Parliamentary debates: Tuesday, 30 June 2026

14:00

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

14:01

I seek leave to move a motion without notice or debate regarding the Venezuelan earthquakes.

Is there any objection to that course of action? There appears to be none.

I move, That this House send its condolences, on behalf of the New Zealand people, to all those who have lost loved ones and livelihoods in Venezuela as a result of the recent earthquakes; note the New Zealand Government’s contribution to international humanitarian efforts to respond to the earthquakes; and note that the New Zealand Government stands ready to consider any further requests for assistance from affected countries, as the full impacts become clear.

14:02

Three petitions have been delivered for presentation.

• Petition of Caitlin Hoy requesting that the House urge the Government to require Pharmac to allow Sodium Valproate to be prescribed for 12 months and dispensed for 3 months for long-term, stable epileptic patients
• petition of Tony Gore requesting that the House allow pensioners to keep more of their New Zealand superannuation, accommodation supplement, and other supplementary benefits when family members reside with them
• petition of Valencia Ngadi requesting that the House increase penalties for offending by children under 14 and urge the Government to provide better support for victims of youth crime.

Those petitions stand referred to the Petitions Committee.

Ministers have delivered six papers.

• Crown Infrastructure Delivery statement of intent for 2027-30
• 2026-27 statement of performance expectations for:
  • Crown Infrastructure Delivery
  • Natural Hazards Commission
  • New Zealand Infrastructure Commission
  • Real Estate Authority, and
  • Takeovers Panel.

I present the following reports of the Audit Office: 2026-27 annual plan, and the inquiry into the Healthy School Lunches Programme. Those papers are published under the authority of the House.

14:03

Eight select committee reports have been delivered for presentation.

• Reports of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee on the:
  • review briefing on the 2024-25 annual review of Research and Education Advanced Network New Zealand Ltd
  • review briefing on the 2024-25 annual review of the Accreditation Council
  • review briefing on the 2024-25 annual review of the Broadcasting Standards Authority
  • review briefing on the 2024-25 annual review of the External Reporting Board, and
  • review briefing on the 2024-25 annual review of the Retirement Commissioner
• reports of the Justice Committee on the:
  • Arms Bill
  • English Language Bill
• report of the Regulations Review Committee on the briefing on the activities of the Regulations Review Committee in 2025.

The bills are set down for second reading. The review briefings and briefing on the activities of the Regulations Review Committee are set down for consideration.

14:04

The Clerk has been informed of the introduction of five bills.

• Courts (Remote Participation) Amendment Bill, introduction
• Post-settlement Governance Entities (Exemption from Jurisdiction of Māori Land Court) Bill, introduction
• Climate Change Response (Tort Liability) Amendment Bill, introduction
• Community Magistrates Legislation Amendment Bill, introduction
• Building Amendment Bill, introduction.

Those bills are set down for first reading.

to the Prime Minister

Does he stand by all of his Government’s statements and actions?

Yes.

Does he stand by his Government’s claim that it “will champion the hospitality sector and support it to grow” when hospitality company liquidations are at their highest level on record?

Yes, and that’s why we’ve got a major events fund, and that’s why tourism’s up 9.2 percent.

How does sending $6.3 million of taxpayers’ money to a French tyre company help the cafes and takeaway shops that are going under in record numbers under his Government’s leadership?

Well, I know the Labour Party’s never really cared about tourism, but, actually, on this side of the House, we do. What we discover is that there’s a whole bunch of people out there in the world of 8 billion people who are foodies. They like to come and travel the Michelin Guide. Isn’t it fantastic that New Zealand has a Michelin Guide and Australia doesn’t? And that’s driving more tourists to New Zealand, who are spending more money in our bars and restaurants. That’s a great thing.

Will it be Kiwis filling the tables at the restaurants his Government is paying to promote when four out of 10 households have cut back on eating out over the past year—the biggest drop ever recorded—because they can’t afford to?

Well, it will be Kiwis working in hospitality because of the efforts of this Government to make sure we drive tourism and hospitality. That’s why we have a Minister for Tourism and Hospitality. It’s the first time ever that’s ever happened. But that’s actually going to be Kiwis working in those places, able to drive their incomes up, and able to have jobs. That’s great stuff.

So if all that’s working so well, why are a record number of hospitality businesses being liquidated?

Well, I just would note: the member may not have caught up with the latest outstanding news, which is the ANZ business confidence is up 27 points, just as we were coming into this House, up to a high of 37. That just means fantastic things. The business confidence is up, and good times are ahead for New Zealand.

Can he name a single struggling cafe saved from closure by the $1.4 million his Government has spent on its crayfish stargrazing campaign?

Well, I just say to the member: we are very proud of the progress we are making on tourism and building it back from pre-COVID levels. The other thing I just say to that member is: just remember who locked down hospitality businesses in Auckland for longer than they needed.

Is the Prime Minister looking forward to the Ministry for Regulation’s recommendations to cut red tape after consulting hundreds in the hospitality industry who say that with less compliance costs, they can spend more time building their businesses and less time tied up with stupid rules?

Yeah, and I appreciate the work of the member on making sure we deregulate the economy so we can get growth back into it.

So why is he proud of a record number of hospitality businesses going into liquidation and four out of 10 Kiwis saying they can’t afford to go out to a restaurant?

Well, I’m proud of the efforts of this Government to restore tourism and hospitality, as a sector, as a driver of growth. One in four of our jobs are tied to trade. Tourism is probably about our second-biggest export earner. It’s fantastic that we’re getting out in the world. We’re promoting New Zealand, we’re talking up New Zealand—not talking it down, like that member—and we actually see tourism up over 9 percent. We see international education up over 11 percent. We see export growth to the world up over 9 percent, and services exports to the world are up over 10 percent. Isn’t it great that we now have a trading surplus for the first time in five years, where we export more to the world than we import in? In April, in the middle of a fuel crisis, we had a record in New Zealand of $2 billion in April. Those are great things, and the member should just lose the sad-sack appetite and actually celebrate what’s a great success.

to the Prime Minister

why are you not paying far more attention to the questioner, who, after all, knows something about shutting down business for four long months in Auckland?

Well, that’s exactly a good point the Minister raises, which is that it was that member’s Government that actually kept Auckland hospitality businesses—

Yeah, that’s it—

out of operation—

No—that’s it.

—for months longer than they needed to be.

Hang on! That’s enough. Thank you.

to the Prime Minister

can he confirm that the latest ANZ New Zealand Business Outlook today shows that business confidence has jumped 27 points in the previous month, with employment intentions positive across multiple sectors, including hospitality, and that these figures preceded the sharp fall in oil prices mid-month; and does this tell us that we are building a better future?

Absolutely. I’d also say to the member that we just have to look at the 0.8 percent growth in the last quarter in the GDP growth numbers, because we had growth in nine of our 16 sectors. We had manufacturing up almost 2 percent; we had business services up over 1.1; retail and accommodation up over 1.2 percent; wholesale trade up 2.4; and exports up 3.1. They are all job-rich sectors. That’s a good thing.

So if it’s all going so well, for the third time: why are a record number of hospitality businesses going into liquidation?

Well, this Government is doing all it can to actually help hospitality businesses get off the floor after that member locked them up four weeks longer than they needed to be.

14:10 · to the Associate Minister of Education

What recent reports has he seen on school attendance?

A wonderful report, from these numbers—since this Government’s been in place, we have actually been reporting, every day, the number of children that went to school. This stands in stark contrast to earlier times, when a Minister of Education was actually hauled before the Privileges Committee for not revealing that information, and, in the end, was actually let off on the grounds that the Minister didn’t actually know what the facts were. We are now, every day, reporting the number of students that show up. Members might be interested to know that, this term—term 2, 2026—so far, on every day bar two, which were on either side of King’s Birthday, we have seen better attendance than term 2 in 2025. This fits a pattern where every term bar one since this Government has been in place, we have had better attendance than the term before. This is for a number of reasons, but, more than anything, it is about the value that New Zealanders put on education and their willingness to get to school, even when we are told by some that high fuel prices will prevent them doing so.

That was a very long answer. I’m sure that the Minister will be a little more concise.

Will the Government reach its goal of 80 percent of children attending school for more than 90 percent of the term by 2030?

Yes, I am confident that the Government will reach that goal, based on the progress, year on year, term on term, that has been made so far. It’s particularly interesting to look at the level of data that we have now, which is showing us much greater insights into attendance than we previously had. For example, there are 54,245 children who, had they attended just one more day last term, would have reached regular attendance, or 90 percent of the time. Now, if they’d done that, then we actually would have reached not 68.8 percent of children regularly attending but 75.5 percent—very close to the 80 percent. The reason I highlight this is that we have so many children—54,000-plus—who are right on the cusp of regular attendance, and that is a good example of why every day counts.

What steps are being taken to improve attendance?

Break school lunches!

I beg your pardon?

School lunches.

Well, it is absolutely true that school lunches are a good reason to go to school—

Just wait on. Don’t respond in question time, while you’ve got a question in front of you, to an interjection over here. I’m sure—

Can I just have a little go?

That was a patsy question. He’s allowed to answer patsies from the Opposition.

I’m sure you can work it in, but if they really want an answer, they should be asking a question.

Well, just going back to the question I was initially asked—

Oh, no, no—deal with the patsy!

Ha, ha! I think her name’s Ginny, but anyway. The Government has increased expenditure on school attendance by $140 million over four years. That has allowed us to significantly increase the investment in the attendance service. But we don’t believe, on this side of the House, that simply throwing money at a problem is the same as actually solving it. We have also re-contracted the attendance services after the Education Review Office’s review found that they were not performing, in many cases. We have also legislated for attendance action plans at every school, and put in place the Stepped Attendance Response scheme, in order that every school has a plan to get every student at school—and back to school, if they’re not attending.

Why is it important for kids to keep going to school in the last week of term?

I’ve heard, anecdotally, that there’s been some very busy days of late at Auckland Airport. It is tempting for people to take advantage of the last week of school and go somewhere sunnier, or perhaps somewhere where there might be a world cup on. That is not a good enough reason to miss a day of school. There are people who need to be there every day because every day of lost learning is a lost opportunity for their future and a lost opportunity to be able to do those sorts of things more in the future. There’s 365 days a year, school is barely open 180 days a year, that leaves another 185 days to do everything else you want to do in life. And so people should be at school in this last week of term, because, as we saw in Vancouver just this Saturday, you can be doing pretty well for most of the time, you don’t want to let it slip through your fingers in the last minutes.

14:15 · to the Prime Minister

E tautoko ana ia i ngā kōrero me ngā mahi katoa a tōna Kāwanatanga?

[Does he stand by all of his Government’s statements and actions?]

Yes.

Has the Prime Minister read the recent Ministry of Housing and Urban Development report that states, “Across most areas, the number of people living without shelter was reported to be increasing over the last six months.”?

What I’m aware of is that we have a good record in housing, where we see housing affordability the best it’s been in a long time; we see rents stable and decreasing; we see the housing wait-list that went up four times under Labour now down about 6,000; we see, I think, about 2,400 kids out of emergency motel accommodation; and we see a Government that’s doing a lot of effort—a lot of investment going into homelessness.

Record homelessness.

They’ve moved into housing—2,000 kids are in houses.

Just a moment—just a moment. The Hon Chris Bishop, questions are heard in silence.

Has the Prime Minister visited a city mission or social service on the front lines of homelessness since he became Prime Minister; and if so, when and who?

If you put the question in writing, I will give you an answer that way. [Interruption]

Chlöe Swarbrick, and no one else.

When, if ever, will the Prime Minister respond to my multiple invitations to walk the streets of Auckland Central to meet the people, including the children, who his policies have made homeless?

Well, I think it’s a bit rich from that member, whose colleague was the Minister for homelessness, and it went up 37 percent; and you spent a billion dollars on emergency housing, to stand up now and actually talk and pretend that you care about it, because you don’t—it was one of your biggest policy failures in the previous Government. This Government is cleaning it up. Homeownership: more affordable than it’s ever been; rents: more stable; people off the social housing wait-list, which these clowns—

No, hang on—woah.

—drove up four times.

I just suggest to—[Interruption] Hang on. I’m speaking; no one else. I just suggest that members answering questions need to consider Speakers’ ruling 205/5—well worth a quick look at it—because answers to questions that begin like the last one do lead to disorder.

What would the Prime Minister say to the woman who turned up to my electorate office last week, who the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) had turned away knowing that she was therefore likely to sleep rough over the weekend?

Well, I’d say that I’m sorry to hear about that, but I am very determined, as a Government, to make sure we are doing everything we can to deal with the issue of homelessness. I just ask the member to stop and reflect on what we have done. Since we saw the issue in October, we have put $10 million of additional funding in place; we’ve had 177 enter new transitional housing; we’ve had 1,500 support activities. By Auckland Council’s own count, from September 2025, there were 940 people across the whole of Auckland they considered homeless; by January it had fallen to 706; and, in March, it’s 586. If people need assistance, are in genuine need and need assistance, MSD and our support services are there to assist and to help. That’s why this Government spends $550 million a year with agencies; that’s why we spend $5.5 billion on the accommodation supplement.

