index their personal income tax thresholds or periodically adjust rates or thresholds as a response to fiscal drag—or bracket creep, as it is sometimes called. Sam Uffindell: Has she seen any support in New Zealand for this approach? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Yes. As my colleague Chris Bishop pointed out yesterday, at least one commentator has endorsed this approach, saying, "Bracket adjustment is a legitimate thing to do, and I think it's a sensible thing to do." I agree with that particular commentator, who was Chris Hipkins. However, that commentator goes on to argue that now is just not the right time to give tax relief. Hon Paul Goldsmith: It never is. Hon NICOLA WILLIS: It never is for some people, as my colleague Mr Goldsmith says. In fact, further, I am advised, having asked about New Zealand's track record on this, that every Government since 1980, whether National-led or Labour-led, has, at some stage, adjusted rates or thresholds to provide tax relief to hard-working New Zealanders—oh, with one solitary exception. The solitary exception is the previous Labour Government. Sam Uffindell: How many people have now used the Budget calculator? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I am advised that as of this morning, 638,000 people have used the tax calculator to see what they are getting in long overdue tax relief. That is 39,000 more people than yesterday, and 121,000 more than this time last week. New Zealanders are clearly very interested in tax relief and glad to be receiving it. I am not advised as to how many of them were Labour voters, but I'm guessing some. Let us not forget that members opposite voted against it. Question time interrupted. PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS Personal Comments—Tanya Unkovich INGRID LEARY (Labour—Taieri): Point of order. I seek leave to make a personal explanation. SPEAKER: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. INGRID LEARY: I wish to apologise to Tanya Unkovich for comments I made at a meeting of the Health Committee on Wednesday, 19 June 2024. ORAL QUESTIONS QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS Question time resumed. Question No. 3—Children 3. KAHURANGI CARTER (Green) to the Minister for Children: Does she stand by her statement regarding cuts to Oranga Tamariki that "There will be no financial impact and there'[ll] be no impact on the frontline services. This is a guarantee"? Hon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children): Yes, in the context in which I said it, which was in relation to the proposed Oranga Tamariki organisational restructure. From the beginning, the safety of children has been at the forefront of all decision making about the proposed restructure, and front-line managers and staff who report to them have been out of scope of this process. However, I do recognise that this has been an unsettling time for all staff at Oranga Tamariki, front-line or otherwise, and I just want to take the opportunity to acknowledge this. Kahurangi Carter: What does she say to the chief executive of Māngere East Family Services, who was forced to lay off a third of their front-line social workers because of these funding cuts and is concerned that "We won't be able to provide [support] to as many whānau as we have in the past. Whānau may miss out. Children may fall through the cracks"? Hon KAREN CHHOUR: The member is conflating two issues. My statement was in relation to the proposed Oranga Tamariki restructure. Kahurangi Carter: What does she say in response to Nikki Hurst of the New Zealand Council of Christian Social Services, who said, "Some of the things that will be winding up, there is no comparable service available in that community", and how, if at all, will Oranga Tamariki be filling the gaps in front-line care and prevention that these contract cuts will create? Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I'll say again that the member is conflating two issues. My statement was in relation to the proposed Oranga Tamariki restructure. Kahurangi Carter: Does the Minister stand by the answer made on her behalf yesterday that funding "goes to services that are getting the outcomes that we expect and need", and, if so, why are the many service providers facing cuts getting no justification, evidence, or rationale from Oranga Tamariki behind why their funding is being cut? Hon KAREN CHHOUR: Yes. Kahurangi Carter: Will she apologise for Oranga Tamariki leaving hundreds of front-line care providers in the dark about their contracts and their funding for what Social Service Providers Aotearoa describe as "an unsettling and distressing few months for providers waiting to hear about funding decisions.", and, if not, why not? Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I'll just continue to say this again: my statement was in relation to the proposed Oranga Tamariki restructure. Kahurangi Carter: Does she acknowledge, as identified in the Aroturuki Tamariki report released today, that shortages in front-line staffing contributed to Oranga Tamariki's failure to protect baby Malachi Subecz and continues to be an issue, and, if so, how does Oranga Tamariki rationalise these cuts to front-line service provision? Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I'll say it again: the member is conflating two issues. My statement was in relation to the Oranga Tamariki restructure. Question No. 4—Finance 4. Hon BARBARA EDMONDS (Labour—Mana) to the Minister of Finance: Does she stand by her statement, "It's my view that the board [of Health New Zealand] didn't even know what questions to ask"; if so, does she agree with the Prime Minister that they lacked financial literacy? Hon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): In answer to the first part of the question, yes, in context. That context was a botched merger of district health boards (DHBs) where national planning and budgeting was disconnected from local management, where financial reporting was ineffective, where data systems were fragmented, and where, in consequence, there was limited oversight of financial performance. In answer to the second part of the question, that was not what the Prime Minister said. He was talking about cash-flow analysis and said, "To even get an understanding of cash flow from the system has been incredibly difficult.", and that is exactly what I've just been saying. Hon Barbara Edmonds: When did the Minister of Health communicate to her that the Te Whatu Ora board rejected her allegations about their performance, and did she seek a meeting with them in light of their letter to the Minister of Health dated 22 March? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I would want to check my records to give an entirely accurate answer to that question. I do recall being given a copy of that letter. Hon Barbara Edmonds: If she recalls receiving a copy of that letter and she knew that the board rejected these allegations, why did she make comments this week about their competency? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Because I did not entirely agree with the characterisations in the letter, and the comments I made in my letter were consistent with the advice I received from my officials. Hon Barbara Edmonds: Should, then, directors working for her Government be aware that their reputations can be defamed without due process if it is politically convenient for the Government? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: I reject the characterisation that the member has made, and that's for this reason: I would agree that each of the individuals who served on the Health New Zealand board are capable individuals, and I believe that every one of them was on that board because they wanted to do better for New Zealanders in the health system. It is also my view that they were given an almost impossible task by a Government that completely botched an ideological merger of the DHB system and left them with entirely inadequate systems and planning, and in that context, they had a very hard job to do. The thing that's important to New Zealanders and that this Government takes very seriously is that we ensure that the health system can better deliver to New Zealanders in our hospitals and doctors' surgeries, and we've taken decisive steps to ensure we can give them that confidence. Hon Barbara Edmonds: Given her concerns, why does she feel more qualified than board members whose experience includes overseeing the largest Government IT project that was on time and under budget, the executive of Air New Zealand and NZX50 companies, and a former National Party finance spokesperson? Hon NICOLA WILLIS: Well, as I've just said, I believe that each of the individuals on that board are highly capable people with particular strengths. What is also abundantly clear to any New Zealander observing the health system right now is that it is facing fundamental challenges. What is also clear from the exchange that has occurred in public over recent weeks is that there was disagreement between Health New Zealand and monitoring officials about the financial performance of that organisation. What that has shown, in due course, is that actually the financial position was a lot worse than was made clear at the time. What is important and what I wish the member would join me in is fixing it. SPEAKER: Have you got another supplementary? Hon Barbara Edmonds: No, no. I'm good. Question No. 5—Education 5. TĀKUTA FERRIS (Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Tonga) to the Minister of Education: Does she consider the Waitangi Tribunal's report Kei Ahotea Te Aho Matua, regarding the urgent claim made by Te Rūnanga Nui o Ngā Kura Kaupapa Māori, is of critical importance to the educational success and achievement of tamariki and rangatahi Māori? Hon TAMA POTAKA (Minister of Conservation) on behalf of the Minister of Education: Hei waha kōrero mō te Minita Mātauranga, e mihi ana ki ngā mahi tongarerewa, kāmehameha hoki a Te Rūnanga Nui. E mihi ana ki a rātou nā rātou anō i kerēme atu ki Te Rōpū Whakamana i te Tiriti o Waitangi. Kei au tāna ripoata, ka mihi kāmehameha ki te taraipiunara. [On behalf of the Minister of Education, I acknowledge the valued and significant work of Te Rūnanga Nui. I acknowledge them, they who made a claim to the Waitangi Tribunal. I have their report, and I greatly thank the tribunal.] We have set ambitious targets for education and committed to excellent outcomes, including attendance and achievement, and with tools such as structured literacy. Tākuta Ferris: Given that the Waitangi Tribunal described kura kaupapa Māori as "a proven model" where "success has been achieved", what actions will she take to expedite the development and expansion of kaupapa Māori education as a means of closing the Māori educational achievement gap? Hon TAMA POTAKA: Hei waha kōrero mō te Minita Mātauranga [On behalf of the Minister of Education], the Minister is currently progressing a number of matters in relation to this report, but particularly asking for advice on the report, and when that advice is received back from officials, she will give it due consideration. Tākuta Ferris: Given the report states that kura kaupapa Māori deserve effective policy now, not later, what immediate actions does she have planned to improve the policy framework available to kura kaupapa Māori? Hon TAMA POTAKA: Hei waha kōrero mō te Minita Mātauranga, kei te kohikohi kōrero, kei te noho kōrero, rangatira ki te rangatira, te Minita me ngā rangatira, ngā manu noho mātārae o Te Rūnanga Nui, katoa atu ki Te Matakahuki, katoa atu ki ngā Kura ā-Iwi me ngā rōpū mātauranga nei ki te āta wherawhera i te ara, te anga whakamua. [On behalf of the Minister of Education, the Minister is collecting information, and is sitting to discuss, leader to leader, with the leadership, the eminent leaders of Te Rūnanga Nui, and also Te Matakahuki, and also the Kura ā-Iwi and these other educational organisations to carefully consider the pathway, the way forward.] And she will continue to meet on a rangatiratanga basis with the various officials and leaders of these big kura kaupapa Māori organisations to understand how to best support them. Rt Hon Winston Peters: Given that the National Party have brought in kura kaupapa Māori, why is he being lectured on it? SPEAKER: Can you ask that question again? Sorry—[Interruption] Just a minute, we'll hear the question—we'll hear it in silence. Rt Hon Winston Peters: I'm asking the Minister: given that the National Party brought in kura kaupapa Māori, why is he now being lectured on it? Hon TAMA POTAKA: I stand with absolute pride that National-led Governments have continued to support the establishment of various kura kaupapa, wānanga, and kōhanga reo throughout the last four decades. Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. I'm just interested to understand how the Minister has responsibility for the question around why is he being "lectured on it". It's not within his responsibilities. It requires him to speculate on the motivation for the question, and I'm not sure that points of order or supplementary questions in order to make a political point are appropriate. SPEAKER: No, they're most certainly not, and I take the member's point. To be quite honest with you, I've got to do something about these seats back here—the hearing that I get is not great. I can hear far more from the back of the House than I can from the front. So that's part of the point there. But those sorts of questions don't particularly help the order of the House at all. Tākuta Ferris: Will she commit to the Waitangi Tribunal's recommendation that the Government establish a stand-alone kaupapa Māori education authority to ensure greater Māori educational success; if not, why not? Hon TAMA POTAKA: On behalf of the Minister of Education, I will commit to receiving advice on the report that has been procured right now from the officials, and once that advice is procured, I will give it due consideration. Tākuta Ferris: Given the report cited the very poor state of buildings and infrastructure of several of the kura shown to them, will she commit to reinstating the building programmes of the 15 kura Māori that have had their building programme stopped as a result of the Government's cost-saving measures; if not, why not? Hon TAMA POTAKA: On behalf of the Minister of Education, those matters really fall within the remit and the purview of operations rather than the Minister, and I'll leave those for the ministry. However, I will note that in Budget 2024, 19 kura have been supported for renovation. Question No. 6—Infrastructure 6. CARL BATES (National—Whanganui) to the Minister for Infrastructure: What announcements has he made about the Quarterly Investment Report? Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister for Infrastructure): This morning, I announced that the Government is going to release quarterly investment reports which outline information on large Government investments throughout their life. This is part of our plan to get the books back in order, drive better performance from agencies, and also give New Zealanders the openness and transparency they deserve about their investments. The aim is to change the culture inside the public sector after years of opaque, inefficient, and wasteful spending. The quality of information about these investments is unacceptable, and taxpayers deserve better. Carl Bates: What are the highlights of the quarterly investment report ending March 2024? Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The quarterly investment report shows there is a significant amount of investment across the pipeline. There are 137 investments in planning, with an estimated value of $93.7 billion, and 171 investments in delivery, with a combined approved budget of $79.4 billion. These investments are bringing needed infrastructure and other services to New Zealand, but the report also paints a grim picture about the state of the investment system. We have inherited a system that cares a lot about paying consultants to write business cases and not enough about delivering and looking after the investments that we already have and that we need. So we are resetting expectations to drive high-quality information, shorter and more fit for purpose business cases, improved asset management, better monitoring oversight, and enforcement from both the Treasury and also Ministers. Carl Bates: What else is the Minister doing to reset expectations to drive fiscal sustainability? Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The Minister of Finance and I have written to our colleagues setting out our expectation for robust investment discipline and improved reporting. We know that the state of the investment system is unacceptable, and we take our responsibility to uphold fiscal discipline seriously. We will be monitoring agencies and chief executives to ensure that they are driving improvements in long-term planning, business cases, asset management, and reporting. We are also closely monitoring the progress of large projects to keep them on track and on budget, doing away with a previous recipe for delivery which includes taking the cost of projects and doubling it before serving it to the public and expecting them to support it. Carl Bates: Are there any further actions the Minister is taking to improve investment decision-making? Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Yes, there is a lot of work to be done to fix our investment and infrastructure system. As a further measure, we are also reviewing Treasury's Better Business Cases and Gateway frameworks to ensure we're getting rid of what I call the "fluff and nonsense" and selecting projects that New Zealanders need and that we are confident represent value for money and can be delivered on time and on budget. That work is ongoing, and it is going to take some time to get our investment system back on track, but we are committed to doing so. Hon Peeni Henare: Buy some ferries. SPEAKER: We come now to question No. 7— Hon CHRIS BISHOP: That's precisely a demonstration of the problem. SPEAKER: Well, when the demonstration is over, we'll carry on with question time. Question No. 7—Health 7. Hon Dr AYESHA VERRALL (Labour) to the Minister of Health: Does he agree with the Prime Minister's statement in reply to a supplementary to oral question No. 3 yesterday that "there is no hiring freeze", and what advice has he given to the Prime Minister on this matter? Hon Dr SHANE RETI (Minister of Health): Yes, I agree with the Prime Minister's statement, because we understand that our front-line health workforce is the backbone of the system. As I've advised the Prime Minister, it wasn't just a botched merger that this Government inherited but also a workforce crisis that had not been prioritised. That's why this Government continues to actively recruit into front-line clinical roles. In June alone, Health New Zealand has advised that over 883 people were hired, including 124 doctors, 243 nurses, 30 midwives, and 140 allied health professionals. That doesn't sound like a hiring freeze to me. As Health New Zealand have said, there are some restrictive hiring processes in place so that we can continue to prioritise clinical recruitment, particularly in specialties such as mental health, addictions, and critical care. Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Does he acknowledge that his prioritisation of clinical recruitment at the expense of clerical jobs has meant that doctors are now telling me they have no one to book clinics, load and complete wait-list referrals, answer patient queries, fill cancellation slots, or help patients navigate their appointment times? Hon Dr SHANE RETI: What I acknowledge is that we are committed to reconnecting with the clinical front line and delivering better patient outcomes. Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: What does that even mean? Hon Dr SHANE RETI: I can understand the member doesn't understand better patient outcomes. Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: How is it productive—[Interruption] SPEAKER: Just wait, Dr Verrall. The Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall. Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: How is it productive to have medical specialists, some of New Zealand's highest-paid public sector workers, tied up in admin and not providing care? Hon Dr SHANE RETI: We completely agree. We want to reconnect with the front line and have the clinical front line actually seeing patients so that they can have better patient outcomes. Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Why should we believe him, and why should New Zealanders believe him, over doctors and nurses on the front line who are speaking out about the underfunding under his Government and its impact on patient care? Hon Dr SHANE RETI: Because the patients have also seen the layers and layers of management that that Government put in as part of their botched health reforms, and we're reconnecting the front line. Furthermore, Health New Zealand have told us, in June alone, 883 people were employed by Health New Zealand. SPEAKER: I'd just remind the House that when questions are being asked, the House is in silence, and at other times, the House is orderly. That was a bit unfair on Dr Verrall, on that occasion. Question No. 8—Social Development and Employment 8. TIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What recent announcements has the Government made about supporting young people on the jobseeker benefit into work? Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Today, I announced that 2,100 extra places will be available in community-led programmes in the 2024/25 financial year to help those on jobseeker benefits, aged 18 to 24, shift into work as part of year one of Welfare that Works. We are helping during these challenging economic times by powering up high-performing community organisations that understand the needs of their young people. Five hundred places will be with a selection of He Poutama Rangatahi providers— Hon Carmel Sepuloni: Oh, who set that up? Hon LOUISE UPSTON: National in 2017. [Interruption] We launched the programme, National, in 2017. I was one of the people who launched it. SPEAKER: That's enough. Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I haven't finished. Five hundred places—I'd just like to finish that sentence. Five hundred places will be with a selection of He Poutama Rangatahi providers for young people who've been on jobseeker support for more than a year, and the other 1,600 places will be across a variety of community providers throughout New Zealand. Tim Costley: Why has the Government decided to increase the number of young job seekers supported by community-led programmes? Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Young people who go on to jobseeker benefit under the age of 25 are currently predicted to spend nearly two decades of their lives on welfare. The coalition Government is not prepared to watch the potential of young New Zealanders being wasted in this way. Community organisations who know their young people are often the best positioned to help them overcome the challenges they face. Young New Zealanders deserve to experience the independence and opportunities that come from work, which is why we are taking action to support more of them into jobs. Tim Costley: What key features of Welfare that Works will young job seekers experience in the first year? Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Welfare that Works is about ensuring young job seekers get a proper needs assessment, a job plan, and tailored support, including job coaching. Community providers will be selected based on their ability to provide these features; however, of course, they will look different for each local provider. We will assess what works using robust evidence to inform what happens in subsequent years of Welfare that Works. The initiative aims to prevent young people from being trapped on benefit long term, which is why we are funding 500 more young job seekers to receive the high intensity services that He Poutama Rangatahi provides. Tim Costley: What else has the coalition Government done in addition to Welfare that Works to support young job seekers into work? Hon LOUISE UPSTON: The Government has already delivered a series of initiatives to support job seekers into work. We recently established a new over-the-phone case management service for 4,000 young job seekers. Benefit sanctions are being fully applied to motivate job seekers to comply with their obligations to find work. We've started work seminars that job seekers must attend within two weeks of coming on to benefit and after six months. The coalition Government is very focused on helping people on jobseeker benefits experience the independence, choice, and opportunities that come from work. Question No. 9—RMA Reform 9. LAN PHAM (Green) to the Minister responsible for RMA Reform: Does he agree with the Minister who responded on behalf of the Minister responsible for RMA Reform that "there is no licence to desecrate the taiao in this process" and "within the Fast-track Approvals Bill you see various protections for the taiao"? Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): Yes, and yes. Lan Pham: What precisely are those protections for the taiao when water conservation orders, which are the highest possible protection used to recognise the outstanding value of water bodies, can be overridden through his Fast-track Approvals Bill? Hon CHRIS BISHOP: There are many. At the expert panel stage of the process, conditions will be set to protect the environment. As the bill is currently drafted, in deciding whether a project is eligible to be referred to a panel, Ministers may consider whether the project will address significant environmental issues. Ministers may decline an application if Ministers consider the project may have significant adverse effects on the environment. Applications will include an assessment of environmental effects, with an assessment against relevant national direction, regional, and district planning documents. When making decisions on referring projects to an expert panel, joint Ministers must seek and consider comments from other members, local government, and relevant Māori groups. And an expert panel is required to seek and consider comments from local government, landowners, and other groups listed in the bill. The member should read the bill. Lan Pham: Does he agree with the former Minister for the Environment, the Hon Dr Nick Smith, that "The advantage of [water conservation orders] is that any decisions made in future … on any resource plans or consents would have to be within the bounds of the protective covenant provided by the [water conservation order]."; and, if so, will he commit to making changes to the Fast-track Approvals Bill to ensure these longstanding environmental protections are maintained? Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The Hon Dr Nick Smith is a friend and someone who I have a lot of time and respect for. I haven't seen those full comments and I haven't seen them in their full context, so it's difficult to proffer a view without that. Lan Pham: What message does he have to the Save Our Springs group from Tākaka, Golden Bay, who are so concerned about the invitation that he sent to Siren Gold mining company to apply for fast track that they delivered a 24,000-strong petition to urge his Government to uphold the water conservation order that protects the crystal clear waters of Te Waikoropupū Springs? Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, my message to them is the same as it is to everybody, which is the characterisation of a form letter sent to hundreds of people and organisations as an invitation is wrong. It was not an invitation; it was basically a form letter to say the fast-track process is happening. And my message to them is the same as it is to everybody else, which is that the bill is before the select committee. We are, as a Government, open to sensible improvements and amendments to the bill. Rachel Boyack: It's not sensible. Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well, you haven't even seen what the bill looks like yet, so just wait and see. We're open to sensible amendments, but the core of it is not going to change, which is that it's got to be a fast-track process because it's too hard to do things in this country—it takes too long and costs too much. And it has to be a one-stop-shop regime because that's a core part of the regime. Of course, ultimately, we are building on what has come before, and the Hon David Parker left us with a very good model for fast track. Lan Pham: Can he offer any assurances to the many students from Tākaka who signed the petition, including 8-year-old Nico Housley, who said, "Te Waikoropupū Springs is a very precious spring, and might be the most clear spring that you will ever see in your life. Most kids like to jump into the Tākaka River. We want to be able to do this forever."? Hon CHRIS BISHOP: It would be inappropriate to comment on the specific example the member is talking about. I'm not aware of where that project is at or may be at as part of the fast track. So it would be inappropriate to make any further comment. Hon Rachel Brooking: Will the Minister amend the Fast-track Approvals Bill—the purpose of the Fast-track Approvals Bill at clause 3—to include some mention of the environment or even sustainable management, or consider ruling out anything that goes against a conservation order, such as that Te Waikoropupū Springs that was accepted and gazetted by the past Labour Government? Hon CHRIS BISHOP: The bill's before the committee. My understanding is the member who asked the question is a member of the select committee, so no doubt she is engaged in robust debate as part of that select committee about possible amendments and changes to the bill. It would be inappropriate for me to make any further comment while the bill is before the committee. Question No. 10—Children SPEAKER: Question No. 10 is going to also be heard—both the question and answer—in silence. 10. Hon WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) to the Minister for Children: Does she stand by her statement about cuts to Oranga Tamariki that there will be no financial impact and no impact on front-line services and that this is a guarantee? Hon KAREN CHHOUR (Minister for Children): Yes, in the context in which I said it, which was in relation to the proposed Oranga Tamariki organisational restructure. From the beginning, the safety of children has been at the forefront of all decision making about the proposed restructure, and front-line managers and staff who report to them have been out of scope of this process. Hon Willow-Jean Prime: How is it not a broken promise when that restructure was part of the Budget savings exercise that also saw $30 million a year being cut from community providers whose services are at the very front line of protecting children and whānau? Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I just want to make it very clear, Oranga Tamariki was reviewing its costs and efficiencies long before this Government directed the Public Service to make any savings. The proposed organisational restructure has not just been about making cuts or finding savings. This is part of Oranga Tamariki's journey to become an effective statutory care and protection agency that's focused on its core responsibilities, when decision making is made as close to the front line as possible, including with iwi, Māori, and community where it makes sense to do so. Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Is she saying that her restructure and budget cuts are not impacting on front-line services like social workers in schools, youth workers in schools, wraparound whānau support, family and sexual violence counselling, teen parenting prevention programmes, Tākai, and, if not, why not? Hon KAREN CHHOUR: We've made it clear that front-line services were not to be involved in the restructure process, and I am sure that Oranga Tamariki followed my expectations. Hon Willow-Jean Prime: How is it not a broken promise when, as a result of Oranga Tamariki staff and community providers' funding cuts, agencies have said that the result of this will be more babies uplifted and more kids in boot camps? Hon KAREN CHHOUR: I'll say again: that member is conflating two issues. My statement was in relation to the Oranga Tamariki restructure. Hon Willow-Jean Prime: How can people believe her, the Minister responsible for the welfare of our children, when she claims that there is nothing more important than the safety and wellbeing of our children and then makes empty promises? Hon KAREN CHHOUR: What I would say is stakeholder groups, Opposition parties, Governments, and Māori have all called for Oranga Tamariki to change. This is what change looks like. It's not an option to keep the status quo. To do so would be to say we're happy with how the organisation is running now and delivering for children, and we know it's not. So I would urge the Opposition to get on board and make sure that we can enable change that's going to be enduring. SPEAKER: Question No. 11, I call on Dr Vanessa Weenink. Dr Vanessa Weenink: Thank you, Mr Speaker. My question is to the Minister— Ricardo Menéndez March: Point of order. I'd like to seek some clarification on the ruling you just made in relationship to the questions of the Minister for Children, because while members of the Opposition actually respected— SPEAKER: Could you just speak into your microphone. Sorry. Ricardo Menéndez March: Of course—I can. So while members of the Opposition respected your request for the answers to be heard in silence, members of the Government definitely were cheering on, particularly at the end of that last supplementary. So I would like to seek some clarification as to whether this is a ruling that's going to be applied for the future specifically to that Minister or as a broader kind of way that we conduct ourselves in the House, when one side of the House doesn't seem to be abiding by it. SPEAKER: Yeah, I think that's a fair question, and they should have. I think, probably, the Minister might like to think in future whether or not it's worth having at the end of a question an engagement with the Opposition, which I thought left my ruling a little bit floundering, quite frankly. So it's not a permanent thing; it's for now, because I think there does need to be a slight cultural reset in the place, and, from time to time, this is what I will be requesting of the House. Hon Chris Bishop: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker, the Government will cease to provide that sort of support for the Minister answering a question when the Opposition cease sotto voce offensive remarks about her. [Interruption] SPEAKER: OK, well, I think we were in a settled position—let's get back to it. Dr Vanessa Weenink. Dr Vanessa Weenink: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Hon Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. SPEAKER: Hang on—away we go. The Hon Kieran McAnulty, a point of order. Hon Kieran McAnulty: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am very reluctant to get involved in this and do so only because I feel I should. But this is a sensitive issue, and you've made a ruling which we've respected—we did not challenge it and we complied. It is very hard for us to continue to do so when points of orders are used in a way to make accusations, which I believe, given that there are three parties in the Opposition, were unfounded and unwarranted. Without that being challenged by you, I feel I've got no option but to stand up and make a point of order. SPEAKER: OK, and I agree with your point of order 100 percent, and I appreciate that Opposition parties have complied with those two requests today particularly. It is disappointing that there was a flick at the end of the Minister's question that was not necessary, and I think the Hon Chris Bishop should reflect on the point that he was trying to make, given that I had just made comments to the House about the need to reset the culture in here. We won't go into any apologies or withdrawals or other such, but we are going to get a little tougher on each other, I think, in the future, as we try and tidy the place up a bit. Question No. 11—Tourism and Hospitality 11. Dr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula) to the Minister for Tourism and Hospitality: What recent announcement has he made regarding the Regional Events Promotion Fund? Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Tobacco sponsorship! Hon MATT DOOCEY (Minister for Tourism and Hospitality): Well, great news for Duncan Webb and great news on a Thursday. Today, I'm pleased to announce that 132 events across the motu will receive a funding boost through the Regional Events Promotion Fund. The Regional Events Promotion Fund was established using $5 million of the international visitor levy revenue and supports the promotion of regional tourism organisations and local councils outside the main centres to attract more New Zealanders to their events throughout the year. The first round of the fund has resulted in funding for a total of 132 events, to the value of $2.3 million. The regional events fund was part of this Government's coalition agreement, and it's great to be able to deliver it for the tourism and hospitality sector. Dr Vanessa Weenink: Why did the Government establish the Regional Events Promotion Fund? Hon MATT DOOCEY: Good question. Clearly, this country has a lot of economic headwinds ahead of it, and this coalition Government is committed to rebuilding the economy. As our second-largest export earner is tourism and hospitality, we want to back our tourism and hospitality operators. That's why we want to grow the value of tourism and hospitality, but also support our regions to maximise the opportunity of this sector to employ another person and to increase their incomes. The Regional Events Promotion Fund will help regional tourism organisations and councils to attract more visitors to events in their regions throughout the year. Dr Vanessa Weenink: What types of events will receive funding through this initiative? Hon MATT DOOCEY: A great question. A lot of different events is the answer to that. From Northland to the great South, 28 councils and regional tourism operators will receive funding from this coalition Government to promote events in their regions. The successful events range in size and scope and include everything from half-marathons and cultural events to food festivals. The events recommended for funding have been selected on their ability to drive visitation from outside their region and outside the peak season. Dr Vanessa Weenink: What value will this bring to tourism and hospitality in the regions? Hon MATT DOOCEY: Heaps of value. This fund will help promote regional events that will deliver a high return on investment and encourage visitors to explore beyond the main centres. There is life in New Zealand outside the big cities. I want to help grow the sector in a sustainable and productive way to ensure tourism and hospitality businesses can operate year round, create more jobs, and allow them to employ staff on a more permanent basis. One of the main ways we can do this is by growing visitation outside the main centres and outside of the peak season. Events are excellent drawcards to get more visitors to the regions, particularly during the quieter parts of the year, and this is a Government that backs our tourism and hospitality operators. Question No. 12—Police 12. Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour) to the Minister of Police: Does he stand by his statement, regarding leaving the Police force in a better position than he found it in terms of morale, culture, pay, job satisfaction, and safety, "that is what I'm here for, and that is what I spend most of my waking hours working hard to do"? Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Police) on behalf of the Minister of Police: Yes. Hon Ginny Andersen: Did his office receive an email from Casey Costello's office that requested, "a copy of the Police briefing on options on different way[s] to count the 500", and does he plan to boost police morale with some creative counting? Hon CASEY COSTELLO: To the answer to the first part of the question, yes. On the second part of the question, no. Hon Ginny Andersen: What are the different ways to count 500 police? Hon CASEY COSTELLO: As the member would know, there were several issues raised while that member was responsible for recruitment. In terms of the confusion around numbers, we clarified the system to ensure there was total clarity so that when we reach 2,711, we will have increased the police force by 500, as New Zealand First and National committed to do. Hon Ginny Andersen: Does he agree with the serving police officer who stated about his administration, "Our job is to detect deception, yet they serve it to us daily, not expecting us to recognise it.", and, if so, does he consider that counting the 500 in different ways is in fact detrimental to police morale and to public confidence? Hon CASEY COSTELLO: As I've clarified, there is no counting in different ways. We have clarified. But what I would say that is important to police morale is that we are getting tough on crime, and we are making police able to do their job. I would highlight that the damage to police morale was affected by—and I think the Hon Duncan Webb said it best: "I think the Labour Party kind of didn't win over the community on this, because even though people might not have been the victims of gang crime, they felt unsafe. They felt that one day they might be, and we lost that." We are not the Government that will be soft on gangs. We will support the morale of the police and allow them to get back to catching the bad guys. Hon Ginny Andersen: Can the Minister confirm that he is actually able to count to 500, and, if not, is that why he gave the ministerial delegation to Casey Costello? SPEAKER: No. Just a minute. I think the small problem here is that I don't think this Minister can confirm such a personal matter to another Minister. Try another question without a loss of a question. Hon Ginny Andersen: If Mark promised 500 police in two years but had 124 after eight months— SPEAKER: No, no; start again. Hon GINNY ANDERSEN: Sorry. If the Minister promised 500 police in two years but had only 124 after eight months, how long would it take him to reach the 1,800 delivered by Labour? SPEAKER: No, he's got no responsibility for any promises by the Opposition. Hon Ginny Andersen: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to table the email titled "Counting the 500" in which Minister Costello's office asked for a copy of the Police briefing on options on different ways to count the 500 from Minister Mitchell's office. SPEAKER: Is it a proactively released document? Hon Ginny Andersen: No, it's not. SPEAKER: The leave is sought. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House. APPOINTMENTS Independent Police Conduct Authority Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): I move, That, pursuant to section 5 of the Independent Police Conduct Authority Act 1988 and section 32 of the Crown Entities Act 2004, this House recommend to Her Excellency the Governor-General the reappointment of Elizabeth Mason Sinclair MNZM, and the appointment of Andrew Mark Coleman, each as a member of the Independent Police Conduct Authority for a term of five years. The Independent Police Conduct Authority, the IPCA, is established by section 4 of the Independent Police Conduct Authority Act 1988. The IPCA plays an important role as the only official New Zealand Police oversight body. The IPCA's function is to investigate complaints alleging any misconduct or neglect of duty by a member of the Police, or concerning any practice, policy, or procedure of the Police affecting the complainant. The authority is also responsible for investigating any incident involving serious bodily harm or death notified to the authority by the Commissioner of Police. Section 5 of the Act provides for the authority consisting of up to five members appointed by the Governor-General on the recommendation of the House of Representatives. One member is to be appointed as the chairperson of the IPCA. The chairperson must be a judge or a retired judge. That position is currently held by Associate High Court Judge Kenneth Johnston. Appointments to the IPCA are subject to the provisions of section 32(1)(b) of the Crown Entities Act 2004. As such, members of independent Crown entities are appointed for a maximum term of five years. The appointments of Ms Liz Sinclair and Mr Simon Murdoch CNZM as part-time members of the IPCA have expired and remain in force under carry-over provisions. Ms Sinclair has completed one three-year term with the IPCA. Mr Murdoch has completed two three-year terms. The member positions on the IPCA are predominately governance, strategic planning, and project-focused roles, and currently occupy the incumbents approximately 15 percent of full-time. The management of investigatory work is carried out by senior managers employed by the authority. A member of the IPCA should have senior management and governance experience as well as an informed interest in the criminal justice system. I'm particularly interested in ensuring that the chairperson is supported by members who contribute able governance skills. Ms Sinclair has over 30 years' public sector experience, 20 of those in executive leadership roles in large, complex organisational agencies. She has been the director of her own consultancy firm since 2016. From 2012 to 2016, she was Deputy State Services Commissioner, and from 2004 to 2011, she was Operations Deputy Secretary at the Ministry of Justice. I'm satisfied that Ms Sinclair has made an effective contribution to the authority in her first term and that her reappointment will provide valuable continuity. I'd like to thank Ms Sinclair for her continued service. Andrew Coleman has held senior positions across Government agencies for 30 years, including roles with a strong operational focus. He is the chief executive of Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga. His previous roles include chief operations officer for the Ministry for Primary Industries, acting chief executive and deputy chief executive of the Ministry of Fisheries, and the operations manager for the New Zealand Customs Service. Earlier in his career, he served with the New Zealand Police for 20 years. I'm confident that Mr Coleman has the skills to be a valuable member of the authority. I'd like to thank Mr Murdoch for his service. I acknowledge that he has brought to the authority a wealth of public sector experience, and he has made very significant contributions to the authority over his nearly nine years as a member. Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. As Labour's police spokesperson, I rise to indicate Labour's support for the motion to reappoint Elizabeth Mason Sinclair and also the appointment of Andrew Mark Coleman to the Independent Police Conduct Authority (IPCA). Elizabeth Mason Sinclair has over 30 years' experience within the sector, and she will continue, I have no doubt, to serve the IPCA well with the experience that she brings to the role. Andrew Mark Coleman, a Hutt resident—a person from the Hutt, I have to say, is always a good bet for appointment into a role. He's had a long and established career in the Public Service, starting as a police officer, working also as a detective, and then taking up numerous roles within the Public Service, including those in Biosecurity, the Ministry of Primary Industries, as well as Culture and Heritage, which he's been in most recently. Public servants I have spoken to tell me that he is well respected and seen as a strong leader in the Public Service and someone who also promotes leadership and good teamwork within the Public Service. To have those warm words come back so readily indicates he's a very capable person to take up this role. The Independent Police Conduct Authority takes such a significant role in ensuring that we have significant checks and balances on the conduct of our police. This is more important than ever, particularly when we see legislation that has come through this House that increases the powers of police and makes some of their work far more dangerous at times—legislation around search powers and also on removing gang patches that will be difficult work for our police. It is more likely that we will see additional complaints coming through the IPCA in relation to this new legislation, so the work before the IPCA will be challenging. I would like to acknowledge the work that the IPCA has done recently, particularly in the case of Farzana Yaqubi, which found that more should have been done to follow up on her case before she, most unfortunately, was murdered by the person who was stalking her. So I acknowledge the role that the IPCA has in sensitive and difficult areas like that in New Zealand. I would like to conclude by acknowledging that the IPCA works in some very tricky areas where New Zealanders are looking for justice and that they are independent eyes over what is happening in an area where some parts of New Zealand have long and far-reaching powers. For this reason, it is great and admirable that they are so clear on their commitment to the Treaty of Waitangi, that they acknowledge the constitutional status of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and also they note quite clearly that that is a very fundamental part of the way they carry out their work in their commitments and their service to delivery. In order to achieve those commitments and ensure they inform and guide the way in which the IPCA discharges its statutory obligations, the IPCA undertakes to embark upon a programme of cultural competency directed in deepening their collective understanding of te ao Māori and of tikanga Māori. They also undertake to support staff who wish to learn te reo Māori, to promote and encourage the use of te reo Māori in the workplace in order to enhance the public understanding of the IPCA's role, and to access its services and to strive to build its capacity to engage with te iwi Māori. I would like to conclude by saying that the IPCA has never been an easy job, and it will not get any easier under this Government. I am concerned that putting less money into crime prevention, as the previous Budget did, makes life harder for those police officers and also the follow-up work that happens in tricky cases. I hope that this Government continues to fund the IPCA and it is not impacted by the Government's cuts to services that people rely on. I also hope that the IPCA is funded adequately to be able to maintain and deliver on its commitment under Te Tiriti o Waitangi. I conclude by wishing Elizabeth Mason Sinclair and Andrew Mark Coleman all the best for their five-year appointment. He mihi mahana ki a koutou katoa. Kia ora. TAMATHA PAUL (Green—Wellington Central): E te Māngai o te Whare, tēnā koe. I rise on behalf of the te Pāti Kākāriki to say that we're all good with the appointment of Elizabeth Sinclair and Andrew Coleman to the Independent Police Conduct Authority (IPCA). It was really great to look into both these individuals and to find that Mr Coleman has a background in both policing and heritage, and even though I have strong views on both of those issues, I can see that Mr Coleman brings some really great experience to the authority. The IPCA is an important check on the power that police officers have, and it's important that the members appointed are as independent as possible. I was glad to see a balance between one member having police experience and another not having that experience, because a criticism that I've certainly had as the spokesperson on police was that in the Greens there is some scepticism and some suspicion around former police officers being appointed to, essentially, investigate themselves, so maintaining that independence is a really crucial aspect to that check. At the second reading of the Gangs Legislation Amendment Bill this Tuesday, my colleague Kahurangi Carter made the comment that many New Zealanders would rather walk down a dark alleyway with a patched gang member than with a police officer, and this caused some disagreement from the Minister. But the reality is that this is a statement of fact and that is how some people feel, and the police do have a way to go to earning that trust back in some communities. The reality too is that some communities interact more frequently with the police than others. For example, in the small town that I grew up in in Tokoroa, it was a common occurrence to have breath checks on our main road every week, and I was pulled over multiple times as a young person—I had my licence, so I was sweet—but I've never been pulled up in Wellington. There's a huge difference between the way that some communities, particularly those with low socio-economic indicators and those that are predominantly Māori or Pacific, are more heavily policed than other communities. That is just the way things are, so it's important that there is a check on the powers that police have available to them. I had a look through some of the recent reports by the IPCA and found that they investigate a whole range of things from the use of force, the use of police dogs, fatal and non-fatal shootings, and the treatment of people who are held in their custody. That's really important. One recent IPCA inquiry found that police officers were illegally taking photos and storing thousands of photos of young Māori on their phones, and this really adds to this reality that there are some communities that are more heavily surveilled and have more frequent interactions with police, and I think that we should listen to those communities and work to build trust in those communities to try and address some of that scepticism. Just to conclude, we extend our congratulations to Ms Sinclair and Mr Coleman on their appointment and thank outgoing members for their service on the IPCA. Kia ora. TODD STEPHENSON (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of ACT to also signal our support for the appointment of Ms Elizabeth Sinclair and Mr Andrew Coleman to the Independent Police Conduct Authority (IPCA). This is a very important body, which actually has some very core values, and those are of independence, trustworthiness, accountability, timeliness, vigilance, and integrity. And I believe that these two public servants, who we've heard already have a long history of public service in the Public Service, will actually make an excellent contribution. Again, Ms Sinclair's being reappointed—so for a second five-year term. I think that obviously her experience will be valued, and this will be Mr Coleman's first appointment to the IPCA. It is led by Judge Kenneth Johnston KC. He will continue to lead the three independent members. Again, he is a jurist of some standing. I also just want to add, I think, to the Minister's thanks to Simon Murdoch, who is leaving his two terms, but I want to thank him for his service. Actually having New Zealanders who are prepared to stand up and be appointed to important bodies like this is great, and I want to just acknowledge him. As has already been said, this is a very important body overseeing complaints related to police conduct and processes. Members in this House will often have issues related to the IPCA raised with them, and it's good to see we've got individuals of such high calibre being appointed to this body. So I will leave my contribution there, but, again, we just wish to add our congratulations to Ms Sinclair and Mr Coleman on their appointment. Thank you. Hon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Police): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First again to support the motion by the Minister of Justice, Paul Goldsmith, regarding the reappointment of Elizabeth—or Liz—Sinclair and Andrew Coleman, as a new member, to the Independent Police Conduct Authority (IPCA). As has been stated, Liz Sinclair is taking a second term, and she is to be applauded for her commitment to this role, which is a somewhat thankless task and is crucial to New Zealanders. She has extensive public sector experience, and the benefit of that experience of the first term will serve the interests of the authority well. Andrew Coleman has himself—as has been previously said—extensive experience in senior positions, including 20 years' police service. We know that the IPCA is an independent oversight body that considers complaints against the New Zealand Police and oversees their conduct. It has the ability to undertake investigations and make recommendations to the Commissioner of Police. The role of policing, as has been stated, is challenging and demanding and, all too often, is increasingly carried out in high-stress environments. The police officers who carry out the important role of public safety in responding to escalating crime must be supported and provided with the right tools and resources to do what is expected of them. Those resources include good legislation that provides them with the powers and authority to do what is necessary to keep the public safe. At the same time, we do acknowledge the importance of having a system that provides an assurance that there is monitoring of the services they provide and, through that monitoring, the ability to deliver an assurance of accountability. It is, of course, a matter for the court system to deal with lawbreaking, but the IPCA is responsible with regard to issues of conduct and neglect of duty or any practice, policy, or procedure, but the authority is also responsible for investigating any incident involving serious bodily harm notified by the commissioner to the authority. The authority serves to provide an assurance that the reputation of the police is protected also. By these investigations and by their monitoring role, they can provide police with an assurance that despite some narratives and some commentary, they are respected and are regarded highly. There has been comment that police investigate themselves, and I would query the fact that when you deal with these matters, who is better suited to conduct the investigations? Police have always and will continue to be self-monitoring, to the point that they are highly protective of their reputation and will not allow anything to discredit the reputation of the many. They are cooperative and generally very supportive of the IPCA's role, and in themselves, they will ensure that they will weed out any wrongdoing. It is unfortunate that in this House the discredit of the reputation of the police is communicated by members who state comments like "Most public would rather walk down an alley with a gang member than a police officer." As a person who has spent both my working life and, more recently, my political life speaking directly to police officers and visiting police stations, I've seen the tremendous work and effort that a range of officers do in a range of areas to build those solid community relationships to ensure that the community is fully engaged, and I think that the IPCA provides that assurance to the public that should things go wrong, there will be an independent body that supports what they have done and makes sure that the public is protected. I take great pleasure in supporting the appointments to this role in continuing to support the IPCA and the work that it does to provide public assurance. HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE (Te Pāti Māori—Hauraki-Waikato): Tēnā rā koe e te Pīka, otirā tēnā rā tātou e te Whare. E tū ana ahau hei waha i ngā kōrero mā Te Pāti Māori i te rangi nei. Tautoko katoa ana mātou i te whakatūnga o tēnei ohu pirihimana, otirā i tēnei māreikura kua tīpakongia kia haere ki tēnei o ngā ohu, ki tēnei o ngā ohu pirihimana. Nei rā Te Pāti Māori e kaha tautoko ana i tēnei ohu nā runga anō i te take ko tēnei momo ohu hei wherawhera, hei āta wānanga, hei āta tīpako i ngā take e tāmi ana i ngā tāngata katoa puta noa i Aotearoa. Nō reira ko tēnei o ngā ohu pirihimana he whai pānga i runga i te tika, i te pono, kia whai mātauranga te hapori Māori, te hapori e noho nei i Niu Tireni, i Aotearoa, mō ngā take pēnei i te whakatū ture i roto i tēnei o ngā Whare hei āta wherawhera, hei āta matapaki hoki i ngā take ka whai pānga ngā hapori puta noa i te motu. Tautoko katoatia ana e au ngā kōrero a tōku nei tuahine i roto i te Pāti Kākāriki. Nō Tokoroa ia; nō Rāhui-pōkeka ahau. Ka kaha kitea e māua tahi ngā āwangawanga o te hapori e noho pouwaru, pani, me te rawa kore. Ka tīkina ko ētehi o ngā ohu o te pirihimana ko ā rātou, me kī, kura in training, kei roto i ngā hapori moroiti nei puta noa i te motu. Nō reira ko mātou, ngā uri o tēnei hapori, ka kaha kite i ēnei o ngā pirihimana i roto i tō mātou hapori. Nō reira ko te painga o tēnei ohu pirihimana, ka āta matapaki, ka āta wherawhera, ka āta wānanga i ngā tāmitanga, i ngā piki, i ngā auheke o tēnei ohu, o tēnei rōpū. Nō reira ahakoa te iti o te kupu, e noho whakaiti ana mātou, Te Pāti Māori, engari ā tōna wā ko ō mātou maruāpō, ko ō mātou tino wawata ka kite i tētehi tangata whenua i roto i tēnei o ngā ohu, i roto i tēnei o ngā rōpū, hei arataki i te ohu pirihimana kia kite i ngā āhuatanga e whai pānga ki ngā tāngata katoa puta noa i Aotearoa. Nō reira koirā ōku whakaaro, ōku wetewete, waihoki ngā kupu a Te Pāti Māori i te rangi nei. Tēnā rā tātou katoa. [Thank you, Mr Speaker; indeed, greetings to all of us in the House. I stand to give voice to the statements on behalf of Te Pāti Māori today. We support completely the establishment of this police body, indeed this illustrious leader who has been selected to attend this body, this police body. Here, Te Pāti Māori strongly supports this body due to the reason that these types of bodies are to discuss, to examine in detail, to carefully select the issues that oppress all peoples all across Aotearoa. And so this police body will have interest with respect to justice, to truth, so that the Māori community, and the community that resides here in New Zealand, in Aotearoa, are aware of issues, such as the establishment of legislation within this House, to comprehensively discuss and to closely examine the issues of interest to communities all across the country. I absolutely support the comments of my sister in the Green Party. She is from Tokoroa; I am from Huntly. We both clearly see the concerns of the community that include the widowed, the bereft, and the destitute. Some of these police bodies have their, I should say, schools in training within these small communities all across the country. And so we, the descendants of this community, clearly see these police officers in our community. And so the benefit of this police body is that it will closely examine, comprehensively discuss, and carefully deliberate on the oppression, the ups and downs of this body, of this group. So despite the brief words, we, Te Pāti Māori, remain humble, but in time, our dreams, our hope, is tangata whenua will be seen within this particular body, within this particular group, to lead the police body to see the phenomena of interest to all people all across Aotearoa. So those are my opinions, my analyses, and also the statements of Te Pāti Māori today. Thanks and greetings to all of us.] Motion agreed to. LAND TRANSPORT (DRUG DRIVING) AMENDMENT BILL First Reading Hon MATT DOOCEY (Acting Minister of Transport): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I present the legislative statement on the Land Transport (Drug Driving) Amendment Bill. SPEAKER: That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the parliamentary website. Hon MATT DOOCEY: I move, That the Land Transport (Drug Driving) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Transport and Infrastructure Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time, I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by 5 December 2024. This bill amends the Land Transport Act to enable the roll-out of random roadside oral fluid drug-testing in New Zealand. Drug-impaired driving is a persistent issue on New Zealand's roads and has a significant impact on road safety. Approximately 30 percent of road deaths involve a driver who has consumed impairing drugs. These are preventable fatalities that result in vast costs to families, communities, and society generally. We need to do more to detect and deter drug-impaired driving and protect the lives of all road users. The previous Government sought to introduce a roadside oral fluid drug-testing regime through the Land Transport (Drug Driving) Amendment Act 2022. This Act was intended to enable police officers to test drivers' oral fluid for the presence of the highest-risk illicit and prescription drugs that impair driving. However, that regime was found to be unworkable, as no oral fluid testing device can meet the appropriate criteria set out in legislation. Those approval criteria require a level of specificity and accuracy in the results produced by testing devices that is beyond the current capability of oral fluid testing technology. As a result, roadside oral fluid testing has been unable to be implemented. This Government is committed to improving road safety and, in particular, to targeting the highest contributing factors in fatal road crashes, drugs and alcohol. This bill signifies our commitment to address the problem of drug-driving and resolve issues within the current regime. The bill establishes a new regulatory framework to enable a compulsory random roadside oral fluid testing regime. The bill will allow police officers to screen drivers for the presence of impairing drugs anywhere, any time, using oral fluid testing devices without cause to suspect a driver has consumed drugs, in a similar approach to breath screening for alcohol. The new oral fluid testing regime will sit alongside existing compulsory impairment testing, which police officers can employ when they have good cause to suspect the driver has consumed drugs. The oral fluid testing regime will provide police officers with a faster, more efficient tool to remove impaired drivers from our roads and to better deter drug-impaired driving. The bill retains much of the existing regime with some critical changes. The bill introduces new device approval criteria that better reflect the limitations of oral fluid testing devices. The bill provides that in approving oral fluid testing devices for use, the Minister of Police will only be able to approve a device if satisfied that it has a high level of accuracy, can approve devices that detect both specified qualifying drugs and groups or families of drugs which specified qualifying drugs are members of, and can approve devices that will return a positive result for a specified qualifying drug or specified family of qualifying drugs at a concentration level that indicates recent drug use. The criteria are designed to include safeguards to ensure the regime is administered fairly and does not unintentionally penalise drivers who are not impaired. Drivers who have very low levels of drugs in their system which are not likely to be impairing will not be penalised. The bill provides for the use of those approved oral fluid devices to conduct screening tests at the roadside. The bill enables the Minister of Police to specify by notice the qualifying drugs that will be screened for using an approved device. Typically, the devices can detect THC, the psychoactive substance in cannabis; methamphetamine; amphetamine; benzodiazepines; cocaine; and opiates. The drugs that are tested for at the roadside will not be known until a procurement process for the devices has been completed after the legislation comes into force. If a driver tests positive for a specified qualifying drug at the roadside, they will need to undergo a second roadside oral fluid test. Drivers who return two positive screening tests at the roadside will be prohibited from driving for 12 hours to address any immediate roadside safety risk. The requirement for two positive screening tests before being prohibited from driving is intended to mitigate the possibility of enforcement action being taken on the basis of false positive oral fluid test results. Drivers who refuse to take a screening test will be issued with an infringement fee and demerit points at the roadside and be prohibited from driving for 12 hours. Provided drivers do not refuse a test, infringement notices are only issued after laboratory test results are returned. The bill requires the evidential testing of oral fluid in a laboratory before infringement notices are issued. A positive screening test at the roadside will require a sample of oral fluid to be sent to an approved laboratory for testing. An infringement fee and demerit points will only be issued if the laboratory test detects the presence of any specified qualifying drug at a level that is indicative of recent use. The bill enables the Minister of Police to specify the qualifying drugs that will be tested by an approved laboratory, which must be from the list of 25 drugs in Schedule 5 of the Land Transport Act 1998. Those drugs were included in that schedule on the advice of an independent expert panel based on New Zealand data linking road crashes with the presence of drugs in the drivers' blood samples. Those drugs are also representative of the drugs typically detected in oral fluid testing devices. A medical defence will continue to be available to drivers who can establish that they have taken prescription medication in accordance with a current prescription and any instructions from a health practitioner or manufacturer. The regime described in this bill affects some rights and freedoms set out in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. These include the freedom from unreasonable search and seizure and the right not to be arbitrarily detained. I note that similar proposals to introduce or change drink- and drug-driving laws over the decades have had similar impacts. A number of safeguards are built into the bill to help protect people's rights and freedoms. These include using oral fluid to screen drivers for drug use rather than more invasive detection methods such as blood samples. A person that fails two oral fluid screening tests will be prohibited from driving for 12 hours. This provision does not come with an offence and is proportionate to addressing the immediate road safety risk posed by a possible drug-impaired driver, and the basis for charging a person with an infringement offence for drug use will be laboratory testing of that oral fluid, which is highly accurate and mitigates the possibility of a person being charged on the basis of a false positive result from a screening device at the roadside. I appreciate that some people will be concerned about being detained on the roadside to undergo an oral fluid test and that this will involve an intrusion of bodily privacy. On balance, I consider the potential limitations on the rights of drivers through the new regime are proportionate to the road safety risk that has been addressed. Driving is a heavily regulated activity because of the importance of road safety and the risk to other road users caused by unsafe practices. Addressing the significant risk of harm caused by drug-impaired drivers is in the public interest. This bill is intended to fix the issues with the current legislation which have meant oral fluid testing devices could not be approved. The regime outlined in this bill was developed by the previous Government. While I have taken it forward in the interests of timeliness, I invite the select committee to consider further the workability of the proposed regime, particularly the availability of screening devices to meet the proposed new criteria above. I will also invite the committee to consider any further possible operational improvements that may be suggested by police. Passing this bill is a priority. It is important to ensure that the New Zealand Police has appropriate powers to detect and deter drug-driving. Oral fluid testing for drugs at the roadside has been employed as a road safety tool overseas for decades. It's time for New Zealand to adopt this. The amendments in this bill will enable the roll-out of random roadside oral fluid screening tests with laboratory testing following a positive screening result. This will help keep New Zealanders safe on our roads. It has been estimated that 65 lives and 431 serious death and injury crashes will be prevented over a 10‑year period with the implementation of an oral fluid testing regime. I commend this bill to the House. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): The question is that the motion be agreed to. TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Meitaki maata, Mr Speaker. I rise to take a call, as Labour's transport spokesperson, on the Land Transport (Drug Driving) Amendment Bill. The Minister, in his contribution this afternoon, has highlighted that the capacity for roadside drug-testing as a regime was introduced while Labour was in Government by way of the Land Transport (Drug Driving) Amendment Act 2022. And that is because it is important to ensure that we keep our roads safe and also ensure that police have the resources and are equipped in order to keep not just all road users but the public safe as well. And that's because road safety is an absolute commitment, and we as a party are absolutely committed to reducing what is devastating harm for communities, for whānau, when we see certain things happen on our roads. So Labour is happy to support this bill through to select committee, because it does build on that desire that Labour has to ensure that our roading network is safe for all users and for the community as well. Up until this point, the police have relied on a number of interim measures that many will be familiar with. They may include the stock-standard infringement offences, which this bill does propose as a penalty regime as it stands currently, but also criminal opportunity as well when it comes to the risk that impairment around driving brings with it—whether that's around alcohol or whether it's around some other prohibited substance. So this bill goes quite some way to address some of the concerns that the community does have in this space and around it. I do hope that this goes to the select committee, and I know that the Transport and Infrastructure Committee will turn its mind to this. I note, from the Minister's opening comments, that his intention is to effectively commit this to a four-month period in front of select committee. I know that the select committee will be able to work within that, but I do hope that it does provide ample opportunity for the community to feed into that process. I note that the Minister referred to some of the rights and freedoms. Now, naturally, a bill of this nature will give rise to some of those considerations when it comes to some form of detainment—whether it's a shorter period or slightly lengthier—but also some of the actions that are proposed in the bill, which, effectively, would forbid someone from driving for a period of 12 hours and does provide some limitation on the free movement and rights of individuals. So I have no doubt that that's something that the select committee will be turning its mind to. This is a bill that, effectively, I think, lands on the side of fairness, as it's currently drafted at the moment. The committee will have a look a bit further around that, but instead of allowing someone to continue to drive on our roads if there is a risk or any ounce that they might be impaired, the safest thing to do would be to ensure that they are not putting the lives of other road users—and not just those on the road but those who are surrounding the road network—at risk. And so I'm sure we will have a look at that. My concern, I guess, is in the broader scheme of the ability of the Government of the day to be able to deliver on some of these road safety initiatives where there is, effectively, a reduction in the road safety space, where today we hear about the counting of numbers of police. There are real limitations that are at play there. And so that will be something that I'm sure will be in the minds of members on the select committee on this side of the House, but of others as well. We do support the proviso that the bill currently carries, which would provide a medical defence. There will be people who are, effectively, using substances and are doing so under the direction of a medical practitioner, and I see that, in the bill, there is a provision or proviso for that. So we will be supporting this through to select committee. I look forward to the select committee process. There will be many things that will turn our minds, I'm sure. It is, again, in the vein of the former Labour Government having effectively committed to rolling this out, and it's taken a wee while to get to this point, but I'm pleased that it has. Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. All New Zealanders deserve and should have the right to be able to move around their communities and around our country in a safe manner. We should be doing everything we can to ensure that our roads are safe when people are driving. The question for us, and this remains the case since the bill on this issue went through last time—of course, this amendment bill is amending that regime that was brought into place by the Land Transport (Drug Driving) Amendment Act in 2022. The issue for the Green Party is the question: what is the most effective way to ensure that people are safe on our roads? Is having a random roadside drug-testing regime going to be effective at reducing impaired driving? Or, on balance, is it going to have no meaningful impact, because, ultimately, it can't be rolled out at the scale that would be necessary and it can't be done in a way that has tests that are accurate and specific? So when we contributed work to an original bill on this, we were trying to go through and look at the actual evidence and make sure that we were setting up a regime that was as evidence-based as it absolutely could be, and ensuring that any testing devices were actually going to give good information about recent use of drugs, in an accurate and specific way—that is really, really important. What this bill is doing is changing that so that tests that are not necessarily accurate or specific can be used. And to what end? How is that going to help ensure that we're deterring impaired driving if the tests themselves cannot accurately and specifically identify recent impairing drug use? Testing positive for drugs in one's system, firstly, doesn't directly relate to impairment, and, secondly, there's been a range of criticism of the testing devices and the places that use them currently, because they have a high rate of false positives—they can't show specific information about how much of a substance has been taken or used. Ultimately, this is a big distraction from something that would actually make people safer on our roads. The Government is going through a process right now to take away a community's ability to set safe and appropriate speeds around schools and on dangerous rural roads. Most local authorities have come out opposing those changes. I think it is really relevant to raise at this point that the Minister of Transport, Simeon Brown, continually talks and conflates drugs and alcohol. He puts them together about the amount they're contributing to serious and fatal injury crashes. I'm looking at a graph right now, taken from CAS, which is the New Zealand Transport Authority Crash Analysis System. Contributing factors for fatal and serious injury crashes from a 10-year period from 2014 to 2024—overwhelmingly, the vast majority is from alcohol. It's 56.6 percent—a huge contributing factor. The next biggest contributing factor to fatal and serious injury crashes is inappropriate speed, at 30 percent. Of course, after that is 10 percent lost control, and, usually, lost control is often related to driving at a speed that is higher than safe. So if we go down—drugs suspected or confirmed is 7 percent, so it's contributing to a tiny fraction of serious and fatal injuries, relative to speed and alcohol. That's what the data says—10 years of data. So does this House really want to solve the problem of making our roads safer? If so, why are they doing this at the same time that, objectively, they are enabling unsafe speeds everywhere where they will contribute to significantly more serious and fatal injury crashes? And it's interesting that the ACT Party—because they joined in with the Greens in a differing view last time a bill on this issue went to the Transport and Infrastructure Committee and acknowledged that testing technology was not up to scratch, that a huge number of expert submitters came and told us they were worried about the power of the State being abused through this process. And it's not even going to get the outcome we want of safer roads. So, you know, this is classic for this Government. It doesn't care about evidence; it's all about a big show and punishing people who they think are bad. CAMERON LUXTON (ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. The main purpose of this bill is to replace the current regime with a new, much more robust, and effective roadside oral fluid screening regime. Now, it's really important that people feel safe on the roads, as the previous speakers have alluded to. This legislation is intended to keep our roads clear of unsafe drivers. Even if it's only 7 percent of crashes, that's still a significant number. New Zealanders want to be able to head out on the roads and feel a bit more secure out there. Look, the new provisions for the approval criteria of oral fluid devices for screening purposes, as well as changes being made to the laboratory analysis following a positive initial screening result, are improvements. The previous speaker, member Genter, mentioned that ACT has previously opposed this bill, and that was due to insufficient results produced by older tests. We now have provisions within this bill to provide for at least two oral tests followed by an evidentiary laboratory test of oral fluid sample being sent off for analysis. There are changes being made to the legislative settings that will prevent the implementation of oral roads that will have prevente-ted—ughh! There is the change that has previously prevented the implementation of oral roadside fluid drug-testing. That was me trying to clear my thoughts so that I could continue after slurring through some terribly terrible pronunciation—from my lack of education, perhaps. There are no devices that were able to be approved by the Minister of Police under section 71G of the Act. The bill replaces the section in the Act with new approval criteria which will allow the Minister of Police to approve an oral fluid screening device for the purpose of detecting one or more qualifying drugs or one or more family of qualifying drugs. It also includes provisions that allow the Minister of Police to approve a device if satisfied—[Hon Chris Penk passes member a glass of water] I really appreciate that, thank you. Mark Cameron: That's a nice man right there. CAMERON LUXTON: He's a great man and a great Minister. It also includes provisions that the concentration level at which the device will appear positive is clear and accurate. In the Act, there's a provision for an infringement notice as a result of the analysis carried out by an approved laboratory, rather than just the roadside test. We believe these amendments have resolved some of the apprehension we had with the previous bill. Part 9 of the bill also allows for the amendments to be reviewed no earlier than three years but no later than four. This review assesses the impacts of the amendments; the reliability of screening tests in assessing a person's impairment; whether appropriate thresholds and impairment levels have been set; whether the amendments have been appropriately implemented by the New Zealand Police and other relevant entities; whether Māori and Pasifika people have been disproportionately affected; and if the amount, as far as can be assessed, who are driving while impaired has changed since before the amendments came into force. There are other aspects to the report, but we hope that this offers some assurance that this Government is taking safety on our roads seriously. Safety on our roads has always been a priority and will continue to be for this coalition Government. We're happy to see these changes, and I think, as I've mentioned, it is a positive change. ACT is going to be supporting this bill, especially through first reading. I would just like to actually comment, being a member of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, that I would expect to see submitters who would want to comment on some aspects of the bill moving forward. One thing that I think would be interesting to hear from submitters is how they see the comparison between the new oral screening tests and the old ones and the rates of accuracy which they provide. I'm going to be very excited, and I welcome some robust discussion on this point. The ACT Party supports this legislation because Kiwis deserve to feel safe on the roads. ANDY FOSTER (NZ First): First of all, I want to congratulate the Minister and the stand-in Minister for getting his way through the introduction there. I've spent many years working in and around road safety and with road safety practitioners, and I'm very, very well aware that this, the absence of a credible drug-testing regime, was always seen as a deficiency within the New Zealand road safety system, so it's been a long-held aspiration to address this gap. I was slightly puzzled by Julie Anne Genter's comments—what we know is that in 2022, there were 94 deaths where the driver was both drug and alcohol impaired. Now, she says "7 percent", but 7 percent when you're aiming for Vision Zero—which is what she was actually in charge of doing—is a material number of people, of New Zealanders, that you need to be looking after. On top of that, there were 68 people in 2022 who died just with alcohol in their system—where alcohol was a contributing factor. But what's happened is it's proved very, very difficult to get the alignment of the legislation and the technology and the operational systems to work together. In fact, Labour had a crack at doing this, and it's really great to see the multi-partisan, cross-party support for this legislation—at least to get to the select committee. Labour had a crack at this—it didn't work, because the legislation didn't line up with the technology which was available. The legislation just was too onerous, and what it meant is that no technology for oral testing was able to be approved, because what it meant is you were likely to get far too many false negatives, but worse—false positives. The one thing you do not want to do is you do not want to be basically making criminals out of people who have actually done nothing wrong. One of the key bits of that is that the technology which is available would be able to test, and pick up, the drugs in the system, but those drugs might have been in the system quite some many, many hours ago, and there may in fact be no impairment at all. But, even in that situation, you could then be declared guilty even though you were not impaired, and that was a fundamental problem. Therefore, none of the technologies which were available with that legislative arrangement were able to be signed off and approved, so it wasn't able to take place. So I say good on Labour for giving it a crack. That regime didn't work, and I hope that we can work together to put together a regime which will work, because I think that is exactly what New Zealanders deserve. Just a couple of other things. I think really what this is about is getting the technology, the legal, and the operating systems to work together. Prior to the arrangement—well, in fact, really it probably is still the arrangement as it is at the moment, which is that police will test the eyes, just see how dilated your pupils are, and do the walk the line but see if you can turn around without falling over—those kind of things. I think we want something that's a little bit more modern, a little bit less haphazard. The approach that they were taking was that they would have to know that there is good cause to stop a driver to test them. Now it will be able to be random. Now, some people might say that a random approach might be abused, but the police are only targeting 50,000 to 60,000-odd stoppages for drug testing compared with—and it's not a cost-free proposition—about 1.5 million stops for breath testing for alcohol. So I don't think that the police will be abusing this, but it's going to be really, really interesting to see what the submissions say. I think the two other things I was going to say—first of all is that the AA has welcomed the introduction of this legislation. They said, and I quote, that it is "astonishing" and "ridiculous" that it has taken so long to get to this point and that this "will fix a gap in New Zealand's road safety strategy". The other point to make is, of course, that many, many other jurisdictions—and we, I know, are looking particularly at the Australians—have managed to solve this conundrum by getting the technology, by getting the legislation, by getting the operating systems to line up, and I'm sure that we have the capability of doing this. I am looking forward to a very, very good select committee working together collaboratively to address this. I'm sure that there were many submissions which will be around the technical, operational, and legal complexities. I commend this bill to the House. TĀKUTA FERRIS (Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Tonga): Tēnā koe e te Pīka. As I stand to speak to the Land Transport (Drug Driving) Amendment Bill, I'm reminded again of the Government's lack of understanding about what Māori and Aotearoa really need. What Māori need and what Aotearoa needs is more solutions, not more punishments. We need to stop coming up with ideas that target Māori, and in this case, you're targeting rangatahi Māori. If you don't understand those stats, man, your dudes need to do more research. Young Māori boys already have a hell of a problem with simple traffic infringements being their launching pad into the justice system, and because of a range of other socio-economic—oh yeah, shrug your shoulders; that's all good. Away you go. You're the head of it— Hon Paul Goldsmith: So drug-driving is not a problem? TĀKUTA FERRIS: Not necessarily drug-driving or drink-driving; small infringements— ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): If you could direct your kōrero to the Chair. TĀKUTA FERRIS: Tēnā koe e te Pīka. Kei te pai. Tēnā tātou. This bill establishes a new random roadside oral fluid testing regime. Whilst it might detect drugs in someone's system, there is no way of knowing that the person had just taken those drugs and was under the influence of those drugs while they were driving the car. So how can you— Sam Uffindell: Have you not read it, mate? TĀKUTA FERRIS: Oh, no, no, no. If a young boy from Remuera, if young Cameron Arbuckle had been pulled up somewhere and had— Hon Member: Who's Cameron Arbuckle? TĀKUTA FERRIS: —you know, one of those young guys—and had cannabis in his blood and it was detected by a saliva test, well, that might have occurred six weeks ago. Sam Uffindell: There's a concentration threshold. TĀKUTA FERRIS: That might have occurred weeks or days ago—not necessarily. You can't prove it's at the time that the kid is driving. So support— Hon Member: This is defamation! TĀKUTA FERRIS: Away you go—away you go. I know you've done no looking at this, but that's all right. Māori are overrepresented in all of the justice statistics, yet you fellas want to ignore it. Māori are overrepresented in traffic offence convictions. Sam Uffindell: We're protecting people on the roads. TĀKUTA FERRIS: Hey—simple: overrepresented, not necessarily because they are guilty of those offences. The 2019 Human Rights Commission cited that, when it comes to low-level conventions, Māori are overrepresented. Possession of cannabis: 54 percent Māori, 22 percent non-Māori. Disorderly behaviour: 43 percent Māori, 24 percent non-Māori. Things like theft: 35 percent Māori, 23 percent non-Māori. Hon Member: It's personal responsibility. TĀKUTA FERRIS: If you look into it, you'll discover it's more than just personal responsibility. But these are facets of a justice system that have been racist for a long time, and this side of the House seems to care nothing about the numbers, the history, the explanation, the research that has gone into it, and they're happy to roll out a bill that will overly convict young Māori in particular. So I am standing here speaking up for young Māori. You know, communities around the country—marae, kura—they all put in huge effort to try to get the young boys in their kura and in their communities a licence before they leave school, so that they don't fall victim to the justice system by way of a simple traffic infringement. But here we go; we're going to wind this up. We're going to add drugs to it—drugs they might have done six weeks ago, three weeks ago, four days ago, not necessarily an inordinate amount of drugs, but it can be in their system when they're pulled up. We know 100 percent that this will adversely affect rangatahi Māori, and you fellas are happy with it. You're absolutely happy with it. It took about 10 minutes to discover all the numbers—10 minutes. Ten minutes, fellas—you could have put 10 minutes' effort in and discovered what the numbers are for young Māori people, and the nature in which they're treated. Dr Rawiri was in here only last week speaking about the justice pipeline and how it delivers Māori from first point of contact with the justice system through to prison at alarming rates, and here we go again; we're going to have another crack. Despite being 20 percent of the population, Māori are more than 51 percent of the people charged when it comes to traffic and low-level offences. So, unfortunately, this is the plight that we have at this point with this Government, and we will be here fervently standing up for our people, encouraging that half of the House to do a bit of research, encouraging that half of the House to consider their role as the Treaty partner in Aotearoa. You guys are the Treaty partner in Aotearoa. We should have at least some ABC, elementary level understanding of what these things mean when you just roll out a law and what the impact on Māori will be, and the impact on Māori youth, of this law, will be catastrophic. So, ka pai koutou. Tom Rutherford: Mr Speaker? TĀKUTA FERRIS: Yeah, you can stand up now. TOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. That was a woeful, woeful contribution about Māori versus non-Māori. Let's actually be clear about what this bill is intending to do: it's about drug testing to ensure our New Zealand roads are safe for everybody that uses them. There is not a provision in here about targeting Māori versus non-Māori. It's simply about protecting our New Zealand roads for those that use them every single day—every single day. So I rise today in support of this legislation that marks a pivotal step in our ongoing effort to improve road safety in New Zealand. The Land Transport (Drug Driving) Amendment Bill will enable roadside drug-testing, fulfilling our Government's commitment to make our roads safer for all New Zealanders. We cannot ignore the grim reality that faces us. Drug-impaired driving has been a silent killer on our roads for far too long. In 2022 alone, alcohol and drugs contributed to 200 fatal crashes. These are not mere statistics. They represent 200 families devastated by preventable tragedies. Yet our law enforcement currently lacks the tools to effectively detect drug-impaired drivers at the roadside. Even more alarming, only 26 percent of drivers believe they're likely to be caught while driving under the influence of drugs. The previous Government's attempt to address this issue, while well-intentioned, proved flawed and unworkable. Their legislation required oral fluid tests to meet evidentiary standards instead of serving as screening devices, effectively stalling progress and leaving our roads vulnerable. This bill cuts through those barriers. We're introducing a system of random roadside oral fluid screening tests, like how we enforce drink-driving laws. This method is widely used overseas and has proven to be an effective way to screen for drugs at the roadside. Our legislation will bring New Zealand in line with Australian practices, removing unnecessary obstacles that had hindered our ability to combat drug-driving. Let me outline the key provisions of this bill. Drivers will be subject to random testing using approved oral fluid devices. If a driver tests positive, they'll undergo a second roadside test. Two positive results will lead to an immediate 12-hour driving prohibition to address any immediate road safety risk. Additionally, a sample will be sent to a laboratory for confirmatory testing. Infringement notices will only be issued if the lab test detects the presence of specified drugs at levels indicative of recent use—recent use. Importantly, this bill empowers our police force. We expect them to conduct 50,000 oral fluid tests per year once this regime is fully implemented. This sends a clear message: if you drive while impaired by drugs, expect to be caught and expect to face serious consequences. I want to emphasise that this is not just about punitive measures; it's about deterrence; it's about changing behaviour. By implementing this testing regime, we aim to make people think twice before getting behind the wheel while under the influence of drugs. We recognise that implementing this system will require careful planning and resources. Once this legislation is passed, there will be a procurement process to acquire the necessary testing devices, followed by comprehensive training for our police officers. We are committed to ensuring that this roll-out is efficient and effective. In conclusion, this bill represents our Government's commitment to taking a harder line on the causes of death and serious injury on our roads. We owe it to all New Zealanders to ensure that when they set out on our roads, they can do so with the confidence that we are doing everything in our power to keep them safe. I commend this bill to the House and look forward to working on it further as a member of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee. Thank you, Mr Speaker. ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to take a call on the Land Transport (Drug Driving) Amendment Bill. This will be a short speech from me, because my colleague Tangi Utikere has set out Labour's position on this bill. We support this bill and are really interested at the select committee stage to be able to unpack it and get into the detail of what is a framework that both major parties, as well as many parties around this House, want to progress. I think the chair of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, Andy Foster, put it best when he said that one of the key points that we'll be looking at here is that we don't want to make criminals out of people who haven't done any wrong. That's essentially the question that the committee in the last Parliament dealt with when it was dealing with Labour's legislation on this question. It heard from countless experts about how the technology for saliva testing and drug testing has developed even in the last few years, let alone the last decade, and what has enabled police around the world to be able to test drugs at the roadside. Over and over again, experts presented the evidence that the science is out on this and that it is incredibly hard to develop a test which is available on the roadside, which is easy enough for police to use and which can serve the purpose of providing an officer with enough evidence or enough confidence that somebody is impaired by drugs, whilst at the same time being convenient and quick to use. That's really what the committee will be charged with, because no one in this House wants to see law which is introduced which cannot be enforced by the police. That undermines public confidence in the police and ultimately puts them in a position where they're being asked to enforce laws which do not make sense. We need to make sure that our drug laws are sensible, that they apply to everyone in the same way, and that the police are proud to uphold them. That is the task of the select committee in regard to this bill. There are some questions that I'll be focusing on, and the idea here is that we don't want a roll of the dice. We need to understand, at the select committee level, how the technology has advanced even since the last bill was progressed through this Parliament, because when the Government members have given speeches today and they've said that the prior Government's legislation didn't work because it was overly onerous and it had too many regulations, that's not right. It didn't work because there was a high evidentiary threshold and a group of experts who were recommending to the Government that the evidence required from the technology wasn't there. The technology wasn't up to it. So we need to make sure that the technology is there to be able to enable this. In some of the jurisdictions that have allowed saliva testing, not to a high evidentiary threshold but just as a sort of indicator for police, there are a number of instances where people are essentially being told they have done wrong when they have not done something wrong. That is not how our criminal law should work. People should have confidence that when they come up at a roadside testing station, roll down the window, with the kids in the car, and are being tested, the results coming through are not going to be false and that they are not going to then be subject to a further invasive procedure on the side of the road, in their public neighbourhood, with their neighbours looking on, if there's been no reason for that and they're not at fault. We need to make sure that the public can have confidence in this. So that is one question for the select committee to really work through. The next is the broader question of impairment here. This was something that also came through loud and clear in the submissions last time, which was: is the correct thing for the police to be testing impairment or should they be testing sobriety? Those are two different things, because impairment when you are driving can include a number of things—things like medication which is prescribed by your doctor, which will impair your driving; being tired, which is a significant contributor to many of our roadside fatalities, as it is already; and a number of other factors which lead to people not driving in the way that they should and not driving in a safe way. Sobriety and functional sobriety is something that police can test already by an observation of an officer, which doesn't require a drug test per se, but it requires an officer to make observations about a person's ability to be in control of a car safely and that officers are trained to be able to do that. So we need to investigate that too. But the parting remarks I would leave this House with are that nobody, absolutely nobody, thinks that drug-driving is acceptable—no one should be driving under the influence of drugs—that we do need police to have these tools to be able to intervene in that, and that we need to make sure they actually work. TIM van de MOLEN (National—Waikato): When Deon Hadley's Audi crashed head-on into an ambulance, he had meth in his system, and his erratic driving had already sparked a call to police. That's the opening sentence from an article in yesterday's Waikato Times, outlining the details from the crash investigation report from an accident that occurred in late 2022 in the Waikato. It goes on to say both Hadley and the ambulance officer Susan Cutler died as a result of that crash on State Highway 1. She had been with St John for over 50 years. Speed was not a factor, but methamphetamine found in Hadley's system is considered a contributing factor. This is from another article: "After his car was hit by a methamphetamine-affected driver, Nick McEwan sat in his wrecked vehicle unsure whether his three children in the back were alive." Fortunately, they were. They were all helicoptered to a hospital and recovered, although one of his sons has been left with permanent injuries. Another article: "A driver drank alcohol, smoked methamphetamine and cannabis, and snorted ecstasy at a Halloween party before crashing a car, killing his cousin and injuring seven other people." Drug-driving is an absolute scourge on our roads. It is totally unacceptable, and we need to get tougher on it. This Government is introducing the Land Transport (Drug Driving) Amendment Bill to address that very issue. It enables the random roll-out of those roadside oral fluid tests to help reduce the number of drug-drivers on our roads. I do just want to touch on the fact that the previous Government introduced a bill and it had an intent to try and address some of this. But I do just want to make a couple of corrections, because, actually, it wasn't a timely response. The National Party had on six previous occasions tried to introduce legislation to give effect to drug testing. Alastair Scott in 2018 introduced a member's bill. It was voted down by the then Labour Government. The Hon Dr Nick Smith on numerous occasions attempted to reintroduce a bill to enable that to occur. The Labour Government voted that down. So there were six previous attempts, and finally they did introduce a bill, but, as we've heard, it hasn't been able to give effect to actually enabling practical outcomes on the road for our police officers to try and reduce the number of impaired drivers. So this piece of legislation will do that. We've heard the criteria around that outlined by previous speakers. I think we can also look back at some of the impact, the change in behaviour, over time around drink-driving, and although that's not an apples-with-apples comparison, there is some relevance there. Behaviour has changed over time. Perceptions have changed. Approaches from law enforcement to cracking down on that have changed. People now, generally, would say if they drink and drive, they would expect to get caught. We need that to be the expectation of anyone that is using drugs—not that they should be using drugs in the first place, but if they are, then they should not be getting behind the wheel. We can hear apologist comments from the Māori Party and the Green Party around why we need to change that approach. But I note again the articles that I referred to at the start. Those families that have been impacted unnecessarily by the terrible behaviour of a few individuals deserve better outcomes than this. This legislation will help to address that. And, look, we don't for a second expect that bringing in this law will stop every drugged driver from getting behind the steering wheel, but it will help change that behaviour. As Mr Rutherford said, the expectation that there will be 50,000 tests conducted annually will make it quite clear to those drugged drivers that if they get behind the wheel, there is a much higher chance that they will be caught, and if they are caught, there is a much stiffer consequence for that. Ultimately, I am confident that those actions will, in a number of cases, change behaviour, and if we can stop a single one of these horrific accidents from occurring as a result of that change, then I think this is a great piece of legislation and it should be progressed. I look forward to following the progression of this bill through the select committee and back to the House. Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. Labour supports this bill because it makes our roads safer, and it's important that we do that in a consistent way right around the country. I think it's important just to correct the record, though, and to make sure we're all debating the right thing here. The main hold-up for this legislation coming into law is the fact that technology has not been able to deliver the certainty required for a regime with penalties and demerits and consequences to be attached with it. So what this regime delivers—it works with what the technology is able to do with a back-up test of a lab test. Fundamentally, the issue here is that the current saliva test for drug-driving can throw a false negative or a false positive. That is what the research shows—that you cannot be sure when you're testing on roadside with saliva what it is that you're exactly testing for, and it's possible that it can throw a false negative. So that is why, in this system—and we agree with the system—that's being introduced, there are two tests. If someone is pulled over and tested by a police officer and they test positive, they are required to do a second test—a second positive. If they test negative, they're free to go. So on that second positive test, at that point in time, it is required that that test go back to the lab, and only if that lab test backs up the saliva test does the infringement and then the demerits take place. The interesting point we've got—or we will have, if we see this legislation rolled out—is that after that second positive test, the driver will be required to not use their vehicle for 12 hours. In parts of rural New Zealand, it could be challenging for some parts of New Zealand, and also potentially, after those two positive tests, the lab test still could come back negative, and so you may have drivers here who have been prohibited from driving for 12 hours but yet don't receive an infringement and don't receive demerits. But, on balance, we believe that if it makes our roads safer and if that risk is balanced, it's still OK to move forward. One of the interesting areas has already been touched on, and that is impairment. What it states in this bill is that the qualified drug is "at a level that indicates recent use", if that drug has been detected in the driver in the lab test, and so that is quite different to being impaired. So there's going to have to be some decisions made from a scientific point of view in the lab as to how recent that drug use was and whether that would have been a factor in impairment. The other point to consider is the fact that this testing process identifies families of drugs. So, for example, if you're talking about opioids, some people will be potentially on prescription opioids like tramadol—which is a synthetic form of morphine—or even morphine or codeine. Those are forms of opioids, and so if someone is taking a legal opioid, that may turn up in a lab and be perceived as being heroin, which is also an opioid. So it'll be interesting to see how the lab deciphers—given the fact of its ability to do that—those families of drugs. Even more interestingly, now that pseudoephedrine is now available over the counter for our cold and prescription purposes—pseudoephedrine is part of the amphetamine family, which methamphetamine is also a part of. So it'll be interesting to note how we decipher legal prescription drugs from those illegal black market drugs, and how that works through this process. It will be very important to make sure that New Zealanders who have taken a legal prescription drug have done so well and were not impaired when they were driving, and to make sure that they are not unnecessarily penalised through this new process. I think that this is a good step towards making our roads safer. It's interesting that the National Party still want to raise the speed limits outside schools but they're quite keen on making sure our roads are safer. I wish they'd apply that methodology right across our roads in New Zealand. But, overall, this is a good step. Both parties have worked on it; multiple parties have seen that. There are still some flaws in the system, but we think that on balance, having a way to detect drug-driving in New Zealand is important, and, hopefully, it sends a strong message out to people that you are not to take drugs or alcohol if you want to be in charge of a motor vehicle on New Zealand roads. SAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to speak in favour of the Land Transport (Drug Driving) Amendment Bill at the first reading. It's good to see other parties around the House, specifically ACT and New Zealand First, and the Labour Party—thank you for your support in this as well. Look, this bill addresses issues that we have on New Zealand roads with drug-drivers. I was reading, before coming in here, that in the Bay of Plenty from 2018 to 2023, there were 45 fatal crashes involving drugs on our roads. I can see Mr Rutherford in front of me, rightfully, shaking his head, because that is totally unacceptable. That's 45 lives gone and families tipped upside down because people have decided to get in their cars while high or under the influence of drugs, which has been a contributor towards their crash. Look, I do note that the previous Government brought in legislation several years ago to help address this. It has been discussed how the evidentiary standards meant that it couldn't actually be practically applied, and this bill will address that. This bill amends the Land Transport Act 1998 and enables random oral fluid screening. It introduces new device approval, which is crucial and will enable police to have the tools that they need to stop drivers and to test them for drugs at the roadside. And, yeah, I hear there have been concerns. There were concerns around oral testing, which is why there are two tests at the roadside. If the first test is positive, then you will undergo a second test. If that is also positive, you will not be allowed to drive for 12 hours. You will then submit another test, which will go off to a laboratory, and if that comes back positive, then you will be given an infringement notice and demerit points, and the full weight of the law and whatever punishment will come down on you from there. You will also be issued an infringement notice and demerit points if you refuse to participate in a roadside drugs test. But, for too long, drug-drivers have put others at risk with very limited enforcement in New Zealand. This brings us into line with Australian legislation, which uses oral testing over there. And, look, it's about time. It's well overdue. We note significant loss of life due to alcohol and drink-driving on our roads. Drug-driving is also very serious. No one wants to have their life or their family's lives tipped upside down, because someone recklessly or selfishly took drugs, got into a motor vehicle, lost control of their vehicle, and caused the loss of life or severe injury to an innocent person who frankly was just going about their daily business. That is an absolute tragedy. I look back and I remember that late last year, there was a report of a crash on Hewletts Road in Mount Maunganui involving a car and a truck. It was late at night, and one person died in this event. It eventuated—and it was due to go to court early last month—that one of those people is being charged with manslaughter and for drug-driving. You have to wonder, when you look at Hewletts Road, how you could have such a crash on such a road. The only way you could do it is if you're totally oblivious, and the only way you'd get to that state would be if you were highly distracted or, most likely, drink-driving or, in this case, drug-driving. That was a totally avoidable situation. And it's been noted by other members of this House—and I want to mention the Hon Matt Doocey for his first contribution here, Tom Rutherford, and also Tim van de Molen, who I thought spoke incredibly well earlier today. Look, we have said quite clearly that this isn't going to stop people taking drugs and driving in New Zealand. But what it will do is actually say, "New Zealand thinks it's totally unacceptable that you take drugs and drive. If you go and do that now, you cannot just go and do it without any fear of being pulled up. You may be stopped, you may be tested, and if you are, then the weight of the law will come down upon you." We are very serious about making sure that our roads are safe. We are very serious about giving police the tools and the powers that they need to enforce this. This is a very good bill. I am very supportive of it, and I wish the select committee all the best going forward. I commend it to the House. A party vote was called for on the question, That the Land Transport (Drug Driving) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. Ayes 102 New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Noes 21 Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6; Tana. Motion agreed to. Bill read a first time. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): The question is, That the Land Transport (Drug Driving) Amendment Bill be considered by the Transport and Infrastructure Committee. Motion agreed to. Bill referred to the Transport and Infrastructure Committee. Instruction to Transport and Infrastructure Committee Hon MATT DOOCEY (Associate Minister of Transport): I move, That the Land Transport (Drug Driving) Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 5 December 2024. A party vote was called for on the question, That the Land Transport (Drug Driving) Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 5 December 2024. Ayes 68 New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Noes 55 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14; Te Pāti Māori 6; Tana. Motion agreed to. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Teanau Tuiono): I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Gangs Legislation Amendment Bill. GANGS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL In Committee Part 1 Preliminary provisions CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, the House is in committee on the Gangs Legislation Amendment Bill. Members, we now come to Part 1. Part 1 is the debate on clauses 3 to 6, "Preliminary provisions", and schedules 1 and 2. The question is that Part 1 stand part. Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Madam Chair. Given that Part 1 includes the Purpose clause, I thought it was probably the apposite time to invite the Minister to speak to that, because, in the second reading debate, I pointed out the Chief Science Advisor's advice that a crackdown, tough-on-gangs - approach has a real risk of increasing gang membership and increasing gang-related crime and increasing harm to those around gang members. I note, in the purpose clause, in clause 3, that the purpose is, by the tools used in the Act, "to reduce the ability of gangs to operate and cause fear, intimidation, and disruption to the public". We agreed. I want to be clear that we want to reduce those things. It doesn't actually talk about reducing the number of gang members, reducing the harm that's caused in the families and closer communities around the gangs, and the general reduction in the number of gang members. There's a real risk that this bill will, in fact, increase all of those things, including gang numbers. Now, the Minister in the chair will be aware I've got a number of Amendment Papers and various things to speak to, so I will follow the kaupapa of the House and just keep my contribution short so that the Minister can respond. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): Thank you, Mr Chair. Yes, this is just the first contribution for this bill. The member opposite, the Hon Dr Duncan Webb, asked what the purpose or the point of the bill is, and I can tell him clearly, the purpose of the bill is to give police extra tools with which to deal with gangs in our community and the harm that they cause. We have seen, over the past six years or so, a significant increase in gang membership in New Zealand—around 50 percent—so that requires a different response. It's been compounded by—we've also seen at the same time an increase in serious violent crime, we've seen an increase in gun crime, and an increase in gang visibility across our communities. So when things change—and then we've also, of course, in the broader context, seen many very dangerous gang members come to New Zealand from Australia under the 501 process. All of those things require a different response or an extended response. So the purpose of this bill is to give the police, as I said, extra tools to deal with this growing difficulty. I suppose in the legislation we could have gone on at great length about the problems that gangs cause in our community, but the broader context of all of this is our broader commitment to restore law and order in this country. In contrast to the previous administration, which prioritised reducing the prison population, irrespective of what was going on in the community, our focus is to reduce the number of victims of crime, because that's what the justice system should be all about: reducing the number of victims of crime. One way in which we can do that is to deal more effectively with the negative role that gangs play in our community. Then the logic flows to this legislation, which is about giving the police extra tools—so that's by way of introduction and by way of the purpose of the legislation. TAMATHA PAUL (Green—Wellington Central): Kia ora, Minister. My question is around clause 3, which sets out the purpose of this bill and outlines the three key areas around prohibiting gang insignia, being able to issue dispersal notices, and around the non-consorting orders. I was interested to understand why improving public safety was not a purpose of this bill. Is it because the bill will impair public safety rather than improve it? I want to refer to page 30 of the regulatory impact statement that looks at the different options that were considered in order to achieve the purposes of this bill. I wanted to note that the only area that improves the status quo that we had prior to this bill is around public confidence. There's been a lot of commentary in this Chamber about how this bill is not founded in evidence and is for the purposes of political expediency and getting votes, as opposed to actually cracking down on gang membership, as is set out in clause 3. If we look here on page 30 of the regulatory impact statement, it says, "Reducing gang memberships", and both options two and three are likely to be much worse than the status quo in terms of reducing gang membership. We know, as Duncan Webb referred to, in the minimising gang harm report that the Prime Minister's Chief Science Advisor prepared in the previous Government, they outlined clearly that the number one way to reduce gang membership is actually to address the drivers of gang membership, which are poverty and a lack of opportunity for people living in these communities. Secondly, if you look back at page 30, it says, "Reducing rates of offending". Again, options two and three make things much worse than the status quo—again, on compliance with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and human rights, much worse than the status quo. The regulatory impact statement shows that this bill makes things worse, so how does the Minister explain the lack of evidence underpinning this bill, and in particular around the purposes set out within the bill? Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Mr Chair. I'm a little disappointed in the Minister of Justice's original answer, which, essentially, just repeated what I can find on his Facebook page. But let's move on, because I do want to make clear that this bill is quite extraordinary and the Attorney-General's report makes it clear that it restricts some freedoms. The Minister is here and no doubt will make his case that these are appropriate restrictions—and I look forward to it—but underpinning it is, you know, every little building block of it. One of the things which I will expand on further when we come to the appropriate part is the suggestion of electronic service of notices. But in terms of the part that we're on, that's triggered by what an electronic address is. In the definition there, it talks about electronic address, including an email address. Now, I'm a wee bit concerned about that, because does that mean that it could also include a text message, a Facebook message, a WhatsApp message? Or should that really say, "electronic address means an email address"? We have varying degrees of formality, and my view is that when you're going to infringe someone's human rights, justified or otherwise, you should be serving a document on them. That's the most formal and most signal way you can do that. Further down the chain, but not too much further, is a formal notification by an email, perhaps with an attached document. But well down the chain is a WhatsApp message saying, "Hey bro, you can't associate with these other people for seven days. This is a dispersal notice from your local constable." So I wonder if the Minister—and I am prefacing a discussion that will go further, but "electronic service": does that mean by email or does it mean by any electronic means? Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. I've got a number of questions about Part 1 of this bill, but really I'm quite interested to understand—and Dr Webb has touched on it—the part where you're providing notification. So in terms of the purpose of the Act, listed in clause 3 is "(b) providing for the issue of dispersal notices to stop gang members from gathering in public places:" This is the part that the committee really struggled with, to try and understand how the practicalities of this bill were going to play out. Let's say it's Timaru and there are 10 gang members in the main street and they're intimidating some local people and a police officer has gone up to them and required them to remove their patches and disperse. Correct me if I'm wrong—but I think this is right—so when the officer is issuing a dispersal notice to that group of gang members, to issue the notice he will ask them first for a service address, which would be an email. And if they're unable to provide that email, then the officer will offer for them to accompany him or her to the station to print off the notice in order for it to be served. The issue here was that the penalty for breaching that dispersal notice would be five years in prison. The committee really struggled to find another example, even in similar jurisdictions, where something that's potentially not been even served—if those two things don't work and it's just verbal—is then followed by a penalty of a five-year period of imprisonment. How is that going to work? The other point that I'd really like the Minister's view on is in and around the police ability to know that the same person has breached it. I assume they're probably going to take a photo or a video. But what if there's a situation where those eight members down the main street of Timaru have been told to remove their patches and disperse, and have been issued with a dispersal notice, whether it's via their Yahoo email address or coming to the station, but then the next day a couple of them are back again? So they've breached it. So my question is: how do we know—and I'm sure this will be tested in the courts in time—that, in fact, that same person is the person who is back and who has breached it? And what's the evidence, or how will the police demonstrate that it is in fact a breach when they return to that point? I understand that they're not only not allowed to come back to that point for seven days—I think that's the way the dispersal notice works—but that they're also not allowed to associate with each other. So what happens if they go to someone's flat for dinner? Is that out too? I'm just wondering how that's going to be practically worked through to make sure that it's a breach of the dispersal order when they're in front of the court for a five-year prison term. How is the prosecution able to demonstrate that it was, in fact, that particular person who breached it? And similarly, if they do go round to each other's house for a cup of tea or to play PlayStation, how will police be policing the practicalities of those gang members or associates or prospects—I understand it applies to them as well—who may go around to each other's houses in that seven-day period? I think it's important that the public know these answers, because, with this legislation, what's actually being created is an expectation within New Zealanders that if anyone sees someone walking around with a gang patch on, then a police officer will make them take it off. And so there will be an expectation that with any gang member walking around, people will be calling the police saying, "I just saw a gang member. Come and get him—or her." Also, if there is one police officer and a group of gang members, members of the public will be looking towards that police officer to intervene and remove the gang patches from them. So I'm also interested to know if the Minister has any kind of public awareness campaign in mind to inform the people of New Zealand as to how this particular law will be enforced, when they can expect police officers to be enforcing it, and in order to manage their expectations about the type of law enforcement that is practically able to be exercised, particularly given some parts of New Zealand have more police officers than others. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): The member has gone into a great deal of detail in relation to the detail of how the dispersal notice regime will work, which is absolutely appropriate for discussion during the debate on Part 3, which will be coming up. In terms of the preamble and the preliminary considerations in Part 1, the purpose of all this is to reduce the ability of gangs to operate and to cause fear, intimidation, and disruption to the public by providing the issue of dispersal notices. The purpose of these notices, as outlined at the start, is to provide the police with an extra tool to be able to issue these dispersal notices—maybe by email; more likely in person with a piece of paper and issuing that notice. That's the purpose of it. The purpose is to stop situations such as we saw, or to provide the police with tools to use at their discretion in different circumstances, to deal with situations such as when gangs take over an entire township, in a huge bike cavalcade, and remove the ability of law-abiding citizens to go around their normal business without fear and intimidation. Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): That's me—thank you, sir. I just want to turn again to the definitions clause. As I'm sure the Minister probably is aware, we had a good discussion in committee about what gang insignia was. Now, I'll be perfectly honest, I think there's real vagueness problems around what an insignia is, but I'm not going to actually talk about that because I don't think there's much likelihood of progress there. But I do want to talk about the fact that if we get something that's well-recognised as a gang insignia—the patch or the symbol that is the patch—and put it on something else, that something else becomes the insignia as well, because that's the definition of gang insignia in clause 4(b). Now, it might seem trivial that the jacket that the patch is sown on to is the gang insignia. It's important because of the right, possibly duty, to confiscate gang insignia. We're probably not too concerned—although a nice leather jacket is several hundred dollars' worth that's going to be confiscated. But if that gang insignia is a sticker put on the family car, then the entire car is liable or expected to be confiscated and destroyed. Now, I'm familiar with Crown confiscations, and there is a question about reasonableness and proportionality. We can come and discuss that later, but I'm wondering whether, in terms of the definition, in fact, when it says whatever it's affixed to, for example clothing or a vehicle, the Minister had contemplated, when including a vehicle, quite what that meant, particularly when the thing confiscated—and this is well established—doesn't have to belong to the wrongdoer. We see that in fisheries cases all the time where your mate's boat gets confiscated for having too much pāua on. So that's actually quite a significant thing if one family member owns the car, some idiot youngster puts a mob sticker on it, and it gets confiscated. So I wonder if the Minister could speak to the issue of what a gang insignia is and whether, in fact, it's appropriate that it includes everything that the insignia itself is affixed to. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): Well, it's not for me as Minister to offer legal advice, but my guess is if somebody had a car with a sticker affixed to it and were at risk of having the car forfeited, they would probably peel the sticker off and give it to the constable, would be my guess. TAMATHA PAUL (Green—Wellington Central): I wanted to ask some questions that sort of go back to clause 3 of the bill, around the purpose of this piece of legislation, to ask the Minister of Justice what difference it is making to existing pieces of legislation that already, in some ways, prohibit some of the activities set out within clause 3. An example of that is we have had the Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Act since 2013, which prohibits the display of gang insignia, and we also have the Summary Offences Act 1981, where gang activities that cause issues in public are already an offence, including disorderly or offensive behaviour and associating with those convicted of theft, violence, or drug-related offending. So, if some of the aspects of this bill are already covered within legislation, my question is: what is this adding to the tools that are already in place? I would ask the Minister to reflect on the usefulness of the existing legislation as well, given that, I believe, 17 fines have been issued under existing insignia prohibition law and there hasn't been a reduction in patches, nor has there been a reduction in gang membership either while that piece of legislation has been in existence. I also wanted to see if the Minister might reflect on the ability to actually implement this bill, particularly in jurisdictions where the number of gang members far outweighs the number of police officers in those jurisdictions. Maybe the Minister might want to talk a little bit more about the national gang unit that he hopes to put in place to implement these polices. My read of things is that gang-busting policies have been completely ineffective, have not reduced the visual presence of patches within any communities, that the fines have not been handed out, and that the police already have tools to use where there are gang patches present. I also wondered whether the Minister might reflect on the perverse outcomes that come about through banning gang insignia, such as people tattooing their patches on their skin and what the answer is there, because, obviously, they can't cover it up with make-up as the Government has suggested. So I would ask the Minister to reflect on the actual ability to implement this policy and what this brings in addition to existing legislation which has already been designed to address the purposes of this bill, as set out in clause 3, which clearly isn't having an impact, because patches are still in our communities and we still see them. Those are my questions. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): Thank you for the member Tamatha Paul's questions, and I suppose I'd make the obvious point that it is building on earlier legislation in terms of gang patches, where a previous member's bill banned those patches from schools and hospitals and public buildings. The widespread response we've had on that is that it has been very successful. We don't have a huge number of people going into schools with gang patches. So the purpose of this legislation is to build on that and to extend that to all public places, recognising that the public has had a gutsful of the intimidation that comes with gangs in our community. In terms of the risk of that leading to more tattooing of gang insignia, while the Government did not include in this bill reference to tattoos being displayed in public, that has certainly been adopted in some Australian states, particularly Western Australia, where that has indeed led to the application of make-up over the patches if they haven't been able to be covered with clothing. But that is not a step that's taken in this legislation. Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much. Look, I'd just like to commend the Minister, too, on the regulatory impact statement. It's got some really good evidence there, and some of the answers that we've been actually seeking over the course of the introduction of this bill and some of the things are really helpful. One of the questions that I've consistently been asking—particularly the Minister of Police—was: how will we know that these measures actually will stop people wanting to be in a gang and how will that work effectively? And the only evidence I was able to ascertain or to gain from him was that he went on a trip to Australia and he met with his counterpart, I think, over in New South Wales. He said that, that day he met with him, on the front page of the paper was an article that showed that the lead member of the Rebels had, in fact, left the gang purely because these new laws had made his life so hard that he couldn't take it any more and he was leaving the gang. And when we went back to find that article, that was the lead story in the paper, what that article actually described was a lot of internal tensions within the Rebels, particularly them killing each other quite a bit, and that was the key driving factor for that lead gang member to leave the gang, not the non-consorting laws that had been introduced. So I think it's really good that we've got some analysis here on the evidence of what did happen in Australia and whether it's worked or not. And I think the Australian examples really give us some insights as to how this law might play out in New Zealand. The New South Wales Ombudsman actually recommended to narrow the scope of the existing non-consorting laws so that they could only really target that serious and organised crime. And they noted that this would likely reduce inappropriate or unnecessary use of laws—essentially wasting police time—and crack down on the stuff that really works. And so did Queensland—they agreed with this as well. In fact, the Queensland Organised Crime Commission of Inquiry found that its states' focus on gangs had really resulted in a lack of visibility in other areas of organised criminal activity. And that's been one of our key concerns too—that the manufacturer and distribution of methamphetamine is, in fact, far more harmful than seeing a gang patch. And we want to make sure that this Government is not only "laser focused" on restoring law and order but also on crippling the criminal networks that utilise drugs, money laundering, and general criminal purposes to wreak havoc in our communities. So what they noted in the Queensland report was that gang members accounted for less than 1 percent of overall offending in Queensland, and that included the rate of charges for drug offending. And that's pretty much comparable to what we see in New Zealand, and that's noted in paragraph 24 as well. So I guess what I'm seeking from the Minister is: will he be able to give a level of reassurance to New Zealanders that we won't be just looking tough and won't be just emailing gang members to go away and take their patches off but also that resources in police, which we know are stretched, will also be focusing on the drivers of crime, which is methamphetamine, which is those serious violent offences that happen in homes and see young people growing up where family and sexual violence can be normalised? These are the drivers of crime, and it is a valid concern on this side of the House that we will end up like Australian states. And they've noted that these non-consorting orders merely displaced the problem, the balloon effect—you squeeze it, and it just pops out in another place. Queensland's statistics indicated it did have a slight reduction in membership in the two years following the introduction of the two 2013 law. But, largely, it seemed they all moved over the border into other states where they didn't have those laws. New Zealand doesn't have borders, so what's going to happen here? It'll be interesting to see how this plays out. It will be also interesting to see how it plays out—and the Minister may want to comment on this—particularly in those parts of New Zealand that are carrying vacancies now of police officers, where we have one or two police stations with that number of police officers, and how they will be able to still do their job and also enforce this law in a way that New Zealanders have confidence in our police service that they're able to enforce this law. I think that's a risk the Minister may want to speak to. If we have a law that is unable to be enforced in some parts of New Zealand, does that potentially undermine not only the credibility of our police service but also our very legal structure? Dr TRACEY McLELLAN (Labour): Thank you, Mr Chair. We've had a couple of questions now which I think are best characterised by pointing out some of the potential problems, but the lack of robust kind of oomph behind some of the policy decisions that have been made here, when we think about what the purpose is and when we're thinking about it. I'll give the Minister of Justice maybe a chance to—before he gets to his feet and answers the specifics around particularly the last two questions—go back a step, perhaps, and think about specific examples. Because whilst there's been some policy questions asked in so far as whether things will work and whether there's workability, I just noted something that he had said earlier on about the dispersal notices. It kind of piqued my interest because it was a specific example about workability in so far as suggesting that more likely than not, I think the Minister said, a piece of paper would be issued to convey that dispersal notification. Yet, if I recall correctly, during this process, and certainly during the Justice Committee process, there seemed to be—and when we look through the regulatory impact statement as well—plenty of advice to show that that's largely an unrealistic expectation that police were going to be able to issue a piece of paper on the side of the road at the event when they witnessed gang members with their gang patches in groups of three or more. So if that's not entirely accurate as a valid means by which to enact the dispersal process, then can the Minister kind of elucidate a little bit further perhaps on other ways in which he understands that those provisions would be enacted? Because I think it's quite critical when we think about the purpose of the Act, in so far as being able to reduce the gang's ability to operate and to cause fear and intimidation. If, at the first hurdle, when it comes to (a) identifying that this has happened, (b) issuing some sort of dispersal notice—and for the Minister to rely potentially on a mechanism to do that, that we certainly received plenty of information about the unworkability of that, just creates a little bit of uneasiness as we're listening here today in this process, in this committee of the whole House, as to whether that would work or not. Sitting here—whilst I've listened to several questions—I don't feel very much more informed about the practicalities of that. I think listening to not only just the questions but actually some of the answers has raised some more questions than answers. So before we move on, I'd like a little bit of assurance or reassurance, if the Minister can, about the practical implications about how this is workable, particularly given that in the first instance that first concrete example he gave seems to be contrary to all the information that we've received to date. So I'm hoping he can help us out there. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): Thank you very much for those questions. I'm very happy to go through the details of all that in Part 3, which is the appropriate time to do that. I also just wanted to correct a statement made by the previous speaker, Hon Ginny Andersen, around Mr Mitchell's visit to Australia. He is obviously tuning into radio and listening to this debate carefully—he's probably out there in the public, driving around talking to people. But he heard it and he wanted to make the point that he went to Western Australia, not to New South Wales—Western Australia. So I just want to pass on my regards to Minister Mitchell and the Police, of which he is the Minister. They're going to be receiving extra tools through this legislation. Now, we've had some reference by other members to, well, is this ban on patches going to solve every problem that we face in the criminal sector and bring about a massive reduction in gang membership and public safety? No individual thing will achieve such a thing. It's about a number of options that police and the justice system have to deal with what is a longstanding and difficult problem. So the purpose of this legislation is to build on the many pieces of legislation that we already have in the Crimes Act and many other pieces of legislation which are designed to keep us safe as New Zealanders and to enable the police to do their job to keep us safe. This bill is about bringing four extra tools to police's toolkit in order to deal with the gangs. So it's important to see that context. Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Mr Chair. It's not usual to let the committee know that someone's not here, but it's nice to know that the Minister of Police is tucked up with his National-branded pyjamas and his cup of cocoa. I think you're still allowed to wear the National Party logo, at least at home in front of the fire. My question relates to the definition of "named person". "Named person" is quite important, because a named person is the person with whom you're not allowed to associate when there's a dispersal notice in place. We know there's got to be at least three of them—this is the group that is being dispersed. It strikes me that the definition of "named person" has a gap in it that leads to an anomaly. The anomaly it leads to is that if the gang was Andersen, Webb, and Goldsmith—strange that that may seem—and that two were named but one wasn't, then you get a problem that one person can associate with the others, but they can't associate with them. So it's really important that all of the people who are named in the dispersal notice served on one person also have a dispersal notice served on them. Otherwise, you get this strange situation where I can associate with you, but you can't associate with me. So my Amendment Paper, which has an A on it—I'm not sure that's a formal A, but it's there on the Table—deals with clause 4 and the definition of "named person". It suggests that an additional clause (c) should be there so that every named person also has been served with a dispersal notice in respect of the gathering to which the dispersal notice relates, so that whatever the group—if there are 30 people, you don't have to give them all dispersal notices, but everyone that you don't want to associate must be served with a dispersal notice, so you can't have a named person who hasn't been served with a dispersal notice. Otherwise, that person could nip round and visit their mate, not knowing, and actually not breaking the law, being allowed to visit their mate, but their mate's not allowed to be visited by them. That can't be right. That's a real gap in the law. Look, every single Amendment Paper I've got in there is a serious Amendment Paper that seeks to address a gap. If we want to make sure that people don't associate with each other, then you've got to have it working both ways. You can't have person A allowed to associate with person B, but person B not allowed to associate with person A. So that's the first Amendment Paper that I'll speak to. I do have another Amendment Paper on this part, but I won't clutter the Minister's busy mind. Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Oh, thank you very much, Madam Chair. I'd just like to, in terms of the purpose of the bill, which is to deter people who were wanting to be in a gang—which we agree with that; we don't want people to be in gangs. We're just questioning whether the mechanisms or the actions that this legislation takes necessarily will achieve that. So we're quite interested to hear a bit back from the Minister. Because, going back to those examples we gave—that it had happened in Queensland and also in New South Wales—what the report from the ombudsmen in New South Wales and Queensland found is it drove criminal activity underground. So it was not as visible—you didn't see it as much in the streets—but what happened was the same level of, or potentially even greater, criminal activity happened in a more covert way. So you might not see it as much, but it was still going on. So I'm interested to know: does the Minister have any proposal, any methodology, in which he plans to monitor how this legislation works? Would it be through the waste-water testing of methamphetamine that we're able to receive? Would it be like the number of convictions? I'm not sure that would really measure it, potentially, because it's all driven underground, so how do you measure that which you can't see? So I'm interested to know what thoughts have gone in place. One of the difficulties is that there's been a really interesting programme that's gone on for a while that's been continued to be funded by this Government, which is the Resilience to Organised Crime in Communities, which provides, I guess, pro-social opportunities for young people who might get into a gang to not make that decision and to give them a better pathway. So one of the concerns that's raised in the regulatory impact statement is that this strategy of policing membership could potentially reinforce anti-social attitudes and mistrust, making it harder for great programmes which have got quite a bit of money invested in them, such as the Resilience to Organised Crime in Communities, to be able to reach populations with social and economic interventions that would help that reoffending. It lists out some quite good risks. It actually risks that it may actually make it more difficult for people to exit gangs for those who are willing to disengage or desist from crime. It may also undermine those relationships that that programme, Resilience to Organised Crime in Communities—undermine trusted relationships within the community that have enabled whānau who have gang members in them to understand what services and opportunities are available to them and to be able to be in a space where they make a decision to leave the gang. I hark back again to the comments that Mr Mitchell made that he wants to make life so uncomfortable that people just want to leave the gang. The mechanisms you're utilising are dispersal notices and removing gang patches, but I haven't heard much discussion about the Resilience to Organised Crime in Communities programme, which your Government has continued to fund. Have you analysed the impact of these legislative changes on that long-term programme to prevent the next generation of people joining a gang? Also, it notes that these legal changes that we're discussing today potentially undercut efforts to cultivate pro-social activity within gang communities. So making the environment right that people might actually want to leave the gang, for those groups who have moved towards adopting such behaviours and are starting to make those changes. The regulatory impact statement also says that it makes it harder—this is really important—for whānau experiencing violence, particularly family violence, to seek help. We know that our statistics—I've done work on this—are that harm to children and women in gang families is far higher. It's huge numbers of women and young people who are victims, repeatedly, of quite severe family violence. So I'm wanting to hear a response from the Minister as to whether he's fully comprehended the impact of this legislation on long-term programmes that have been in place to create pro-social environments where young people and communities can step away from organised crime, and how he thinks that his idea of just taking off a patch and giving them an email to disperse is actually more long-term beneficial for New Zealand safety than programmes that actually give young people and families positive and real opportunities to step away from what can be quite a harmful and dangerous lifestyle. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the previous speaker, the Hon Ginny Andersen, for her observations. If, indeed, I was standing here as the Minister of Justice and saying that all we need to do to deal with gangs is pass this legislation, then she would be right. But, of course, that is not what I am saying. Nobody would for a moment suggest that a Government doesn't also have to deal with the long-term drivers behind the social and economic dysfunction that contributes to multigenerational issues such as the development of gangs, and that's why the Government has, for example, invested more in the Budget on enabling rehabilitation programmes for remand prisoners. It's why we're very much focused on dealing with truancy and poor performance in school, so to deal with that. That's why we're dealing with our emergency accommodation housing situation. So there's a broad range of social issues that we absolutely agree on. Of course, better and more effective dealing with addictions and alcoholism—all those issues are very much part of the broader response to gangs and their impact on society. So we certainly understand that broader context. Where we sometimes differ—and I don't want to misinterpret what her party is saying, but it's one thing to understand the context, but no society can function if people aren't accountable for the decisions that they make today whether or not to commit a crime or intimidate people or engage in drug dealing or a whole host of things that have been associated with many gangs in the past. So accountability is part of it. So increasing the chance of being caught and held to account has to be part of the response. This legislation is providing some extra tools to help the police deal with gangs and their public presence and their intimidation. But it builds on a large number of existing laws: firearm laws and a whole bunch of other legislation that this Government is passing. And it comes at the same time along with that much broader effort made across many Governments to deal with the longstanding social issues that are part of it. So it's not either/or, and there is no suggestion that one piece of legislation will solve the problem by itself. It has to be part of a holistic plan across all Government. FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair, for allowing me to take my first call on the Gangs Legislation Amendment Bill. I'm just going to start off by talking a little bit about the context and where I'm coming from, because I think that's really important, and then I'm going to ask questions about the purpose of the bill and think through some potentially worst-case scenarios. I think that that's part of our job as democratic legislators—to think through the potentially worst things that could happen in the exercise of State power. A little bit about the background is that my grandfather, who I was actually named after, was a police officer in the Philippines, and I'm sure we can all agree that the policing environment in countries that are developing are perhaps a little bit more challenging than the contexts that we face in developed countries. My mother named me after my grandfather, but he was actually killed before I was even born, so I was named as a kind of tribute to him. He was killed by a gang. He was standing up; he was a straight man in a bent force, as my family used to describe him. So he was a non-corrupt officer in an institution that was rife with corruption. I think that's important to contextualise, because quite often in these debates, which do get heated—and I acknowledge your leadership, Minister, and that you haven't engaged in this rhetoric so far—the Greens tend to be painted with people saying that we're pro-crime or pro-gang, or whatever. But we do agree with—I think all the political parties here have the same kind of desire that people shouldn't be intimidated and that people shouldn't be held to fear, and in an ideal world, people wouldn't be joining gangs. But I think we do differ on our method of how to get there, and I think that's important to consider in the context of the purpose of this, because we can exercise a lot of State power to try and enforce anti-gang legislation. We can create things and structures, but there are always trade-offs. There are trade-offs in terms of resources to enforce and there are trade-offs in terms of what it might do to the kind of democratic deficit. And that's been acknowledged to some extent by the report of the Attorney-General, where she stated that "I have considered the Gangs Legislation Amendment Bill … for consistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act … I conclude the proposed prohibition on the display of gang insignia in public places is inconsistent with the rights to freedom of expression, association and peaceful assembly in the Bill of Rights Act. Further, I conclude that the proposed power to issue dispersal notices is inconsistent with the right to peaceful assembly in the Bill of Rights Act." I think that's something that's really important to consider, because if we go to the purpose section, at clause 3(a) and (b), clause 3(a) is "prohibiting the display of gang insignia in public places:" and clause 3(b) is "providing for the issue of dispersal notices to stop gang members from gathering in public places:", and if we turn to the definition section, clause 4 states that " 'gang member' includes the following: (a) an individual who is a prospective member or nominee: (b) an individual who demonstrates affiliation to a gang by displaying the gang's insignia: (c) an individual who is involved in the affairs of a gang for the likely purpose of participating in a criminal activity". I do think that there are some potentially problematic things that could come out of this because "public places" could include, for example, a polling booth, and "gang members" could include people who are wanting to exercise their democratic right. So, again, it is our duty as legislators to think what the worst-case scenarios might be and to consider what are the sorts of powers that we're giving Governments to make in dispersal laws. I have full confidence and faith that none of the current members of this current House are in any way tyrannical or autocratic, and I don't suggest that anyone here would move to use it, but it does create a precedent whereby some future administration which might have ill intent could use clause 3(b) to misclassify people as gang members and to prohibit them from exercising their democratic rights. So I do think we need to be really careful about the safeguards we build into this kind of legislation. As I said earlier, it's really important that we consider that even though we're all wanting to achieve a place where—oh, I've run out of time. Thank you. Hon GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I'd just like to pick up on the point in and around the purpose of this to make sure that we don't want people in gangs. And a big part of that is concerning, particularly in relation to parts of rural New Zealand, and this has been used quite often by the Government. We don't want to return to situations where gangs are able to take over our streets and take control of communities and stop law-abiding New Zealanders from getting to do their daily work, and we agree on that. But part of that is having the police resource to be able to do that and to be able to make sure—so we do know that Police received about $107 million less in the last Budget than they did the one before that. And so, in terms of some of those rural police stations that were shut down under the last National Government, there's actually information I've received that there will be more closing down. So we know we've heard that there are potentially more rural police stations, over the next few months, that are going to close as a result of lack of resourcing. I've been provided with the names of those stations, but I'm not going to use them right now until we can find out a little bit more about that. Maybe the Minister can enlighten us as to whether there's been a Cabinet paper that proposes to close more rural police stations around New Zealand. The worry would be, for those stations in parts of New Zealand where we know we have high numbers of gang members, whether there will be a police presence able to, in fact, enforce this legislation. Because I would go so far as to say that it would be irresponsible of this Government to promise to New Zealanders that this legislation will, in fact, deliver a restoration of law and order if with one hand they are taking away a gang patch and with the other hand they are closing a police station, because that would seem to be counterintuitive to the purposes of what they promised at the election and what New Zealanders are expecting them to deliver. Maybe the Minister can speak to that, because I do see that there are quite big parts of this legislation that appear to be cosmetic, that are good window dressings, that enable the Minister to be able to stand up like he did in the House yesterday and say that he's putting gangs on notice and that we will no longer tolerate this kind of disruption to our communities. And that's great. But to be able to deliver on those types of promises, you also need to resource the police service. And there are some very real concerns amongst police officers that there is insufficient resourcing provided by this Government to enable them to enact the new powers that legislation, such as this, will be providing our police officers. So I would be really interested to hear from the Minister whether he has further information to enlighten us about further rural police stations in New Zealand closing, whether some of this is in relation to the $107 million less that police received under his past Budget, and whether there's any view to providing additional funding for those parts of New Zealand that may no longer have a police station or even a police presence but do have a significant number of gang members, because it would be quite hard to put gang members on notice if there's no cop there to do it. And it would be quite hard to issue dispersal notices and remove gang patches if there's no front-line police officer paid and resourced to be able to be there and doing that work. I think that by introducing legislation like this and using pretty tough language in terms of how this will have an impact on law and order in New Zealand, he's given New Zealanders a high bar of expectation about the outcome of what this bill will deliver in terms of safety in our communities. And it may be detrimental to his own reputation if there are resources locally that people have seen and expect to exist and those are disappearing at the same time as greater expectations are being put on our front-line police officers. So if the Minister has any further information that may reassure us that this talk will be followed through with resourcing and ability for enforcement to do the work, I'm sure New Zealanders would be very keen to hear that. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): Thank you, Madam Chair. I would make the point that, of course, in the broader context that all New Zealanders will be aware of a very difficult Budget environment where—even notwithstanding all the many savings that my colleague Nicola Willis made on behalf of the Government—New Zealand will still be running a very substantial deficit of around $13 billion this year. So in that context, one of the areas where the Government did choose to invest more was—alongside health—with additional resources to the police and for 500 extra police officers. So yes, we do agree that the response, in terms of restoring law and order, is about increasing the chances of being caught and held to account—is an important part of it—and ensuring that police have extra resources is part of the message. That is why we did do that. Of course financial support is part of the issue. Also, moral support for the police is important, which is why we were so distressed yesterday with the implication or the question posed by the Greens that police are more of a menace to society than gangs, or could be regarded as such, and we didn't think that was at all appropriate. The police do their very best to put sometimes their bodies and lives on the line to defend public safety, and they should be backed and encouraged and supported, not compared with gangs in dark alleys. So that is why we have backed up this legislation, which makes a contribution to giving the police extra tools to deal with gangs, with extra resources for the police and moral support for the work that they do. TĀKUTA FERRIS (Te Pāti Māori—Te Tai Tonga): Kia ora, tēnā koe e te Pika. I have a few reflections and bits of clarity for the Minister of Justice to consider. One is around the power of association and public perception, because whenever I hear the gangs legislation and the gangs kōrero brought up by the Government, we're always talking about the Mongrel Mob or Black Power, which are, naturally, gangs that are associated with high Māori membership. But it doesn't really take into account that the majority of gangs in this country are actually gangs that have no Māori association with them at all. In fact, there's a long list—probably the longest list of gangs, or that sort of crowd, is the outlaw motorcycle groups. So when are we going to hear about them and when are we going to go after their patches, you see? The perception is the thing that I'm talking about—how this House presents its case or its ideas around getting tough on gangs to the public. I think we could do a lot better. It, unfortunately, spills out of both sides of this House. Whenever we hear about the gangs, we always hearing about a gang tangi—wanting to disrupt a gang tangi—or worrying about the gang whānau. You know, the subtle insinuations that this is all a conversation about Māori, and Māori being the problem of gangs in this country—it really needs a little bit of balancing out, I think. If the Minister is really keen on what the Government does in terms of how we really address the problem—because this is dropping the hammer on them, no doubt about it—if we really want to see gangs gone, then we have to address the intergenerational nature of gangs in this country, and address things like my mate Tamatha over here keeps bringing up, like poverty, lack of opportunity, economic marginalisation, and all of those things. I talked about the Māori Battalion the other night, and economic marginalisation was born, for Māori, right there, back in 1950. So how are we going to address those things? That's what I want to know. I appreciate all of the intricacies of the bill and all of its bits and pieces, but how do we get over the national problem, yes, but also a level of stigmatisation of te iwi Māori that shouldn't be acceptable and we should do better. Less than 0.5 percent of the Māori population are involved in gang activity. It's a minuscule amount. Yet anyone listening to this conversation through the media would think that half of them were in a gang. So kia kaha—kia kaha—let's do better in that regard. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): Well, I agree with many of the sentiments that the previous speaker Tākuta Ferris made. Government Ministers have been very careful not to imply at all that gang membership and gang intimidation across the country is intimately linked with Māori. Indeed, I've pushed back very hard against many of the assumptions in many of the papers that I've received, actually, from the Ministry of Justice saying that this will disproportionately affect Māori and we shouldn't do it, or we should consider that in the context of the Treaty. The point I've made is that the vast majority of Māori are not involved in gangs, but it is true that Māori are more likely to be victims of crime than New Zealanders, and so, like everybody in New Zealand, Māori have a great stake in restoring law and order and dealing effectively with the scourge that is gangs in our community. Of course, not all gang members are Māori, and of course this legislation is focused on all gang members no matter what their ethnicity, so I absolutely agree with that. I also agree that we have to deal with the broader social challenges that we face. That, indeed, is the purpose of much of the Government's legislation and work. If you wanted to see where the evidence for that is, I point towards the Budget, which is very much focused on restoring a growth plan, dealing with the cost of living challenges that many families across this nation deal with. One of the drivers of that, of course, has been the rapid rise of the cost of living and inflation, and the Government can have a contribution to that by spending very unwisely. That's why we've tightened up our spending: so as to reduce inflation, so as to reduce interest rates, so as to take pressure off households. That's why we're very much focused on educational achievement. That's why we're very much focused on a more effective housing policy. I can go on at great length about that. There are many things that I think we can agree on as part of issues that we as a country need to address, and I'd encourage that member and his party to support some of the work that we're doing to make progress in that area. So I very much agree with many of the sentiments expressed there. HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE (Te Pāti Māori—Hauraki-Waikato): Tēnā rā koe e te Pīka, otirā tēnā rā tātou e te Whare. E tū ana ahau ki te waha i ētehi kōrero, ki a au, e hono anō hoki ki tōku whānau, waihoki ki Te Pāti Māori. [Thank you, Madam Chair. Indeed, greetings to all of us in the committee. I stand to give voice to some comments, to me, that are connected to my family, and also to the Māori Party.] I have a few questions, and I've also had a few relevant experiences recently that I think the Gangs Legislation Amendment Bill will heavily impact within my electorate and within my community, and actually within my whānau. One of the first questions I have for the Minister of Justice is: what measures does the Minister have in place to mitigate Māori profiling? Another question is: how will the Minister ensure police discretion is used in a way that doesn't disproportionately discriminate against Māori? And then, in clause 3 of the bill, there is "reasonable grounds". What is the definition of "reasonable grounds"? Some of these relevant experiences happen to me. As an MP, the bigger picture of all of this is that, actually, I think I will be probably one of the most impacted MPs from this bill, within my community of Rāhui Pōkeka. Every two weeks, I will probably get pulled over for no reason. There is absolutely no reason why young Māori are getting pulled over in the streets of our communities. We are not gang members. We have no affiliations to gang patches whatsoever. But this is the racial profiling that happens consistently within our communities. Ever since October, when I moved to Wellington part time, I've never ever—me and Tamatha have similar situations. We're both young women from the Waikato, places like Huntly and Tokoroa, and when we come to places like Wellington with our flash suits and our flash get-ups, we're not once pulled over by a police officer for no reason. As soon as I get back on my flight tonight, I have fear or anxiety of getting pulled over for no reason—no reason. And there are so many experiences that I could share, but I don't want to, because it's not for this place to hear about, because it could be quite traumatic. And I'm not trying to victimise myself or profile ourselves, but these are the experiences that we face on a daily basis growing up in places like Huntly, like Tokoroa, like South Auckland. Recently, I've been attending tangihanga throughout my electorate, and I want to know from the Minister: what is the process of tangihanga now with this bill? Sixty police officers to a tangihanga, throughout Hauraki-Waikato, in rohe like Hauraki, Ngāruawāhia, Whatawhata, having armed checkpoints with M4s, and then on burial day having an Eagle helicopter circling the urupā of a cemetery as karakia commences, as they lower the caskets of their loved ones. We have witnessed an enormous amount of police cars showing up at streets to marae to checkpoint at tangihanga. I would really like to seek clarity from the Minister: does this mean this bill now gives the authority to interfere in tikanga Māori, such as protocols, cultural considerations, and tangihanga? And please bear in mind that some of these tangihanga are not gang-related at all—they are not gang-related at all—some of these tangihanga that I'm talking about. I have asked these questions to the Minister of Police also and haven't had a follow-up. So it's not like i taka nō te rangi noa iho [it just fell out of the sky]. Consistently we have seen these events happen within our communities, through the Māori electorate seats. Another pātai is: if gang members are a part of tangihanga, how is that going to work? And, on an even more personal note, it was only last week that one of my relatives passed away, and he was part of a gang. The police and the community worked collectively together with the whānau pani and community to have a tangihanga that worked sufficiently throughout the community. I took the time to actually look around at the tangihanga at that time and think, "How is this logistically going to work? Is every single member in this tangihanga going to get arrested? Am I going to get arrested because I'm a part of this tangihanga?" These are some of the logistical questions that we want to have answers to at a bigger scale with tangihangas happening. Now, this happened as soon as this Government came into power. This didn't just happen recently; this happened as soon as this Government came into power. We have had multiple hui with whānau who have actually a really good relationship with local police officers. Now, I know this may not be in the scope of the Minister of Justice's portfolio; however I do believe that these kaupapa align. They have a very good relationship with local police; however, when tangihanga like this have been happening recently, in the few months that it has been happening, they have been told that they're getting clear direction and indication from Wellington, from this place here. They are not wanting to interfere in tangihanga with the M4s, with helicopters, but these are police officers who are from outside of our local respected electorates coming into our town. Now, I'd also like to add, if I get the time— CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): You can keep going. You've got the floor. HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE: I would also like to add that in my community, it's where the police officers actually come to train. So in Huntly, in South Auckland, police officers are coming in big multitudes and coming to train in our communities. They have no idea what we go through. They have no idea who this community is. They just go for the biggest Māori population with the biggest crime rates, come in, mess it all up, and then go home. I don't want our communities to get into gangs. I completely tautoko that. I don't want anyone to commit crimes; we're clear about that as Te Pāti Māori. But we have to remember that gangs came from the abuse of this State. They came from this House, and we heard that last week. So I want to understand what the Minister is going to do with the questions that I have kātahi anō ka whakawhārikihia e au ki runga i te aroaro i a tātou i tēnei pō [just laid before all of us this evening] on the many different relative experiences that we face in our communities like Tokoroa, like Huntly, like South Auckland, throughout the Māori seats. Tēnā rā tātou. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I'm going to call the Hon Dr Duncan Webb, but just before I do, I just want to make a comment. I've heard a couple of comments in the House about select committee. Yes, we have select committees and yes, we have readings either side of those, but this is actually a committee of the whole House where not everyone in the House has had the opportunity to be at the Justice Committee. Part 1 of this bill is quite broad around the purpose and the definitions and the intentions, and so if someone has or hasn't been at select committee at this point, there's an opportunity to ask questions, so I just want to make that very clear. Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Kia ora, Madam Chair. After that very good speech, I would perhaps bring the focus a little more narrow, because I do want to actually just talk about the definition of "gang insignia", because it's probably done a disservice to this legislation to call it "the gang patch ban" It's actually much more than that, because the definition of "gang insignia" in the bill here, in clause 4, I think, "means (a) a sign, symbol, or representation commonly displayed to denote membership of, or an affiliation with, or support for a gang, not being a tattoo;" Now, I accept the kind of legislative dilemma facing the Minister wanting to cast the net wide and not allow all the small fishes through, so to speak, but there's a real danger here that we end up banning a whole lot of things that aren't actually part of the purpose, because the purpose, which we've talked about, is to stop intimidation. The things that are intimidating are those signs, insignia, where people see it in the street and think, "Crikey! That's one of those dangerous gang members.", whereas a lot of what would be captured here—"a sign, symbol, or representation commonly displayed to denote membership … or affiliation"—actually, to a person in the street, wouldn't have that effect. A really good example are bandanas. In some gangs, blue and red bandanas denote different street gangs. Now, they are commonly used. The very purpose for which they're being worn is to denote affiliation with the Bloods and the Crips or whatever it might be. Don't quote me on the exact affiliations, but that red bandana means nothing to a person simply walking down the street. They don't look at a red bandana and think, "That's one of those dangerous Crips or Bloods."—maybe it's the Bloods. The other thing is this: there's a habit or a course of conduct in West Los Angeles of using sporting paraphernalia. So different baseball caps, in particular, signify which gang you belong to. Now, if it turns out that a Crusaders cap or beanie means you belong to a particular gang, then it falls within "gang insignia", even though an ordinary person on a street wouldn't necessarily look at a person and know. Who would know is a member of the gang or a member of a rival gang; that's actually why it's been worn—to show that tribalism. So my Amendment Paper on the Table suggests that—and it might be that it needs a bit of work, but we've got time to do this; I'm not sure we'll get through all of this bill by 6 o'clock today, but I've suggested adding in the word "and understood". So "gang insignia means (a) a sign, symbol, or representation commonly displayed and understood". And it might need "widely understood to denote membership", because, at the moment, a lot of those insignias aren't widely understood. They're still insignias. They still denote and they're intended to denote affiliation with a gang, but they aren't widely understood to do so and, therefore, don't fall foul of the purpose of this bill, which is to be intimidating. To put it in the wider context, this is a free-speech infringement. The Attorney-General's report makes it clear that the banning of gang insignia, in this global way, is, in her view, "an unjustified limitation on the right of free expression in New Zealand." So when we come to say what it is, we should narrow it down as much as we can, as is consistent with the actual purposes of the Act. So I'd be interested in the Minister's response. And, as I say, these are not trivial amendments. The bill's come out of committee, it's still got work to do on it, as his own Amendment Paper shows, and this would make it more workable and more consistent, in my view, with his own purpose. So I'd be interested in his response both to this Amendment Paper and I don't think he's responded to my earlier one on the definition of "associated persons", so it'd be good to hear that. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): I just wanted to respond to the earlier speech in relation to the impact of this legislation on predominantly Māori communities. I want to make the first point that the suggestion was that since this Government had come to power, a message from Wellington had a direct impact on police decision-making about where to put the helicopter or to turn up to particular events. I want to assure that member that of course the operational activities of the police are, by law, independent, and no Minister would ever seek to direct the police and how they go about those prosecutions and activities. In terms of the broader question, also in relation to different communities, certainly our expectation is that this legislation will be enforced without any reference to ethnicity but focused on the purpose, which is to reduce the ability of gangs to operate and cause fear, intimidation, and disruption to the public. Non - gang members, of course, will not be directly affected by this legislation. But what we are focused on through this, as part of a much wider programme, is to reduce the number of victims of crime. Again, the communities that that member referred to often, sadly, include many victims of crime across the board. So, naturally, the police are very active in those communities, but as they should be throughout the country. So it's certainly our intention that all legislation in this country will be prosecuted without regard to ethnicity, but on the basis of the law as it stands. JAMES MEAGER (National—Rangitata): I move, That debate on this question now close. LAN PHAM (Green): Tēnā koe, Madam Chair. I really want to thank you for letting me take this call tonight, particularly for those of us who you mentioned earlier have not been part of the select committee process. I'm particularly happy to be part of questioning the Minister in this case, because, as far as I'm aware, in looking at the evidence and research around the issue of gangs in this country of Aotearoa, it seems like we've come a really long way in terms of understanding what actually drives people to join these gangs, to stay in them, and how they leave or how it's very, very hard to leave. We know that that is a very complex web of historic trauma, including abuse in State care, which has been so clearly spelt out today and in the past week. We know it's poverty. We know it's cycles of incarceration. Now, I'm really concerned—and I'd love to hear from the Minister—about how this bill is not actually going to unravel the really positive progress that has been made over the past few years and actually addressing the intimidating behaviour and organised crime by gangs, that we don't want to see, across the House. We've heard that there's been really positive collaboration between gang leaders, between police leadership, and between Government leaders, in terms of finding meaningful solutions to address this. So I really want to get to the pragmatics of the bill. Clause 3 in the bill, which sets out the purpose, is the most glaring start of where the pragmatics are not clear. I want to pick up, firstly—and I'd love to hear from the Minister—in clause 3(b), we're noting that it's saying that we want to reduce the ability of gangs to operate and cause fear, intimidation, and disruption, but the methods of how and what that will actually look like on the ground are unclear. So I want to pick up firstly on subclause (b), where it says, "providing for the issue of dispersal notices to stop gang members from gathering in public places". I'd love to hear what feedback the Minister has actually had from police about their ability to prevent gang members from gathering in public places, what do the police have to say, and how has that fed into the bill here. I'd also love to hear what feedback he's had from police, again, about how they might be able to implement the non-consorting orders to prevent gang members from associating or communicating with each other. Now, this leads to the subclause (c) part of it, because this seems quite an arbitrary time period here, where they will provide "for the making of non-consorting orders to prevent specified gang offenders from associating or communicating with each other for 3 years." Firstly: why the three years? This seems incredibly arbitrary. How on earth would this actually be monitored and how would this be implemented? I'd love to be enlightened about that from the Minister. Thank you. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice): There are details that we will come to in further parts in the debate that we have, but it did strike me as odd that the member referred to progress that we've made over the past few years in terms of gangs. She is obviously not aware that there has been a 50 percent increase in gang membership over the last six years, and that's not the progress we want to see. We've also seen an increase in violent crime in our community by 30 percent, and that is not an increase we want to see. So I think she might be overestimating the progress that has been made. So we're concerned about the significant increase in gang membership. This legislation, in part, is set out to try and rectify that. In terms of the non-consorting orders, well, I'll come to that detail when we come to that. Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you. As we do draw slightly closer towards the end of the day, I'm hoping the Minister will be able to answer a number of the questions that I've asked. Because although he made—and I can't complain about the quality of the answer, but he referred to the sticker of the car being taken off. I have to accept that's answered in part, but it didn't really address the genuine issue, which is that when there's an insignia on a piece of property that can't be removed, how does that work with confiscation? He hasn't, though, addressed the other three questions that I have, which were—the one around the gang insignia is a really important one because it's central to this bill. So I'd really like him to address the question of the breadth of the definition of insignia and the fact that it captures pieces of clothing, bandanas, jewellery, and, in fact, many, many—an unlimited range of things. So that's the first thing I'd really appreciate if he would address. The other thing which may seem technical but is actually really important—and I know he's got his advisers there and so they will have an answer for him. If the answer is, "Oops, I'll get on to that.", that's fine, I get it—it's a technical piece of legislation—but it's the "named person" point. He hasn't addressed the named person point and he really should, because this is exactly what the committee of the whole House is for: it's to go through the legislation to identify gaps, or apparent gaps. To seek the Minister's assurance as to whether or not that exists; or that the assurance that he'll fix it; or to point out that it's a woeful hole and the Government doesn't know what it's doing. It's one of those three things. I'd appreciate an answer. Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a question of clarification from the Minister regarding the definition. There are a number of questions I have around the interpretation clause 4 of Part 1. So the first one I would like to ask the Minister is with regard to the definition of immediate family. Now, in subclause (a) and (b) in terms of immediate family, (b) lists a whole list of what could be considered immediate family; however, I would like to draw the Minister's attention on (a), which is around "culturally recognised". So when we're looking at the term "immediate family", one of the few instances that then comes up later in the legislation, which I'm sure we will get to at some point, is around clause 15(a), which is around "A dispersal notice may not prevent any … persons". So going back to the definition of immediate family, I wanted to know from the Minister how would one define "culturally recognised", and, more importantly, who would be the kind of person that determines what is considered to be culturally recognised when it comes to dispersion? So the reason I ask this is because for me, for example, as Chinese, we consider immediate family to be much broader than just spouse, child, immediate siblings. My first cousins are intimately part of my immediate family but are not one of the listed possibilities—so in this case whether cousins would be considered as culturally recognised. And the reason I ask this is because of the key word that links between subclause (a) and subclause (b), which is "and". So I wanted to know whether both could exist at the same time as an and/and situation. In which case, would subclause (b) be non-exhaustive as a list, which it is not clearly indicated. So if we're able to, first of all, have that clarification from the Minister, that'll be very much appreciated. In addition to that in terms of the definition of immediate family, I alluded to the fact that when we are looking at that and what is considered culturally recognised, let's paint a scenario of a family having a family gathering in a public place. A constable gets there and then says that the dispersal notice needs to be issued, but then realises later that this actually falls under the criteria of immediate family. Would the constable in that situation then need to actually approach the family and ask each of the members what their relationship is with each other? Would that fulfil under the requirement of immediate family, in which case a dispersal notice would not be issued? So if that is the case, when they go around to ask the relationship with immediate members, you're going to get situations where, yes, there is going to be people who are going to be spouses, there are going to be children, there are going to be siblings, and there may potentially be what would be considered under some cultures broader family connections like first cousins, like second cousins, but within the context of that particular whānau, within the context of that particular grouping, they're considered to be immediate family members. So in this case, when we're looking at asking that question and the constable having a chance to speak to the group and asking those kind of questions, whether the constable will then be satisfied at the response from the family at face value or there is going to be more in terms of documentation that needs to be produced as a part of that. So the two questions that I would like to clarify from the Minister is (1) how would one determine culturally recognised in the context of the definition of immediate family; and (2) when the event happens, who will then determine whether they have achieved the definition of immediate family? Progress to be reported. House resumed. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Mr Speaker, the committee has considered the Gangs Legislation Amendment Bill and reports progress. I move, That the report be adopted. Motion agreed to. Report adopted. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 6 August 2024. Have a productive weekend. The House adjourned at 5.56 p.m.