Can the Prime Minister please confirm that in the most recent Homelessness insights report, now on the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development website, Auckland Council and reputable community housing providers like Kāhui Tū Kaha have all confirmed that the number of people sleeping rough in Auckland has come down considerably over nine months, correlated with the time we announced those 300 Housing First places?

Yes. We made 300 social houses available through Housing First; 289 of them are actually filled. We have transitional housing to the tune, I think, of over 5,800, and we’ve got 91 percent utilisation rates. We have transitional housing available. People who actually apply for emergency housing—MSD may well assess that they are better off in a social house, in a transitional house, in a private rental with rent arrears payments, and other mechanisms as well. It just may not be that a motel is the best place for someone to end up in. If we can get them into housing, that’s a good thing.

Will the Prime Minister commit to not rushing through the move-on orders law in the two weeks when it returns from the select committee and the House rises before the election, given that none of the parties of Government campaigned on this policy, and the overwhelming expert, social services, business associations, and public opposition?

We’re going to carry on with move-on orders, because they deal with a public safety issue; they deal with disorderly behaviour and antisocial behaviour. We want to make sure that New Zealanders feel safe going into their cities across this country. We don’t want them being intimidated. We don’t want people blocking doorways. We don’t want threatening behaviour. That’s what move-on orders are about. As I’ve said to the member before, in the same way we were criticised by the Opposition over gang patches—that it wouldn’t work—our police are plugged into the social services. Every single homeless situation is different. It is complex, as that Government found out last time, driving up homelessness 37 percent. I just say to the member: we will continue to support people who are rough sleeping, and I’m proud of the fact we put $10 million in. The initiatives are working, and, as a result, we’ve got another $14.5 million rolling out in the last month to expand it to six other locations across New Zealand.

Does the Prime Minister expect that the onset of move-on orders will make it safer to move about the Auckland Central electorate, particularly after dark, when people want to enjoy the many good things it has to offer?

Absolutely. This is about public safety and public security; making sure disorderly, disruptive, threatening behaviour isn’t happening, and that’s important. We want all New Zealanders to be able to get into their cities and feel safe doing so.

14:22 · to the Minister of Finance

How is the Government planning to lift economic growth and productivity?

New Zealand’s economy was recovering and growth reforms were beginning to gain traction before recent events in the Middle East. Since coming into office, the Government has delivered or progressed more than 100 actions across the five pillars of Going For Growth. Those include Investment Boost, rewarding firms for capital investment in growth; fast-track approvals, supporting thousands of jobs and developments across the country; the India free-trade agreement (FTA), supporting growing exports; reforms to vocational education; and major investment in infrastructure and advanced technology. Recent GDP figures show the economy grew by 0.8 percent in the March quarter—more than twice Treasury’s Budget forecast, and faster than growth in Australia or the US—while business investment rose by 3.7 percent and exports increased by 3.1 percent. Those results show the Government’s growth agenda is unlocking economic momentum, with New Zealanders now beginning to see their hard work translate into stronger growth, higher investments, and more job opportunities.

What actions has the Government taken to make it easier for businesses to invest and grow?

The Government has moved quickly to remove barriers holding back investment and economic activity. That includes passing fast-track legislation, introducing Investment Boost to lower the cost of capital investment, extending 90-day trials to all employers, repealing mandated sector-wide employment agreements, and progressing reforms to the Holidays Act and health and safety laws. We’ve also strengthened competition settings in the banking and electricity sectors, because more competitive markets help lower costs and drive innovation. These changes are about making it easier to build, invest, hire, and grow in New Zealand.

What progress has the Government made on trade and investment?

The Government has prioritised reconnecting New Zealand with global markets and capital. Since taking office, we’ve signed a free-trade agreement with India, concluded an FTA with the Gulf States, advanced implementation of the UAE trade agreement, and strengthened trade relationships across Asia and Europe. We’ve also introduced newer Active Investor Plus settings to attract more international capital into productive New Zealand investments. That matters because export growth, capital investment, and international connections are critical to lifting productivity and wages over the long term. It’s also worth noting that the latest ANZ New Zealand Business Outlook showed a 27-point positive jump in business confidence, and, notably, most of the lift actually preceded the sharp fall in oil prices mid month.

What is the Government doing to lift long-term productivity and skills?

The Government is focused on creating the conditions for business and workers to become more productive over time. That includes investing in job-rich infrastructure; strengthening capital markets; encouraging greater business investment in technology, plant, and machinery; and improving education and workforce skills. We’re reforming vocational education through new polytechs and industry skills boards; introducing an hour a day of reading, writing, and maths in schools; backing advanced technologies and science and innovation through initiatives like New Zealand’s first AI strategy. Recent GDP figures showed strong growth in manufacturing, wholesale trade, and business investment—all positive signs that more productive parts of the economy are beginning to recover and expand. The Government’s view is simple: stronger productivity is the key to higher wages, more resilient businesses, and a more prosperous country with more opportunities for every Kiwi.

14:26 · to the Minister of Finance

Kam na mauri, Mr Speaker. Does she stand by all her statements and actions?

In context, yes.

Is unemployment better or worse compared to when she took office?

The member knows very well that the New Zealand economy has been through a very difficult recovery in which unemployment has increased.

Are growth forecasts better or worse compared to when she took office?

The most recent forecasts which the Treasury provided at the Budget and Economic Fiscal Update show growth accelerating through the forecast period, reaching a high of over 3 percent, and averaging 2.3 percent over the forecast period.

Is the number of KiwiSaver hardship withdrawals higher or lower compared to when she took office?

While there was an increase in those withdrawals, I’m very pleased to report to the House that the latest data shows the first drop in hardship withdrawals in the most recent data.

Are business liquidations higher or lower compared to when she took office?

Business liquidations obviously relate to a number of factors. One of the factors that has driven many businesses into liquidation is the fact that the last Government, during its COVID response, chose to defer tax payments that eventually became due, and it is IRD’s advice that that approach was ultimately harmful.

Are Kiwis better or worse off in real terms compared to when she took office?

It’s a fact that people’s circumstances vary, and it is of course the case that some New Zealanders are suffering from worse circumstances than they were three years ago. It’s also the case that some New Zealanders are facing much better circumstances. I think of the families whose children are going to school now and getting a programme of structured literacy and numeracy, and getting real reports about what their children are achieving at school; I think about the people who are waiting less time for their elective surgery or emergency operations; I think of the New Zealand Police, who are stronger in numbers and are better equipped with better sentencing laws to ensure that criminals go to court; and I think of the New Zealanders who suffered double-digit inflation in food prices under the last Government’s watch, who’ve watched those numbers come down. I could go on, but question time is not a time for lists. But thank you for the patsy.

Has the finance Minister got any historic evidence that business’ or workers’ futures would be better off if Labour was in office?

No, that’s not something that she can reasonably speculate on.

Sorry, I said historic—

Wait on, don’t argue. I’m just saying it needs to be a brief response.

The evidence is clear they would be a lot worse off. Inflation would be higher, interest rates—

No, no. See, there’s the problem—there’s the problem. A simple answer would have been “yes”.

14:29 · to the Minister for Infrastructure

What updates has he seen on the fast-track approvals scheme?

14:30

The Government’s fast-track regime is delivering. I’m pleased to inform the House that we’re on track to see around 50 decisions from expert panels by the end of the year. Fast track was designed to get important projects moving faster, create jobs, boost growth, and help tackle our infrastructure, housing, and energy challenges. Twenty-two projects are currently before expert panels, with decisions due over the coming months; another seven projects are undergoing pre-panel checks; and 55 projects are currently progressing through fast track at various stages.

What evidence has he seen that fast track is delivering better outcomes for New Zealanders?

Around 8,900 homes have been approved for fast track so far. In terms of renewable energy, 400 megawatts of new generation capacity has been consented—that’s equivalent to almost 5 percent of New Zealand’s current generation—and that powers around 160,000 homes. Fast track is helping us deliver more homes, more renewable energy, more infrastructure, and, indeed, more opportunities for New Zealanders, helping us to build the future.

What evidence has he seen that fast track is not a short cut around proper planning?

Well, fast track has never been something that short-cuts things. The scaremongering has been quite interesting. Projects have been approved, with robust decisions, and projects that have not met the threshold have not received approval. I’ll give you one example, and this is Rangitoopuni, an iwi-led housing development in north-west Auckland. It has received the 2026 New Zealand Planning Institute Best Practice Award for statutory planning. It was also a listed project in the fast track Act. It moved from concept design to a consent approval within 10 months. It just shows that the naysayers are wrong: we can balance the economy and the environment.

What other pieces of feedback has the Minister seen showing the robustness of the fast-track process?

Let me point the House to two examples. Dentons made the point last year—it’s a leading law firm—that fast track is operating and decisions are being made quickly, “but the front-end work is still intensive.” But the front-end work pays off in the end, because the average time to make a decision is 117 working days, which is far quicker than traditional consenting processes. Law firm Cooney Lees Morgan also noted, “The Act offers a fast track through standard consenting processes, but it’s not a short cut.” Fast track is delivering for New Zealanders, and long may that continue.

Has Rachel Brooking from Dunedin—who’s very high up on the list—who’s been shouting out during all your answers, produced one fast-track idea since she’s been here?

No, that’s—[Minister Bishop rises to his feet] No, no, no, let it go—thank you. No answer there—you’ve got absolutely no responsibility for anything that some other politician here in the House does.

14:33 · to the Prime Minister

E tautoko ana ia i ngā kōrero me ngā mahi katoa a tōna Kāwanatanga?

[Does he stand by all of his Government’s statements and actions?]

Yes.

What is the purpose of the Conservation Act?

Well, we know the purpose. It’s to make sure we look after our iconic conservation across this great country of ours, but we also need to balance it with doing the right thing economically, because that’s ultimately also how we preserve that conservation.

Can he confirm that the Conservation Act defines “conservation” as “the preservation and protection of natural and historic resources for the purpose of maintaining their”—

Well, why did you ask the last question, then?

—“intrinsic values, providing for their appreciation and”—

Why did you ask the last question?

I’ll just wait till the dude stops talking.

Yeah, I think—

Point of order, Mr Speaker. That questioner, in her last question, asked about the purpose of the Act and then got up and explained what the question was in the first place, and she’s just wasting Parliament’s time.

She’s ultimately wasting her own time and her own questions.

I’ll start again. Can he confirm that the Conservation Act defines “conservation” as “the preservation and protection of natural and historic resources for the purpose of maintaining their intrinsic values, providing for their appreciation and recreational enjoyment by the public, and safeguarding the options of future generations”, and, if so, can he explain how giving greater weight to economic use is consistent with this definition?

In answer to the first leg of the question, yes.

Does he agree with the deputy leader of New Zealand First that “there are a host of projects beyond Schedule 4 lands that can be and should be opened up for industry”, and, if so, can he confirm that these lands include conservation parks and ecological areas?

I’m not responsible for what the Minister for Resources says. What I’d just say to the member here is that we are making sure that we actually engage with the sector, we engage with the NGOs, and we make sure that we get the balance right between the environmental outcomes—we want strong and enduring conservation outcomes—as well as making sure we also support greater economic development in the estate, too.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it an appropriate response for the Prime Minister to claim to the House that he is not responsible for comments made by his own Ministers?

I think, in the context of the question that was asked, I personally understood what the Prime Minister was trying to say, but it is reality that the Prime Minister is responsible for all actions of the Government.

The question was about the deputy leader of New Zealand First.

You said, “the Minister”.

Oh, whoop-de-doo!

Do your job.

All right—

Hang on—hang on. One person has the floor at the moment—the Hon Marama Davidson.

Will the Prime Minister assure New Zealanders that our precious places are safe by maintaining their protection in legislation instead of just asking us to trust him?

In answer to the first leg of the question: yes.

What is the purpose of the public conservation estate; to generate revenue for the Crown or to protect the precious places that New Zealanders love?

We want to make sure we can do both. We can actually have strong and enduring conservation outcomes while also supporting greater economic development, and that’s why the Minister is in conversation with the NGOs, with sector leaders, and with iwi as well.

14:37 · to the Associate Minister of Housing

Does he stand by his response to being asked if he was comfortable with managers being individually assessed on whether or not emergency housing targets were met in their region, “No. That would be something that I’d ask the chief executive at MSD about”; if so, has he had that conversation?

I stand by my statement, particularly in the context it was made, and noting that the CEO of Te Manatū Whakahiato Ora, the Ministry of Social Development (MSD), has the operational responsibility for human resources (HR) and performance management at the department. I’ve spoken with the CEO—

Stop using Māori words.

—to confirm that she has—

Sorry, just stop there. This is a fairly important question. The member asking the question knows how important it is. His own colleagues should at least be quiet to hear the answer.

I stand by my statement, particularly in the context it was made, that the CEO of MSD has the operational responsibility for HR and performance management at the Ministry of Social Development Te Manatū Whakahiato Ora.

Don’t use those Māori words.

I’ve spoken with the CEO to confirm that she has that operational responsibility.

Winston doesn’t like those words.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. Twice while the Minister was answering the question, we heard the Opposition calling out “Don’t use Māori words”. The exact people who would be offended if anyone didn’t use Māori words are now taking offence at people speaking te reo Māori. What’s the problem?

What’s your point of order?

His point of order is a valid one, in actual fact, and it touches a nerve with me because after once being very publicly criticised for using te reo Māori, apart from what I’ve just said, I’ve never used it again. We’ll move on.

When did that conversation occur?

That conversation occurred yesterday by way of phone call.

Did he request the CEO of MSD to remove the threat of performance management if MSD staff admit people in need into emergency housing?

No, we confirmed who has the operational responsibility for human resources and performance management issues. Shortly thereafter, Te Manatū Whakahiato Ora also confirmed the massive reduction in the numbers of children living in emergency housing, from over 3,000 in December 2023 to circa 400 today. I call that progress.

Why, when he has stated he is not comfortable with Ministry of Social Development staff being threatened with performance management if they admit people into emergency housing, did he not ask for that criteria to be removed?

In the context of the full and comprehensive kōrero in which this statement was taken, I am clear that the operational responsibility for human resources and performance management sits squarely with the CEO, the tumu kaimahi, of the Ministry of Social Development.

Point of order. Sir, Speakers’ ruling 181/5 makes it very clear that even where there is no legal responsibility on a Minister, they are responsible to the House to answer to the actions and decisions of Government departments they are responsible for.

Yes, that’s true, but I don’t think that the answer that was given by the Hon Tama Potaka in any way stepped aside from that. He said, in a conversation, that he had established with the chief executive what the various roles were.

Is Jill Hawkey from Christchurch Methodist Mission wrong when she said there is a “perverse incentive to actually keep people out of emergency housing.”?

Jill Hawkey from this Methodist Mission in Christchurch is entitled to her own opinions. What I can observe from a range of commentaries and observations is that there has been a significant decline in those people in households—and children living in emergency housing—and also a significant decline in people sleeping rough in various cities around New Zealand, particularly in Auckland.

Will he now admit that front-line providers were right all along when they’ve said that people in genuine need are being denied emergency housing just so the Government can claim that it’s met its target?

A number of front-line providers have absolutely been energised by the type of support that this Government has given, particularly around immediate access to transitional housing. The Housing First 300 kaupapa that Minister Bishop and I recently announced, in September 2025, has resulted in 694 people coming out of a very difficult rough sleeping situation and into the Housing First places. I call that progress.

14:42 · to the Associate Minister of Housing

Does he agree with the Ministry of Social Development’s use of performance measures that assess managers against emergency housing grant targets?

I agree with the statement that I’ve given in a previous answer: the Ministry of Social Development’s (MSD) CEO, the tumu kaimahi of Te Manatū Whakahiato Ora, has the operational responsibility for human resources and performance management issues at that agency.

Point of order. This is the same point I made earlier: this was a question on notice, and simply having the Minister respond saying that the CEO of MSD has operational responsibility is neither meeting the requirements for a response to a primary question nor meeting the requirements under Speakers’ ruling 181/5.

Well, look, Ministers are answerable to the House for operational matters, even when there’s no legal control over them, because only a Minister can answer to the House. If they don’t have the details on hand, then they should say they don’t have those details on hand. In this case, the Minister did say that he was comfortable with the operational arrangements that he then went on to speak of, and that’s a statement about his position in all of that. If a Minister does not have the information about an operational matter, they should just say so because they do remain the only voice to answer that question in the House.

What response has he received from the chief executive of MSD regarding whether managers are individually assessed against emergency housing grant targets?

As I mentioned earlier this afternoon, the CEO of the Ministry of Social Development has confirmed that she has the operational responsibility for human resources and performance management issues. I’m also aware of some reports that have said that people do not lose their job on the basis of one particular matter that’s used in the performance management arrangements.

Has he received any advice that assessing managers against emergency housing grant targets could discourage emergency housing grants for eligible people?

I’m not aware of that.

What evidence does he have that these performance measures have improved outcomes for the 525 people, including 102 children, who were homeless in the Far North in 2025?

I want to acknowledge those hard-working, diligent, and professional kaimahi at the Ministry of Social Development for the work that they have been doing to support New Zealanders, particularly those in housing need. There are some severe and challenging situations with people in Northland and, indeed, in a range of rohe, regions, places, and towns in New Zealand, and this Government has sought to make sure that there’s adequate financial and other support in place to support those people with housing need. For example, the many hundreds of millions of dollars that have been put into transitional housing, rapid rehousing, Housing First, and a range of other pathways to support those in housing need. And of course, just recently, the $14.5 million that has been provided for outreach in Auckland, Hamilton, Wellington, Christchurch, Tauranga, Whakatāne, New Plymouth, Palmerston North, Wanganui, and Waimakariri.

Can the Minister confirm that the Far North is specifically identified by the Government’s housing investment plan as an area for future growth, reflecting the real housing need in the Far North?

Yes, I can confirm that. I can also confirm that over the last 10 years, nearly half a billion dollars has been committed to the building of social housing, transitional housing, and a range of Māori housing providers, including Te Aupōuri—which the member opposite recently was the kaiwhakahaere of—Ngāti Kahu ki Whangaroa, Te Hau Ora O Ngāpuhi, Te Pouahi, Te Rarawa, Ngāti Kurī, and a range of other providers.

Therefore, how does he reconcile those performance measures with Housing First reporting that around half of unhoused people in Te Tai Tokerau have already waited between two and three years for permanent housing?

That’s exactly why I’m absolutely committed to supporting those Māori housing providers and others who have been contracted to deliver literally hundreds of homes in the Tai Tokerau region. We acknowledge those efforts of people like Te Hau Ora O Ngāpuhi up at Bisset Road in Kaikohe, one of the most impoverished places in the entire country, who are currently building 100 homes to ensure that we have the accountability across those providers who have been given contractual commitments, who have been given money to deliver in a timely and appropriate manner for those whānau—Māori, Pākehā; all New Zealanders—in need.

14:48 · to the Minister of Health

What recent announcements has he made regarding funding uplifts for primary and community services?

This Government is backing front-line health services across New Zealand with funding uplifts for the providers who care for patients in our communities every day. In recent weeks, we have announced: a major $120 million funding uplift for general practice, which has received overwhelming support from the sector with 86 percent of GP clinics voting in favour; a $33 million boost for community pharmacies to strengthen access to healthcare closer to home; a $12 million funding uplift for hospices to support end-of-life care services across New Zealand; and a funding increase worth approximately $79 million for the aged residential care sector, to support the care of older New Zealanders. Together, these investments demonstrate this Government’s commitment to strengthening healthcare, improving access to services, and ensuring front-line providers have the certainty and support they need to deliver for their patients.

Why is the Government investing in primary care and community pharmacies?

Well, we understand that strong healthcare in the community forms the foundation of our health system, and that is why we’ve delivered a major funding uplift for general practice and a further funding increase for community pharmacies. Local doctors and pharmacists are often the first people New Zealanders turn to when they need healthcare. They help diagnose illnesses earlier, manage long-term conditions, provide treatment closer to home. The uplift will also continue funding to treat common conditions in the community for children and their families, for pain and fever management, oral rehydration, and common conditions such as scabies, head lice, and conjunctivitis. By investing in primary care and pharmacies, we’re making it easier for New Zealanders to get timely care in the community.

What support is the Government providing for hospices and aged residential care providers?

This Government is also backing the providers who care for some of the most vulnerable New Zealanders. Recently, we announced a major funding uplift for hospices across the country. That’s because every family deserves access to compassionate, high-quality care during some of life’s most difficult moments. This funding will support hospice staff and volunteers to continue doing their extraordinary work supporting patients and their loved ones with dignity and compassion at the end of life. This uplift sits alongside a separate investment to establish a nationally consistent specialist paediatric palliative care service for children with serious illnesses. We’ve also agreed a funding uplift for aged residential care providers. This uplift will help providers meet growing demand, support weekend admissions, and continue delivering the care that tens of thousands of New Zealanders and their families rely on every day.

What feedback has he received on these funding uplifts?

There has been positive feedback to these announcements. The general practice uplift was supported by 86 percent of GP clinics across New Zealand, with General Practice NZ acknowledging this as a “substantial investment in general practice”, and the General Practice Owners Association seeing this as a “historic moment for general practice”. Hospice New Zealand has also welcomed their sector’s uplift, stating that “This isn’t simply more money being allocated based on existing Government investment, which we’ve seen in the past. It is targeted investment designed to improve sustainability, strengthen access, and move us toward more consistent services for hospice patients.” Whether it is GPs, hospices, aged residential care providers, or community pharmacies, this Government is backing the front-line health services that New Zealanders rely on.

14:52 · to the Minister for Tertiary Education

Does she stand by her statement, “Having the confidence to build and strengthen your team is important, especially when many businesses are doing it tough right now”; if so, why did she limit the Apprenticeship Boost?

In answer to the first part of the question, yes. Which is precisely why this Government is focused on growing the economy to create more jobs and better incomes for New Zealanders. In answer to the second part of the question, Apprenticeship Boost was among the many funding gaps left by the previous Government. In the 2024 Budget, this Government reinstated funding for Apprenticeship Boost; we made it permanent and we targeted towards high-growth economic areas and to address skill shortages. Early-stage apprentices were identified as having a higher risk of unemployment during challenging economic conditions, and changes were designed to better target support to those most in need.

How does the reduction in the number of apprentices help set New Zealand up for the future?

Under the previous Government, Apprenticeship Boost did increase apprentice numbers. However, many of those additional learners have now withdrawn. We saw, during those years, a significant decline in credit completion rates. Credit completion rate rates were down at 67 percent; they are now up at 86 percent. Retention rates have also increased under this Government. So simply pouring more money in and getting worse results is not good use of public funding.

How did cutting Apprenticeship Boost in half help reduce workforce shortages?

Well, I have noted already that this Government did not cut Apprenticeship Boost. This Government reinstated funding for Apprenticeship Boost.

Is she surprised that the number of young people not in education, employment, or training (NEET) reached 100,000 under her watch, given that her answer to everything is to reduce opportunities for young people?

Well, there are a number of initiatives, across a range of portfolios, including the Ministry of Social Development and the Ministry of Education, things like Youth Guarantee, things like Apprenticeship Boost, which we saved, and a number of other initiatives that support young NEETs for getting into employment. And of course, the wonderful work that has been done by the Minister of Education, ensuring there are vocational pathways, will have that pipeline of young people to go into apprenticeships.

Can the Minister confirm that Budget 2023 cut off funding for Apprenticeship Boost, with zero dollars provided for the scheme in the 2025 and 2026 fiscal years; and that, therefore, Budget 2024 rescued Apprenticeship Boost by providing funds to continue it into the out years and ensure that it was baseline funded for the future?

Of course, it was it incredibly disturbing to find that no funding had been allocated for beyond the end of the 2024 year, and so I was very proud of the fact that this Government reinstated the funding, made it permanent, and made it targeted to those in need.

How can you, as the question asks, inspire confidence to build and strengthen your team if you just stare blankly into the television and bobble head next to your party leader, as Shanan Halbert did over the weekend on TV?

No, sorry, that might be terrifically amusing for the member, but it’s not the sort of thing that we should have taking up time in question time.

Does the Minister agree that having a young person in an apprenticeship is better than them not being engaged in education, employment, or training; and, if so, why did she cut the Apprenticeship Boost scheme?

Point of order, Mr Speaker. There is a very clear requirement on members of this House that we not make statements that are misleading or intended to mislead. That member has had repeated opportunities to correct his statement that this Government cut funding for Apprenticeship Boost. I have two documents with me, which I am happy to table for that member because he is misleading the House. This Government reinstated funding for the Apprenticeship Boost scheme that his previous finance Minister had cut funding for—

That’s enough. It is an unfortunate point that, in the nature of these things, a member can make incorrect statements, but if there is a problem with that, there are remedies for the member to pursue through the privileges arrangement. Does the member wish to table some documents?

Yes, I seek leave to table some documents

Leave is sought. Is there any objection to that course of action?

When leave is sought to table documents, a brief description of the documents should be provided.

They were provided before. That’s why I didn’t say it. [Interruption] Whoa, listen—for a start, can I just say to Government members that, when a very good answer was being given before, it was practically drowned out by what you might think was helpful commentary from behind. Similar, to the other side of the House, there was no attempt, really, to hear how the question was being answered. I will now ask the member, please, to describe very fully exactly what’s in those bits of paper.

Mr Speaker, I am happy to do so. Listen up: the first is an excerpt from Budget 2023, which details the initiatives and the funding, and clearly shows funding for Apprenticeship Boost—

It’s publicly available.

Point of order.

No, I’ll hear this first.

—ceasing in the 2025-2026 and 2026-2027 fiscal years. The second is a document from Budget 2024, delivered by this finance Minister, which shows the Apprenticeship Boost being rescued, with funding being provided in the 2024-2025, 2025-2026, 2026-2027, and 2027-2028 fiscal years. This Government boosted Apprenticeship Boost—you cut it.

And all of that is already publicly available. We’ll go to question 12—Suze Redmayne. [Interruption] Suze Redmayne and only Suze Redmayne.

Supplementary, sir. Sorry, point of order.

Oh, make up your mind!

I know. It’s the season we’re in. Everyone’s very jumpy. Control it!

Does she accept the number of apprentices in this country supported by Apprenticeship Boost dropped by over 10,000 as a result of her underfunding?

We are certainly focused on ensuring that we have a strong economy. The economy is growing. We have brought discipline back to Government spending. We have got inflation down, which has brought interest rates down. It is a growing economy that provides jobs for apprentices, and we are very proud that we are growing the economy.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave for the member to have another question.

You can’t seek leave on behalf of another member.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. My question—[Interruption]

Sorry, just wait. Your own side are making so much noise it’s unbelievable.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. My question—

I haven’t said go yet. I haven’t called you. We’re going to have quiet.

15:01 · to the Minister of Agriculture

What recent reports has he seen on the forecast for New Zealand’s food and fibre sector?

15:02

The Situation and Outlook for Primary Industries June 2026 release has forecast the food and fibre sector to break new records over the next year. Export revenue is forecast at $64.3 billion for the first time; dairy is up 5 percent to $28.6 billion; meat and wool, $14.1 billion, a new record; horticulture, $9.5 billion—of which kiwifruit is a stand-out—a 16 percent increase, to be near 5 percent exports for the first time. The primary sector is forecast to be 82 percent of our goods exports, 12.4 percent of employment in New Zealand, and 15.3 percent of GDP. On behalf of every member of the House, including the Green Party, can I thank our farmers for their hard work.

How has the sector been performing over the last four years?

Well, exceptionally well—more production as they feed the world. Exports overall are up $17 billion in the last three years. We are on track as a nation to double the value of exports in 10 years, and the primary sector, this year, exported $60 billion for the first time. Our UK free-trade agreement (FTA) has seen an increase of 79 percent over the three years, predominantly through the primary sector—meat up 38 percent and dairy a significant 58 percent. The EU FTA has been worth $3 billion extra of exports to New Zealand in the last two years—again, from the primary sector—and we will hit $23 billion of exports to China this year, with $19.2 billion from the primary sector. We’re even seeing an increase in beef exports to the US. There are 360,000 jobs, or one in seven people, employed by the primary sector as a result of the hard work of our farmers and growers.

What has the Government been doing to back the sector?

Well, the EU FTA entered into force more quickly than we had predicted or were told it would. The United Arab Emirates (UAE) FTA: 98.5 percent of our exports were tariff-free on day one, and we’ve seen almost a 37 percent increase in exports to the UAE in that period of time. Of course, the India FTA will have 95 percent tariff reduction or elimination and be very good for New Zealand exporters across the board, particularly many primary sector exporters. In regulatory reform, we have restricted full farm-to-forest conversions, with $109 million announced in the Budget to combat wilding pines. We’re replacing the Resource Management Act with better intensive winter grazing rules and better rules when it comes to farm water storage, and, in particular, we announced $40.5 million over four years of certainty of funding for rural catchment groups, as we back the sector to produce more, meet their environmental and climate obligations, and to feed the world.

How has farmers’ confidence changed over the past two years?

Three years ago, when we came to Government, a Federated Farmers survey showed that confidence levels amongst our farmers were at a record low of minus 66 percent. Over the three years since then, we’ve seen it increase to plus 38 percent, a significant achievement. Some of this is because, two or three years ago, the primary industry sector was facing unworkable He Waka Eke Noa rules—a ute tax; costly and unnecessary red tape. Many of them were being called villains. The National - New Zealand First - ACT Government has been good for the primary sector, and, I reflect, a Labour - Green - Māori Party Government would be a disaster for all of New Zealand.

That’s not appropriate, so just withdraw the last part of that answer.

I withdraw the bit that’s inappropriate.

Is the Minister aware of the continuing surge in the strong white wool prices—the new white gold—and has he made any recent announcements around further supporting growing value for New Zealand wool?

Yes, I am aware of the significant improvement for wool growers in New Zealand in their returns. The member who just spoke, Associate Minister of Agriculture Mark Patterson, has responsibility in that area. We are seeing farmers who grow wool now making money, whereas three years ago most of them were losing money. We are seeing the use of wool not only in buildings in New Zealand—for instance, in State homes that we’re building, and parts of this building itself, and towards rural schools. Mr Speaker, did you know that the Parliament of India has carpet in it and that carpet, the wool, comes from New Zealand? The announcement the member mentioned is the Fieldays—with the Hon Mark Patterson, we announced $8 million for the sector to find new and higher-value uses for wool so that not only can it be resilient but those farmers who work very hard—on behalf of all New Zealanders—themselves will remain resilient.

That concludes oral questions.

15:07

Members, I’ve received a letter from the Hon Kieran McAnulty seeking to debate, under Standing Order 399, information that the Ministry of Social Development’s staff performance is measured on the number of people in their region who receive emergency housing grants. This is a matter of particular recent occurrence for which there is ministerial responsibility. Emergency housing is an important matter; however, it is not a new matter. For as long as I’ve been here, this has been a matter that regularly comes up. I’ve listened very carefully to the two questions that were asked in the House today, and answered by the Associate Minister of Housing, and concluded that I do not think it’s reached the point of urgency that warrants setting aside the business of the House today to debate it. The application is declined.

15:08

Before we proceed further, I want to raise the issue of amendments in committee of the whole House. At present, members are free to lodge as many amendments as they wish. Presiding officers rule on whether they are relevant, serious, in the proper form of legislation, and on their relationship to previously agreed positions.

Recently, we have seen numerous amendments on some bills, which has led to hours of voting. Parliament’s time is limited and best spent on debate, rather than voting. We already have a very fast party-voting system, but hundreds of amendments take hours to deal with. They place considerable pressure on the presiding officers and clerks to check they are in order. I would encourage members to produce amendments that propose important amendments that they wish to see in legislation. If the House is overwhelmed by amendments, it is likely that we will see some Standing Order changes, and I would not like to see undoubted right of members to propose amendments curtailed.

Having said that, committee stages are always going to proceed slowly when substantive Government amendments are released on the day that the bill is in committee. Members need time to analyse the proposed changes and, when they wish to move amendments, are likely to present them clause by clause. They do not have time do anything else. I encourage Governments to release amendments as soon as they are drafted. That is likely to lead to more constructive engagement in the committee of the whole House process.

Substantive amendments late in the legislative process, where there is no select committee scrutiny of them, is not desirable. It suggests the policy process was not completed before the bill was introduced or the select committee was not given sufficient time to consider the bill. To be clear, these types of amendments will always lead to longer committee stages as members deal with new material they’ve only just seen.

I occasionally hear members discussing notional time limits for committee stages. That has never been a rule or practice of this House. The size and content of a part, the willing engagement of Ministers in answering questions, and the factors I’ve mentioned previously determine how much time will be spent on a part.

I encourage all members to take a reasonable approach in committee of the whole House, with a view to focusing on the bill and serious amendments to it in a way that gives all members time to consider the legislation in front of them.

We’ll take a short break while those who have to leave the House can do so.

15:11

Point of order. Thank you, sir. I raise a point of order in regard to the guidance you’ve just provided the House, and waited for the time period for members to leave in order to raise it. Quite a substantive piece of guidance here, but a couple of questions that I have for clarity. First of all, it seems to me the content of that does not lend itself to a new Speaker’s ruling but just simply what already existed in guidance to the House. Is that correct?

15:12

That is correct. There’s a number of Standing Orders that can be referred to. I would particularly suggest members look at 315, which I think was largely introduced post the legislation that was put through around Auckland governance some time ago. What I had intended in that was not to do anything other than remind members that the point of being here is debate, not voting. I’m hoping that people will see that and take it on board. Certainly, I would not want to see any curtailing of the right that members have to introduce amendments. By the same token, that right, particularly with some of the tools that are available to members these days, needs to be balanced against the rights of every other member in this House to participate in the legislative process through debate rather than hours sitting here voting.

15:13

Speaking to the point of order. Thank you for that, and you’ll note we—well, I haven’t challenged the content of it. I think it is entirely reasonable and, as has now been pointed out, consistent with Speakers’ rulings. I just thought it was important to note that it is guidance that already exists. For clarity, in future committee of the whole House stages, if presiding officers were to refer to this in that vein, rather than pointing to it as a new ruling—that is important. We will take on board your guidance around the number and scope of amendments and also linking that to your guidance to the Government around when their amendments are lodged.

Yeah, that was a fairly important aspect of what I had to say today. I think, also, you can expect that presiding officers, guided by the Office of the Clerk, will be perhaps a little more willing to go down the letter of—I don’t want to say “the law”—the intended Standing Order.

15:14

Point of order. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I just want to follow up from the previous speaker, just looking to seek some additional clarifications from you. I do believe that in terms of what you mentioned, as we note in Standing Order 315, particularly paragraph (3), there are already mechanisms for the committee of the whole House to be able to group amendments as well, or judge the amendments based on relevance to the bill. I particularly note what you mentioned earlier on in terms of that balance between the ability for any Opposition to be able to scrutinise a bill fully versus the Government side releasing an Amendment Paper during committee stage.

However, I do want to seek your guidance that, when we do look at—and this is something that has been traversed in the House. When the Government is able to unilaterally, essentially, decide when things go under urgency or an extended sitting and is able to take up more of the House’s time, as Opposition MPs there are very few to no opportunities for us to be able to fully scrutinise and to be able to challenge the Government on that ability to use urgency and extended sittings. I just want to seek your guidance in terms of what you think the balance would be there, in terms of the ability for any Opposition parties, present and future, to be able to hold any executive members accountable, as is our right as a legislature, versus the way that the Government has been able to, I guess, sometimes bypass that goodwill to trigger urgency and extended sittings.

15:16

Well, in the case of your assertions around the way in which urgency is taken, I disagree with you, because it is the legislature, this House, that decides on urgency. Now, our democratic process might determine how members are likely to vote on a motion like that, but, in the end, it is the House that determines what time will be granted to urgently consider the bills that might be in any urgency motion.

The second point is that the right of the Opposition—or the role of the Opposition, in fact—to question and to hold it to account is not being challenged. What I am making clear is that the Standing Orders do protect the integrity of bills that are before the House and that amendments must be consistent with the purpose of the bill, and there is also the issue around effect. There are two words that will be most prominent in the consideration of presiding officers on future occasions, and those will be both the word “effect” and the word “grouping”. None of that will be about trying to stop people doing things, but, by the same token, it might be ruling on the admissibility of a particular set of amendments.

15:18

I move, That the House take note of the declarations of inconsistency: extended supervision orders under the Parole Act 2002 and public protection orders under the Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Act 2014.

We are here to debate the declarations of inconsistency relating to the extended supervision order (ESO) and public protection order (PPO), as well as the Justice Committee report on the declarations and the Government’s response.

It is important for us to recognise the critical public safety role that these regimes have. Both the PPO and ESO are preventative measures designed to manage the risk of reoffending from serious sexual or violent offenders when they reside in the community. The orders are put in place once the offender finishes a prison sentence or returns from overseas. They are only applied to offenders with a high or very high risk of serious reoffending. An ESO can be similar to parole conditions and can restrict where the offender lives or require that they are monitored in person 24/7. A PPO is more restrictive; it authorises detention in a secure facility on prison grounds, potentially for life.

Right now, officials are reviewing the legislation in response to multiple reviews of it, not just the Supreme Court’s declarations; but also, in September last year, the Government tabled its response to a Law Commission review on ESOs and PPOs. That review proposed fundamental reform, including repeal and replacement of the current measures because they do not capture all the public safety risks that these offenders pose and do not fully address rehabilitative and other rights.

The two declarations that we’re debating here today were also issued by the Supreme Court in September last year. In its first declaration, the Supreme Court found that PPOs are inconsistent with the freedom from a second penalty for the same crime, which is enshrined in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. In its second declaration, the Supreme Court found that the parts of an ESO that amount to detention, such as restrictions on living conditions, are also inconsistent with the right to freedom from a second penalty.

The court also said that if either order is applied based on offences committed before the orders existed—in other words, retrospectively—the inconsistency can never be justified. A declaration of inconsistency is a formal statement by the court that an Act is inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. It does not affect the validity of an Act. What it does is signal that the court considers that the Act infringes on fundamental human rights in a way that is not justified in a free and democratic society.

I would like to thank the Justice Committee for its report on the declarations, and members of the public who made submissions during the process. The committee recommends the repeal and replacement of ESOs and PPOs with a single-tiered preventative regime. This was based on the Law Commission’s report on preventative measures.

The committee provided principles to guide that work, including the central principle that ESOs and PPOs should protect the community from further harm. The committee also recognised the value of any substantive response to the declarations being part of the existing work responding to the Law Commission’s report.

Following the committee’s report, the Minister of Justice and I tabled the Government response to the declarations in the House on 8 June 2026. As stated in the response, the Government agrees with the Justice Committee that more work is needed to be done so we can decide how to react to the declarations. I acknowledge that measures that detain offenders beyond their finite sentence are a significant intrusion on a person’s liberty, but there is no doubt that ESOs and PPOs are necessary to protect the public from serious sexual and violent offending. As I’ve said, the offenders subject to them have high or very high risks of reoffending but can no longer be held in prison.

The Supreme Court, the Justice Committee, and the Law Commission pointed out—and I agree—that preventive measures are an important part of the justice system, given its objective of protecting the public. The legislation governing PPOs and ESOs is complex and multifaceted, and, as it is worked through, I expect it will consider the declarations and the recommendations of the Justice Committee and the Law Commission’s report. I support the legislative change to get these public safety measures right. I recognise that to get it right, it will take time, and we will need to be sure that any changes we make do not compromise public safety.

The question is that the motion be agreed to. I’ve just been advised that there is a split call on this particular call—the honourable Vanushi Walters.

15:23

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a great privilege to rise in the House today and speak in what is a very constitutionally significant debate. This is only the second time that we’ve had a declaration of inconsistency brought to the House, and I had the great privilege of speaking on the first one, which came to the House last term courtesy of Make It 16, who brought their case to the High Court. So it is a pleasure to speak to it.

I did also just want to acknowledge the Hon David Parker for his work in terms of shepherding the legislative change and the changes to the Standing Orders to essentially create this bridge between the courts and the House, and ensure that where there’s a finding of a breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, the House is actively turning its mind to whether we want to retain those provisions in law or not. The mechanisms here are that the select committee considers the issue and reports back. That’s what we’re debating today. As the Minister of Police mentioned, the executive also responded, and I have read through the executive response, which was tabled in the House on 8 June.

I did just want to flag my nervousness about the executive response in that it does signal, as does the select committee report, that there is need for change and an overhaul of the entirety of the system, bringing it together into one Act but retaining, largely, those powers. There just doesn’t seem to be a sense of urgency in terms of the need to do it, and let’s remember that we had a Law Commission report that was released publicly last year in April. The Government has had plenty of time to look into, in my view, what is a serious finding of a breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, and in a serious context: we’re talking about people who have served their sentences and now are being held and/or monitored in terms of the preventative approach. So, comparatively, if you look at the two declarations, my view is that this one requires a more urgent response from the Government than the one we considered last term, because of the nature of the circumstances and the individuals who are affected on a day-to-day basis.

Going to the decision, this is a fascinating decision in that the decision itself, by a majority, was in four parts. The first part was in relation to the non-detention aspects of the extended supervision order (ESO), and on that front, the court actually found that both the prospective and retrospective application of non-detention prevention mechanisms was justified; so it’s not the retrospectivity on its own that the court had issues with. However, they did find with the public protection order regime, and the detention authorising part of the ESO, that the prospective use of that was currently not justified because of the way in which it was being used, so it’s possible for the Government to address that. But interestingly, the part that the Minister referenced as well is that the retrospective aspects of that detention could never be justified in law. And so that is a space where if the executive wish to maintain that, they will, in essence, be saying that while this can’t be justified in law, it can be justified via the political will of the executive in Parliament as it is, which is an important distinction to make.

In terms of the recommendations that the Law Commission put forward, there are about 149 of them, but they sat within four parts, and the Justice Committee really echoed a need for us to move those forward. That includes a three-tiered model that the court could impose, ensuring that the least restrictive measure is used to manage risk first, and that it is preventative, not punitive; that there’s access to therapeutic justice for those individuals; that the court gives notification at sentencing that a post-sentencing order may follow—so that indication is there as well—and, finally, that the court, not the Parole Board, sets the measures and conditions that are relevant. So we agree with those.

Just as a final thought, I do wonder whether the House is giving sufficient attention to an issue of such importance, and whether, going forward, the House may consider something like a human rights select committee to both consider these declarations as well as section 7 reports themselves.

15:28

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s always a pleasure, obviously, to take a call in this House, but this particular debate is on a relatively unusual point of law. I just want to acknowledge, to start with, that the reason we are debating this is because of legal action taken by Mark Chisnall. This is an individual who was convicted of very serious offences. Often, when we are discussing issues like this, I think it’s important to note that we are discussing a balance of rights here. But the reason that this individual came to the attention of the courts was because of some very serious offending against children and the very serious risk of his reoffending.

I think it’s important to note that when the Parliament initially passed the bill in question that became law, there were serious issues around reoffending for some of these serious offenders. I think it’s important to note, and I don’t think anyone in this debate would minimise the seriousness of that individual’s offending, and, obviously, when we’re discussing this bill, we will be also looking at other serious offenders who have committed very, very serious acts against many innocent people. That’s at the forefront of our mind as we discuss what is a very unusual set of facts.

It does go back some time, and I do want to echo the points made by my colleague Vanushi Walters, who was our shadow Attorney-General on this side of the House for the Labour Party. This issue had arisen some time ago and had been decided in 2018, and it’s only really now that we’re getting to the end of this process. I want to also acknowledge our former colleague David Parker for allowing this process to take place. This is a very slow way of recognising very important significant constitutional rights. And, as has been previously mentioned by both the Minister of Police and Vanushi Walters, this is only the second time that we’ve had a declaration of inconsistency come to the House, so it is important that we recognise that this, in many ways, shows that our systems of upholding important fundamental rights, as enshrined in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, are upheld.

At the same time, the amount of time and the difficulty that it has taken to get to this stage does not indicate a system which is recognising those clashes of rights in a timely manner, and is, perhaps, something that we need to look at. I do also echo comments—this is an issue that has crossed Parliaments, but it is now incumbent on the current Government to respond to this, and I do wish that they do so in in a timely manner.

I think the important issue here, and the facts have been traversed by others, so I won’t go over them again, is that we do have these important fundamental rights enshrined in our New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, and the New Zealand Bill of Rights (Declarations of Inconsistency) Amendment Act 2022 did allow us this particular process for it to be referred to select committee. I am a member of the Justice Committee; I wasn’t there the entire time, but I do want to commend the work of the Justice Committee, and if those listening want to understand this issue, which is a complex legal issue, I commend them to the report of the Justice Committee—I’ll just see if I can see the date; I can’t—anyway, it’s the report into the Notice of declarations of inconsistency: Public Protection Orders under the Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Act 2014 and Extended Supervision Orders under the Parole Act 2002. The clerks at the Justice Committee have done a tremendous job in making sure that this is all set out. For the record of this Parliament, this is where you will see not only the history of when this first came to the New Zealand Parliament but when the law was changed in 2018, and then, in 2022, the new law was passed, and then the change to the Standing Orders in the 53rd Parliament.

That sets out all of the issues. They are serious issues, and I want to commend the recommendations of the select committee moving forward, and that a new regime is established in order to make sure that we’re in a position to not only seek to impose restrictions on those we know cause a risk, but also not to put individuals in a position where there is a clash of rights and they are punished twice for the same crime. That’s, fundamentally, at the heart of this matter. It is the fundamental right of everyone to suffer one punishment for one crime, and when that is, of course, doubled, then we do have issues of rights there.

15:34

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand to also endorse the report from the Justice Committee around the declaration of inconsistency. I think it is important to give some context around this. Like the previous speakers and the Minister of Police stated, this is only the second time since the introduction of this process around declarations of inconsistency that we have seen something like this being brought to the House. The first time was under the previous Government around Make It 16, particularly around lowering the voting age to 16, which is something that the Green Party, to this day, still supports and champions. But for this particular case, one of the, I guess, contexts around it is that when the Supreme Court essentially makes a declaration of inconsistency, that then gets referred to, sort of, two aspects: one part is the Government, and particularly, in this case, the Attorney-General; and the other half to Parliament. Under Standing Order 269A, as well as the process laid out in Appendix F of the Standing Orders, we see the Parliament going through that process, which is what we’re doing now. It could have, concurrently, as the Government through the Attorney-General, gone through their process of determining how to respond to such a declaration of inconsistency.

Now, I do want to, obviously, spend my time discussing the Parliament’s response to the declaration of inconsistency, but I want to acknowledge one of the previous speakers, Vanushi Walters, around the general concern that we may have in terms of the Government’s response, and particularly the lack of urgency around how we deal with such a declaration. I note that no resolution has yet come about, in terms of the previous declaration of inconsistency, around lowering the general election voting age to 16.

Now, for this particular one, which came from the 2024 ruling in the case of Attorney-General v Chisnall, essentially, it comes down to one main part of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, which is how we make such declaration of inconsistencies. The declaration of inconsistency, essentially, is to say that a rule or a particular legislation that’s been made is inconsistent with our New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, which has a far greater history beyond 1990—going all the way to the Bill of Rights 1688. But, in this case, one of the particular sections that’s relevant to this consideration is section 26(2) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, which is, essentially, the right against double jeopardy as well as retrospectivity.

One of the things we’re looking at here, which is around public protection orders (PPOs), as well as extended supervision orders (ESOs), is around the fact that when you have committed a crime, we all understand that there are accountabilities, there are responsibilities, but it’s a generally understood rule—and I think this is something that we can all acknowledge and accept—that you shouldn’t be charged more than one penalty for that one particular crime. In this case, the idea of double jeopardy, when it comes to the PPO and ESO, is the fact that once a person has served their sentence in relation to that crime, then they are, essentially, being charged again for the same crime through a public protection order or extended supervision order. That is, fundamentally, where this comes from.

Now, from the select committee’s analysis of this—this was referred to the Justice Committee, which I am also a member of. I do want to commend the Justice Committee for giving this an incredibly thorough and nuanced investigation. We worked through it as a committee and came to the recommendations of the committee as a committee in its entirety—unanimously, essentially. With that, I do want to thank, in particular, the members of the Justice Committee, but also the chair of the Justice Committee, the Hon Andrew Bayly, on the way that we have approached this particular declaration of inconsistency, as a select committee, methodologically.

One of the things that is really important, as a part of this—I mentioned before that this is something that the Law Commission has already been working on. In April 2025, they published Here ora: Preventative measures in a reformed law, which essentially says that when we’re looking at PPOs and ESOs, it needs to have a fundamental overhaul of the law that governs the preventative detention and extended supervision order system. The current system doesn’t really allow for that to be done in a way that is rights consistent. Essentially, in that report, it’s asking for a single statutory regime that will prevent a cohesive, gradual approach to prevent serious reoffending. I think this is something that we, as a committee, also agreed is important for us to strike that balance between public safety, rehabilitation, and also on something that is rights consistent.

I think, as a select committee, through our recommendations, we recommend that there is a way for us to do that that achieves all of these particular outcomes, and, in particular, being guided by some fundamental principles that the Justice Committee has come up with. The guiding principles are that any such order should prevent communities from further harm; it should be preventative in nature and not punitive; it should foster wellbeing and promote the independence of the person subject to the order as much as practicable; the making of orders should be subject to court oversight and periodic review; and restrictions imposed should be proportional to the level of risk to the public’s safety.

With those principles, the Justice Committee has suggested four different components, and this is through consultation, both in terms of taking advice from the Law Commission’s report in 2025 but also in terms of what we’ve heard from officials on the feasibility and workability of implementing something like this. The first bit is around having that three-level, gradual approach depending on the seriousness or the potential of reoffending, and a lot of that has to do with public safety and, essentially, working from a perspective of having community supervision, to residential supervision, to secure supervision based on those levels of severity.

It is also important, as part of this component, that when we are looking at anything that is beyond the sentencing that the person is serving for that particular crime, or for that particular penalty, that anything beyond that, to the best of its ability, should be preventative in nature, rather than punitive. The whole point of our justice system, theoretically, should have been about restorative justice as opposed to simply punitive justice.

One of the other components that we considered potentially as an interim measure—which possibly also requires a legislative component—is how we can look at notification at sentencing so that when a person is being sentenced there is a notification to the person of a possible post-sentencing order. This is also something that potentially would have the possibility of avoiding some of that double jeopardy. That way, we’re looking at, essentially, one long sentencing process as opposed to the person being sentenced and, after serving their sentence, then coming back for, essentially, a second sentence through the existing PPO and ESO process and structure.

Finally, in terms of what I mentioned about courts being able to oversee some of that and have that periodic review, the types and conditions of preventative measures can also be determined by the court as part of this. Finally, just to add that, from a select committee perspective, we have recommended that the Government look at this new, singular statute that is rights consistent. We believe, through the Law Commission and what we heard from officials, that it can be done should the Government or any Government have the appetite for it, but also urge future Justice Committees to monitor the progress that the Department of Corrections, for example, has mentioned on any of the proposed changes to post-sentence regimes.

I think, as a final sort of 20 seconds, I want to raise the importance of something like this in terms of declarations of inconsistency and, fundamentally, what it means in Aotearoa New Zealand when we’re looking at the rule of law and the principle of comity—the ability for the legislature, executive, and judiciary to hold each other accountable, and it’s something that we forget about in our current system.

15:44

Thank you, Madam Speaker. There’s always a danger in going after Dr Xu-Nan, because he’s covered quite a lot of material that I was going to cover. I do want to just speak briefly in this debate on these declarations of inconsistency, because it is an important topic, and we have traversed a lot of material already.

Just to say, I’m probably not so concerned, maybe, as some of the other speakers since this only the second time that this process has been used. I think we probably need to have a few more declarations of inconsistency and work through the process before we decide whether it needs refining. Again, I also just want to acknowledge the Minister of Police, who has, on behalf of the Government, said that work is going to be undertaken in this area, and, in fact, has responded to the report of the Justice Committee, which has been referenced a couple of times already in this debate, and which committee I am also a member of.

We are talking about people who have been convicted of very serious sexual and violent offending—I think we need to remember that. Again, it’s already been referred to: the report of the Justice Committee does set out the issues in quite a lot of detail. As has been said, it was a very thoughtfully done inquiry into these issues. The whole committee really was engaged in it, and we did actually come up with a unanimous report, as has already been highlighted.

I was going to reference, I think, the five principles; Dr Xu-Nan’s actually already outlined all five of them in detail, so I’m not going to go over them again, but I think they are worth looking at, if people are interested, because it does actually outline the balance of rights we’re having to kind of weigh up here, which is that we need to protect the community from harm but we also need to make sure that if we’re imposing these orders on people, they aren’t punitive. They need to be preventative in nature, and they need to have some oversight. Again, I’m not going to go through those again in detail, but I do think that they really do provide a framework for the work that, as the Minister said, is going to be happening in this area so that we can actually get to a regime that everyone is happy with, that balances all those rights, but that, importantly, upholds public safety and protection. Thank you.

15:46

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to support the declaration of inconsistency. As we’ve heard from a number of speakers, it’s a very rare occurrence—just the second time in the House that we’ve had to do this. Obviously, as a new member as well, and a member of the Justice Committee, it was a very complex issue—quite difficult to get the understanding of the Supreme Court and what we were trying to achieve.

As the other speakers have highlighted, the members on the committee worked really, really well together. Obviously, some members had some experience from the first inconsistency debate, which was done in the last term. The Hon Andrew Bayly—again, just the way he handled and chaired the committee gave everyone a really good opportunity. I think, as you hear today in the House, the majority—everyone, actually—is on the same page in trying to fix this inconsistency going forward.

As we hear, around the PPOs—and I know acronyms aren’t that great, using those in the House—public protection orders are the most severe use of restriction. That’s mainly a detention on a prison precinct, in the case of PPOs, so it’s quite restrictive. ESOs—extended supervision orders—often by the Department of Corrections, would be the kind of things like check-ups and that on people who have come out of prison after their sentence.

Really, the main part of this was around the post-sentence requirements on prisoners who have obviously gone through the system and have come out. There’s that thing I think most New Zealanders, Kiwis, would understand around double jeopardy—that you shouldn’t be tried twice for a crime—and punishment; once you’ve gone through the system you should basically have a clear run at a new life. As we know, and that’s been touched on, we’re talking here about the most serious sexual and violent offenders, and we know the principle about public safety is something this House has to take into consideration. With some of those people who have gone through their sentence, there are still high risks to the general public.

We did hear about the Supreme Court—in September last year, when they issued the inconsistency—and the Law Commission. What was really helpful was their report that they’d issued and a way of resolving the issue; the Justice Committee has then picked up many of the things that were raised in the Law Commission’s report. As has been mentioned by the last number of speakers, the guiding principles are what the Justice Committee has tried to work on to give the Government a way forward. The most, probably, important principle, going forward, is to prevent further harm. Without repeating all five principles, I think that one of preventing further harm is the one that is the golden issue here.

The Government also has issued its report back, and New Zealand First supports, obviously, the recommendations and, if I may say, the line of travel here. Going forward, we see there is that way. Public safety: we know that, as prisoners go through their sentence, rehabilitation is a major part, but once they come out—again, highlighting the most serious sexual and violent offenders—there then needs to be those preventative measures in place. That’s where the Supreme Court spoke about the breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, but there then needs to be the balance, again, to public safety.

We do support that single statute that basically looks to repeal the current legislation around ESOs and PPOs. We do realise it’s going to take a period of time. It’s not going to be something that’s done in months. It’s probably going to be more likely to go into the next Parliament and may take a couple of years, but it needs to be replaced with a single statute that establishes a three-tiered regime for post-sentence orders, and that’s the main part of this. New Zealand First supports the work on this into the next Parliament, and it will take some time, as I say, to implement, but we look forward to that work.

The next call will be a split call—Dr Tracey McLellan.

15:52

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to also add a few words to this debate. There’s broad agreement across the House. This report that we’re dealing with today, obviously, as has been noted, deals with a difficult but very important balance, and that balance is the need to protect people from others who pose what is a really high risk of serious sexual and violent reoffending whilst also upholding the fundamental rights under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. As has been noted, this is only the second time that we’ve had a declaration of inconsistency before us, so I’d like to acknowledge the Justice Committee for the work that they’ve done on this but also note that the Government really does need to respond in a timely manner. Whilst I appreciate the fact that, whenever balance is required, that can be a challenge, and there are certainly challenges before us, but it’s really important that this isn’t stalled and that there is some timely application—or some timely implementation—of the recommendations and the work that is before us.

The Supreme Court has been really clear that the PPO—public protection order—regime and the detention aspects of the extended supervision orders (ESOs) are, in fact, inconsistent with the right not to be punished twice for the same offence. That is something that Parliament simply can’t ignore. It is up to us to ensure that we act lawfully, and that’s important no matter what domain we may be referring to but particularly in the criminal justice domain. It’s a big deal when the State deprives someone of their liberty. Regardless of the circumstances, that regimen in place, and the process in place, has to be absolutely lawful.

As I said, the Supreme Court has been very clear that the PPOs and the ESOs are inconsistent, and, at the same time, the answer simply can’t be to remove all preventative measures. We know that that’s not going to work. Communities, victims, and potential victims in the future are entitled to protection from serious harm, and we all agree with that. The challenge, the one before us, is to design something that actually is lawful, that is able to operate in an effective way, and is also rights consistent. The committee’s recommendations for a single new statute are sensible. It’s a three-tier model that has been discussed already where there’s community supervision, where there’s residential supervision, and where there’s secure, preventative supervision. It would allow courts to impose the least restrictive options necessary to manage the actual risk. I think that that’s really important, and it’s important for both public safety and for human rights.

We’ve also talked, previously, about the need for rehabilitation and reintegration to be at the centre of what this new regime should and could look like. If these orders are genuinely preventative, rather than punitive, then it is absolutely important that people have real opportunities to enter into a rehabilitative or a reintegrated process as well. The court oversight and regular review, as we can see through this report process, are also incredibly essential to what the new regime needs to look like. There are significant restrictions, as I’ve said, on liberty, and any conditions imposed must be proportionate, evidence-based, appealable, and subject to proper scrutiny. We should also be clear, not only just whilst having this the debate but through the remainder of this process when the Government does respond to this declaration, that victims’ rights and dignity do matter. I want to reiterate in the final few seconds that the Government, now, does need to move with some urgency. Corrections has indicated that the policy work on this could take up to two years. The rights issues—we’ve known about this for quite a long time, and Parliament does need a clear timetable for the reform that they intend to bring forward. Labour supports the regime and acknowledges that keeping communities safe and respecting victims is paramount.

15:57

Thank you, Madam Speaker. A lot has been said about this framework and why this declaration of inconsistency occurred. I want to really just do one thing, and that is to go to the part of the select committee report which indicated the direction of travel for any new policies in respect of public protection orders (PPOs) and extended supervision orders (ESOs), and that is the section headed “Principles”. It’s a very short part of the report—only about a paragraph. I just want to identify those principles that the Justice Committee all agreed should direct any further work in this space.

The first principle is obvious, and that is that the only reason for these orders is to protect the community from further harm. Obviously, these protection orders and supervision orders are only there because the risk posed to the communities by these individuals reaches a particular threshold. That feeds into the second principle, and that is that there is zero punitive element to these orders. They are protective only, and they are not punitive. Of course, the reason that this fell foul of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act was that it was seen as a second punishment after the first punishment for the crime had essentially expired. With whatever we do here, there can be no linking of the orders with retribution for the crime caused. It’s linked to the crime only in so far as the crime is indicative of future risk.

I think the third principle set out there is one of the most important. What it states there is that “the regime should foster wellbeing and promote independence of the person subject to the order.” One of the challenges here is that there’s been a kind of reaction, because it’s within a corrections framework, to unduly limit the life of the people subject to the order—including where they live, how they live, and the choices they make. Given that there is no punitive element here, the autonomy of this individual should be upheld and they should have—in so far as is consistent with the first principle, which is public protection—as many choices, and as much self-determination as possible, because that’s what it is to respect the human rights of an individual, regardless of their former wrongdoing, particularly when their punishment has, essentially, expired.

As Dr McLellan said, this is not an administrative decision. We live in a society ruled by law, and these orders should be subject to governance by law. That’s why they should be subject to the oversight of the courts. The people subject to the orders should be able to appeal them, and they should be periodically reviewed; they can’t last for ever. We don’t want these to be, essentially, at the discretion of the administrative body that makes them, whoever that turns out to be.

The last principle is really important, as well, and that is proportionality. We’ve talked about a tiered arrangement: community, residential, and, essentially, one where you’re detained. Where on that scale someone sits should be carefully curated depending on the risk that they pose. There should be the least intervention that is consistent with community safety. Now, that’s a challenging task, but it’s a task, in fact, which the justice system does when it sentences people, when the Parole Board releases people, and it goes on throughout our justice system and, indeed, in our mental health system, as well, in terms of compulsory treatment.

So those principles are really important, because it’s a massive signal to the Government that has carriage of this piece of work to say, “Here are the values that the legislature has said this work should be imbued with.” What I guess I’m saying is, go forward; do this work; have a right, consistent outcome; but anchor it in those principles and the guidance the select committee has given. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

16:02

We know that serious violent and sexual crimes have lifelong consequences for the victims of those crimes and their families. It’s why we’ve made victims our priority in everything that we’ve done in the justice sector. The interests of victims underpin all our work to fix the basics in law and order and to build a future where all New Zealanders can feel safe in their community.

Now, for the highest-risk offenders, the current law provides a range of options, including indeterminate prison sentences of preventive detention; extended supervision orders—ESOs—which are a post-prison court order; and the public protection orders—PPOs—which are civil orders that allow for the ongoing indefinite confinement of the most high-risk individuals.

Now, as we’ve heard in all the debates—and I don’t need to go over everything—some issues with the current law have been raised both here in New Zealand and overseas by international human rights bodies. Most recently, on 25 September, the Supreme Court issued its declaration of inconsistency, holding that aspects of the current regime—a regime that has been in place for some time—breached the protection against punishing a person twice. That is why we’re having this debate, responding to that.

Now, the Government, of course, has been considering some of these issues for a lengthy period. In 2021, the previous Government requested that the Law Commission examine the laws protecting the public from high-risk repeat sexual offenders. The Law Commission report was tabled in April 2025 last year and found that the current law is fragmented, inconsistent, and does not adequately protect the risks to public safety, and proposed reforming the law in a way that continues to protect public safety while managing high-risk offenders more humanely. It recommended replacing three current measures with a single post-sentence statutory regime of varying degrees of restrictiveness, from supervision in the community through to secure detention. The commission considered that this single regime would improve rehabilitation and address the issues identified by the courts. The Government acknowledged that the Law Commission findings and recommendations for change were not surprising. However, the Law Commission’s reports, unfortunately, are not a fully formed piece of legislation ready to go. There are still a number of decisions that need to be made and law to be crafted.

Some of the commission’s recommendations were examined by the Justice Committee, and I want to thank the Justice Committee for its work and the serious undertakings that it took, identifying the principles, as the previous speaker, bar one, indicated, in terms of the guiding principles that we should protect the community from further harm and other principles that should be absolutely preventative in nature rather than punitive. All of that seems to us to be sensible, and we very much see this as an important part of our work programme for the people of New Zealand, if they see fit to return this Government.

We’ve had a strong focus on restoring law and order and restoring real consequences for crime, but there are issues that do need to be resolved, as have been identified by the Supreme Court’s actions, also by the Law Commission’s work, and, most lately, by the Justice Committee. We do hope—I certainly, personally, hope I get the opportunity to rectify this matter in the years to come. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

16:06

I move, That urgency be accorded the remaining stages of the Antisocial Road Use Legislation Amendment Bill, the Health and Safety at Work Amendment Bill, the Offshore Renewable Energy Bill, the Healthy Futures (Pae Ora) Amendment Bill, and the Regulatory Systems (Primary Industries) Amendment Bill; the first reading and referral to a select committee of the Building Amendment Bill and the Climate Change (Tort Liability) Amendment Bill—

Can the member just read the name of the climate change bill.

Climate Change (Tort Liability) Amendment Bill.

Oh, I’ve got Climate Change Response (Tort Liability) Amendment Bill here, but we’ll check that—we’ll make sure.

—thank you, Madam Speaker—the second reading of the Local Government (System Improvements) Amendment Bill, the Crimes Amendment Bill, the Land Transport (Revenue) Amendment Bill, the Infrastructure Funding and Financing Amendment Bill, and the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) (3 Day Postnatal Stay) Amendment Bill; the first reading and referral to a select committee of the Community Magistrates Legislation Amendment Bill and the Environmental Reporting Amendment Bill; the second reading of the Building (Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Bill and the Emergency Management Bill (No 2); the first reading and referral to select committee of the Regulatory Systems (Social Security) Amendment Bill (No 2); the discharge and recommittal to a select committee of the Regulatory Systems (Courts) Amendment Bill; and the remaining stages of the Regulatory Systems (Tribunals) Amendment Bill, the Regulatory Systems (Occupational Regulation) Amendment Bill, the Mental Health Bill, the Plain Language Act Repeal Bill, and the Constitution Amendment Bill.

Today, we are according urgency to 22 pieces of legislation, and I note that none are bypassing scrutiny: none are skipping select committee. However, with only nine sitting weeks left in this parliamentary term, the Government has significantly more legislation on its agenda than it has the time to pass prior to this year’s general election. Urgency is therefore being accorded today for overtime purposes. Each bill is a Government priority to pass or send to select committee before the dissolution of Parliament, and it is for that reason that we accord urgency today, to progress them to ease the pressure on the remaining months of this parliamentary term.

I declare the House in committee for further consideration of the Antisocial Road Use Legislation Amendment Bill.

16:11

I thank members. The Minister of Transport won’t be too far away, so I hope I will just cover off some of the opening remarks he was going to make. I assume he’s still going to make them. Basically, I just want to recap or repeat what was said during the second reading. Submitters have made it clear that antisocial road use events are disruptive and often involve destruction of property, excessive alcohol consumption, and intimidating behaviour. Submitters supported greater deterrents and highlighted the need for proportionate penalties.

The bill has four parts. The first part amends the Land Transport Act 1998. The second part amends the Sentencing Act 2002. The third part makes amendments to the Policing Act 2008, the Summary Proceedings Act 1957, and the Land Transport (Offences and Penalties) Regulations 1999. The Schedules make minor inconsequential amendments and insert transitional and savings provisions.

The bill we’re debating has five key features. It introduces a presumptive sentence of forfeiture, or forfeiture and destruction, of vehicles involved in street racing, burnouts, fleeing police, and the extended identifying drivers offence in intimidating convoys. It creates a new offence for intimidating convoys, to penalise those who are trying to intimidate the public whilst driving dangerously. It gives the police greater powers to identify drivers who participate in street racing, burnouts, and intimidating convoys. It gives the police greater powers to close off areas where antisocial road events are happening or might happen. It increases the fine for excessive noise from an infringement fee of $50 to $300 and a court-ordered fine of $1,000 to $3,000.

The Minister is also introducing a Government Amendment Paper that makes a minor and technical amendment to ensure that the policy intent of the bill is delivered. Currently, section 98A of the Land Transport Act 1998 enables police to prohibit the sale or disposal of vehicles where the owner is charged with an offence that could result in confiscation or forfeiture of the vehicle. We want this power to apply where an owner is charged with an offence that would, in the event of conviction, trigger a presumptive sentence of vehicle forfeiture or forfeiture and destruction introduced by this bill. This will address submitter concerns that offenders will sell their vehicle following impoundment, before sentencing takes place, to avoid forfeiture or forfeiture and destruction of their vehicle. Thank you.

16:15

Thank you, Madam Chair, and I thank the Minister for Biosecurity for kicking things off and acknowledge the transport Minister currently in the chair.

I have a few questions in relation to this part, and I want to start with clause 10. Clause 10 is looking at new section 39A, which really is the crux of the nature of the convoys that exist and the behaviour that might be considered as dangerous or reckless. I think it would be helpful to just get an understanding from the Minister around whether he thinks the definition of a convoy—which is, in this instance, “2 or more motor vehicles”—is appropriate. In the circumstance where there might be one larger motor vehicle that doesn’t meet the definition of a convoy but still might, with other folk around it, lead to something that might be reckless or dangerous activity or conduct—whether there are other avenues available for the police to utilise powers or otherwise. One assumes that, obviously, “motor vehicles”, in terms of a convoy as being two or more, includes cars and larger vehicles but also motorcycles, as well.

The question that I also have is just around how the police will ensure that there is a clear distinction between what might be perceived as an antisocial convoy versus what might be a legitimate procession. Minister, it might be that you say, well, a procession, actually, unless it was “frightening or intimidating”, it doesn’t fit the criteria. But there is a view out there that “frightening”— it might be that someone’s frightened because of the noise coming or emanating from a convoy—is an issue of perception or how one sees that. I’m just interested in the Minister’s response around that clear distinction between what might be seen as genuine antisocial convoys, but, also, we don’t want to capture some of those, perhaps, noisy club events, which some might see as legitimate, happening down the street or in areas, and how that distinction is able to be captured.

16:17

Yeah, I mean, the member raises a series of interesting points, and, ultimately, these are going to be questions for charging and, potentially, the courts in the future. They’re questions of fact, ultimately.

The bill establishes the offence. The important point is “convoy” is defined as “2 or more motor vehicles”. I mean, that is a convoy. Clearly, when people think about a convoy, they maybe think about four or five vehicles in a line, but, actually, by definition—it’s a bit circular in some ways—it’s two or more. The point is that any convoy of vehicles, by itself, is not committing an offence. To commit an offence for participating in an intimidating convoy, an individual driver must be committing illegal street racing, burnouts, fleeing police, or otherwise driving in a reckless, careless, or dangerous manner, and they have to be travelling in a convoy—so two or more vehicles—and they have to be operating the vehicle in a manner that is either frightening or could cause intimidation.

That is actually a relatively high bar to meet, to be honest. The factual nature of the offence is inclusive rather than exclusive, so you have to meet those limbs, and then, ultimately, it will be over to the courts around the specific judgment as to whether or not someone has met those offences or not. What Parliament is doing is setting down a very clear marker that intimidating convoys, as defined in the bill, are not appropriate, and we’re giving the police and the courts greater powers to crack down on those.

16:19

Thank you, Madam Chair. Actually, before all of that around convoys, I want to start even before that. Madam Chair, can I just get your clarification, because when the previous Chair was there and was reading out Part 1, he said Part 1 is—unless I heard it incorrectly—clause 8. Can I just check that Part 1, indeed, goes back to clauses 3 and 4?

It’s the debate on clauses 3 to 23, and Schedules 1 and 2.

Awesome, thank you. Thank you for that clarification, Madam Chair. The first question is around clause 4, “Section 2 amended”, and this is to do with the interpretation of “registered person”—noting that this bill went to the Justice Committee, but because it’s not under my portfolio, I didn’t actually specifically take part in the consideration of this bill during the select committee stage.

Can I just check with the Minister of Transport, with “registered person”, if it occurred either in discussions through select committee or with your officials, what happens in the context where the registered person and the driver are different people? Particularly, I’m thinking of instances—and this is something that we hear, you know, if let’s say a 16-year-old, an 18-year-old, it could be anyone. I see that in the electorate I’m based in, Epsom, in Tāmaki, all around, where children do borrow the vehicles of their parents. In those cases, the parent is the registered person, but the child might be the one who created the offence in that case. I want to check what considerations have you given, or considered, where either the court—or any other ways of addressing the balance where the parents may be unaware of a child using their vehicle and then the car gets impounded or, you know, additional things happening. I just want to check—that’s the first question, because it’s the first thing that pinged to me when I’m looking at the term “registered person”.

16:21

I’m advised that the bill is quite careful to not just limit this to owners of vehicles or registered owners of vehicles, but wider than that. The reason for that is that you do not want to seem to create an incentive for other people who might have an interest who are in a vehicle, who are not the registered owner of the vehicle to bear the—to essentially engage in conduct that might otherwise be punished. So the bill is explicitly wide and that is a deliberate policy choice.

16:22

Thank you for that, Minister. Just a little follow up. So just checking that, again, it’s incumbent on maybe case laws, etc., to start finding some of that balance between how that breadth that the Minister just mentioned is able to be, I guess, whittled down or potentially become a bit more specific through those case laws and as this bill gets implemented.

I’m advised that the definition of “registered person” is added from Part 17 of the Land Transport Act to reflect that the term “registered person” is used throughout the Act.

So it’s current. Ah.

16:23

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you to the Minister of Transport. The Minister made the point that this bill establishes the offence—and certainly, we do support the bill. When we look at the new requirement under section 39A(1)(d)—this is in clause 10—there needs to be an intention for the conduct that the person is engaging in to be “frightening” or “intimidating”. Now, what is the Minister’s expectation around how members of the police would be able to, effectively, reliably identify their intent exists, which is a requirement under that particular limb? I’ll just start with that one.

16:24

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I just have a general kind of question for the Minister of Transport. I’ve been around long enough to remember the first iteration of this legislation when I worked at Police. One of the main issues that I’m interested to know is whether he thinks this bill addresses the situation where you have someone who is engaging in illegal street racing activity, who has then registered their vehicle to their nana or their girlfriend or someone else in the immediate family, and so once the police apprehend that person and the vehicle’s impounded, potentially up for destruction, there will become a point where they go before court and the person who actually is the legal owner of the car—so nana fronts up and says, “I need it to get to bowls. I need it to get to work. I’ve got a hardship case here. Please don’t destroy my car because under this legislation, as to the previous one, there’s hardship grounds.”

A key reason why I think only two cars were crushed under the previous iteration of this legislation is that actually tying the registration of the vehicle to the person doing the driving—I’m not yet convinced that this actually navigates that same problem because, as far as I’m aware, by reading the bill, there’s still provision in there that if the registered owner fronts up to the judge and says you’re on a hardship—“I need the car to get to work. I need this vehicle,”— then, on those grounds, the vehicle is highly unlikely to be destroyed.

My question to the Minister is: what reassurance—maybe he’s getting it right now—or advice has he received to reassure New Zealanders that the same loophole that has been used in the past won’t come back to cause the same low level of destructions again?

16:26

Thanks, Madam Chair. Whilst the Minister of Transport is getting some advice, I wondered if I could just sort of chuck one more into that mix. Looking at clause 12, which reworks section 52 offences for failing to provide identifying information under sections 118A and B, and sets fines of up to $10,000 or $20,000. Just looking at that, I wasn’t part of this process to date, but the Minister, I’m sure, will be able to elucidate on why the 14-day information offence is subject to a higher maximum fine than the immediate section 118A offence. I suppose, further to that, what is intended to count as a reasonable excuse, especially where, as has been mentioned, a registered person genuinely doesn’t know who was driving. Principally, the first part of that question is the one that caught my attention. Thank you.

16:27

Tēnā koe, Madam Chair. I had a really specific question about clause 10; that’s the new section 39A, which refers to conduct in frightening or intimidating convoy. I’m just particularly interested in the words “frightening” and “intimidating”, because those are quite subjective, I guess, and why those words are particularly used in the legislation when they aren’t defined. “Dangerous or reckless activity” seems to have a more clear objective test of what that means, but to describe a convoy as “frightening or intimidating”, I suppose will depend very much on who the person is who’s observing the convoy, and whether or not they find it to be frightening or imitating.

I’m just curious about the use of that language in the legislation and whether it’s really necessary, because the rest of the subsections—this is in clause 10—the new 39A subsection (1), subsection (2) seem to refer more to dangerous, reckless activity, other than the subsection (1)(d)(i) “intending it to frighten or intimidate another person;”; or whether (ii) “knowing that, or being reckless as to whether, it is likely to frighten or intimidate another person.” is the legal test there, for the police—is it going to be obvious? Will it rely on there being witnesses saying they were frightened or intimidated? It just seems slightly unusual. Perhaps it is used in other bits of legislation. I’m not aware of it because I’m not the justice spokesperson.

My main question is just around the use of “frightening or intimidating” and that being a subjective test as to whether something actually is frightening or intimidating.

16:29

Let me deal with a few of these issues. Both Mr Utikere and Ms Genter ask about frightening and intimidating. These are new offences; we’re saying that, with any new offence, there will need to be training for front-line police staff to train them up as to what frightening or intimidating means. Ultimately, in the end, case law works that out. I mean, by definition, once you create a new offence, there will be cases—I certainly hope there will be. If there aren’t, well, that’s good—probably means we’ve eradicated the scourge of illegal street racing and intimidating convoys, but I suspect that won’t be happening. Ultimately, these are factual judgments by police and then the courts. The intent is to make sure that road users feel safe on the roads and are not intimidated or frightened due to other road users’ behaviour.

In relation to Ms Genter’s point, intimidating and frightening—I’m advised—are in the Summary Offences Act 1981, offence of intimidation, section 21. Though the offence is new in relation to the Land Transport Act and road behaviour, it’s not a term unknown to the New Zealand law, but, I mean, ultimately, the member’s right: is “intimidation” subjective? Well, at a level, yes, but also, you know, police and then the courts will make their judgment about it, and I’m not going to get into forecasting or laying down what that might look like, because exactly what it looks like depends on the factual circumstances.

In relation to Ms Andersen’s point, which is a good point, new section 142AAH, in clause 36, relates to “Presumption in favour of forfeiture, or forfeiture and destruction, of vehicles used by certain offenders in commission of [an] offence”; new subsection (1) lays out the variety of offences there. “The court—(a) must order that the motor vehicle used be forfeited … or … forfeited and destroyed; and (b) may make an order prohibiting the offender from acquiring any interest in any motor vehicle within 12 months after the date of [this] order.” But then 142AAI lays out when the court must not do that, and that is when making such an order would be “manifestly unjust”—which, again, is a term well known to the law—or “result in extreme hardship to the offender or undue hardship to any other person”.

I think that does cover off some of the examples that the member was referring to. I mean, these things are a tricky balance in which you want to make sure that for yahoos who are out there at night causing mayhem, a very clear deterrent message is sent, but there’s also a balance there to make sure that—you know, there’s a “manifestly unjust” clause, as there are in many other parts of the criminal law.

I’ll call Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan. I just want to make a comment that the Minister of Transport just then did refer to some clauses in Part 2; I’d prefer to stay on Part 1 until we get there. I know he’s used them to make an answer and a case. We’ve covered off some good points, but I’m looking for some new points. Thank you.

16:33

Thank you, Madam Chair. I do want to move on, but I just want to check: I’m specifically looking at clause 10, and clause 10 is the part that introduces most of these new offences as well. I think a broader, policy-based question to the Minister of Transport, just looking at the regulatory impact statement: there are already existing penalties around recklessness, and I just want to check with the Minister what the rationale was for introducing additional ones when there are a number of existing ones—this is on pages 19 to 21 of the regulatory impact statement, that talk about existing penalties—being my first question.

I want to follow up on what the Minister is saying, because I agree with the Minister and I want to thank the Minister for his response around “frightening” and “intimidating” being reasonably new and something that’s introduced, and there’s potentially a level of subjectivity to it and it’s up to the court, but I’m looking at clause 10(1)(d)(i) and (ii), and those in particular raise the issue of when you’re looking at a particular crime, you have the actus reus and you have the mens rea, and this particular area is looking at the mens rea—the mental component of any particular crime.

When we’re looking at mens rea, you have the four levels: intention, knowledge, recklessness, and negligence. Negligence we won’t discuss here, but here it touches on three different points. For the Minister: just checking, how would one then, potentially, prove that there is intention to frighten and intimidate another person? Because the onus of proof over there would not be on an ordinary or specific person. You wouldn’t go and say, “Well, I felt frightened and intimidated.” You have to prove that the offender or the potential offender has intentionally done it, and that’s a much higher threshold. So maybe that is something that is a part of a legislative design, in which case that’s totally fair.

The second part, in subparagraph (ii) is “knowing that, or being reckless as to”. That is to do with knowledge and recklessness, which are also different tiers when we’re looking at the hierarchy of mens rea. I want to check with the Minister: having that in one group, are we conflating between what is considered knowledge and also recklessness?

So I want to just check on those two questions—oh, actually, technically three questions, at this stage.

16:36

Well, I mean, it’s difficult to answer those questions. I mean, ultimately, the offence is the offence. So in relation to the issue the member was talking about, in relation to an intimidating convoy or frightening convoy, a person commits an offence if you meet the limbs in new subsection (1)(a), inserted by clause 10: you engage in “dangerous or reckless activity”, you operate the motor vehicle, and you engage in that conduct while part of a convoy—there’s those three limbs. Also, you have to do that in a way that is intending to “frighten or intimidate another person”. Now, intention is part and parcel of what happens in the courts every day; it is judging intent as part of the mens rea, as the member says—he’s managed to pick up a law degree in his two years as an MP; well done. Then, of course, there’s a second limb, which is being reckless, which is a lower bar, obviously.

Those are, essentially, just issues for the courts, and what will be will be. I mean, our job in Parliament is to lay out what the offence is, and it’s the courts’ job and the police’s job to, essentially, apply it, and different circumstances will result in different offences. That is the law. Welcome to Parliament.

16:37

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to touch on two areas that have not been referred to yet, and this is picking up on the Minister of Transport’s reference to “convoy”. Convoy, for the purposes of new section 39A, inserted by clause 10, is identified there, but in the actual definition in 39A(4)(a), which we haven’t talked about yet, it seems that “convoy means a group of 2 or more motor vehicles travelling together”, and the other stuff kicks in there. It’s the word “travelling” that I’d like to ask the Minister about. In a circumstance where there can be, I don’t know—I hesitate to use the word “convoy”, but a gathering of, let’s say, three or so vehicles that are travelling and then suddenly they park up in the middle of the road for an extended period of time. If the vehicles are stationary and there is no physical movement, will this still permit the police at a point in time to utilise the powers that exist?

Now, you know, the point of the committee of the whole House is to delve into the details around this, as you know. The vehicles themselves actually might be coming independently to a parked vehicle, which is not two or more vehicles in the process of actually travelling but they go to a location independently, one by one, at which point they park up; they’re not moving. What’s that, Mr Luxton?

I said it sounds clandestine.

Well, who knows, but, you know—I guess, is there a requirement for physical movement to be necessary for the purposes of the police wanting to engage this? We want the police to have these tools to be able to utilise in circumstances to dispel and dampen this terrible behaviour, but the use of the word “travelling”: is there a requirement for the vehicles to be in movement? What of the circumstance where there are, you know, three vehicles independently making their way to point A?

16:39

It’s an interesting argument, except to be part of an intimidating convoy, you’d have to be doing street racing, burnouts, and dangerous driving, and so you’d have to be moving. You’d have to be travelling, and the intimidating convoy bit rests on those other offences.

Look, I’m not a street racer.

He drives an EV.

I drive a Nissan Leaf. My Nissan Leaf doesn’t do any burnouts, by definition, but, as I understand it, it is difficult to do street racing and burnouts and dangerous driving while you’re parked.

It could be noisy—it could be noisy.

Well, no, no. I mean, look, no—I mean, the short answer is no. You’d have to be travelling. There are other offences for blocking roads and things like that.

16:40

Thank you, Madam Chair. I thank the Minister of Transport for the answer. This is not an attempt to try and prevent the police from exercising those powers, but if the Minister is now saying that there are other tools available—for example, I think he said for blocking the road. The tools that are available to the police here are tools that the police have been asking for to dispel antisocial behaviour and gatherings that might exist, and so we’re just wanting to be very clear. In a circumstance where there are individual vehicles, let’s say, three of them, coming independently and making a whole pile of noise—which I thought was actually covered previously when we’ve talked about this as a form of behaviour that could be captured under this bill—and they park up, is the Minister now saying that there won’t be an inability for the police to engage powers to, effectively, move people on in this area?

16:41

Yes. I’m advised that it’s not in this part that we’re talking about—which is about intimidating convoys—but in Part 3, with changes to the Policing Act; there are indeed powers in relation to that.

I thank the Minister of Transport for that. Can I just pick up on the second point that I wanted to originally refer to, and that was in relation to clause 14. Now, this is about the types of impoundment for a 28-day period that might exist.

Under new section 96(1AB) in clause 14(2), there is no discretion for an enforcement officer under that provision, when the person is engaging as part of a convoy for the intent to frighten or intimidate, or to cause some sort of undertaking of some reckless behaviour—that’s accepted—but it appears, there, that there is no discretion available to an enforcement officer to make any other decision, except to impound the vehicle that is in use for a 28-day period. Now, there is discretion further down, where it relates to a person who fails to stop, and there is a discretion because the enforcement officer “may” then seize and impound. Is the Minister comfortable that that differential between the two exists, and in circumstances where there might be a need to perhaps exercise some discretion, is he comfortable that that is actually an inability for an enforcement officer to follow in clause 14(2)?

16:43

Well, just briefly on that, the short answer is, yes, I am comfortable. Both types of behaviour in new section 96(1AB) and (1AC) inserted by clause 14 are bad, but one is worse than the other. It is true also that there is in new section 96(1AB) “An enforcement officer must,” but it does say “if practicable,” and so there is a practicality caveat in there.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a question to the Minister of Transport around clause 10, new section 39A. Obviously, as was pointed out, there are four limbs to this before an offence is created—I mean, all four have to happen before that does occur—and I also note that a lot of these offences are existing offences. I wasn’t on the Justice Committee, and so I didn’t go through this, but what are the new offences? If one of those limbs says that they didn’t operate in a convoy but they met all the other definitions, would that mean that someone could do an offence, but because they’re not in a convoy they could actually get away with the offence? I’m not too sure what the new offence is compared to an existing offence, which would, therefore, be able to be done by somebody if they just weren’t part of a convoy.

16:44

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Further to the points being made by my colleague Tangi Utikere around impoundment, I just have a question for the Minister of Transport. We know that there’s an issue—we heard this at the Justice Committee from the police—that, particularly in parts of New Zealand that aren’t in the main city centres, sometimes there is only one towie operating in, say, Murchison or Ashburton, and places like that. Often the vehicles that are engaged in these illegal activities—some of them might be high end, but most of the time they’re probably not worth a lot of money. The problem we have is that if tow truck drivers are going to tow these vehicles and store them for a period of time before the case comes before the courts, that’s a significant cost to that tow truck company, depending on what the storage costs are in the particular city centre.

Sometimes there’s very little economic incentive for tow truck operators to actually take the vehicle away and impound it, and so I’m interested to know whether there’s been any work done to understand how this would work in practice and what the operational practicalities are if a vehicle is having to be stored for a period of, say, up to four, five, or six months before a case is coming up before a judge and the daily storage costs for that vehicle are not less than what the vehicle is actually worth. Even if the vehicle is successfully stripped and they can have access to that, the value of those parts would simply not be worth the cost to that operator for the storage let alone the destruction of that vehicle.

Is there Government funding coming with this to enable those operators who can’t store and deal with this issue? Is there going to be an allocation of Government funding to enable this to happen in a uniform manner across New Zealand, and, if not, is that an area which the Minister is going to investigate and potentially report back to us on?

16:47

The member raises good points, and these were considered during the policy design phase. The regime is designed to avoid additional capacity pressures or costs for operators. The main way to do that is by reducing the six-month impoundment for fleeing drivers and ensuring that offenders remain liable for outstanding costs after conviction.

It’s fair to say that no issues were raised through the select committee process by the towie sector, which is good. We will monitor it as it’s implemented, obviously, but I am comfortable with where we’ve landed, and, like with any new law, there’ll be some implementation time frames and we will have to see how it goes.

16:48

Thank you, Mr Chair. Now I just want to check, in moving on—and I do take the Minister of Transport’s response to my previous question. I think that it’s also important to note that when anything is caught, anything we do in the House—particularly during the committee of the whole House stage—some of those ministerial intentions, which the Minister has been really transparent with, are actually really helpful in any court of law.

I do want to move on to clause 12 and also maybe clause 14. I just want to start with clause 12. I have a couple of questions, and this is to do with section 52, which is being amended. I know that this relates to some of the later parts, but I wanted to check in terms of the fact that the change to the principal Act here is adding an extra tier of offence, which is liable. New section 52(4) in clause 12 provides that “A person who commits an offence against subsection (3) is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $10,000.” With some of these convictions particularly now adding an additional threshold, I just wanted to check whether the Minister has considered what level of support there is, or whether this will increase the number of cases going through the District Court. Now, understanding that particularly when it comes to the court system, one of the goals is around core timeliness, we have seen some additional resources being given to courts, but would this add an additional burden on to the court system by it now having multiple tiers or, potentially, having more people being subjected to it under this new section?

I want to touch on clause 14, “Section 96 amended”, and I do want to acknowledge the Hon Ginny Andersen’s question around impounding. I think they are really, really important questions, and we are seeing that in other areas as well, with the automatic number plate recognition being another area where we’ve seen some additional, unforeseeable cost. If we’re looking at subclause (2), “After section 96(1A), insert: (1AB)”; it, essentially, touches on the question I asked before. In this case, “an enforcement officer … if practicable” and “on reasonable grounds”: what kind of training would you expect an enforcement officer to have, or if it’s something existing, on identifying the intention “to frighten or intimidate; or (b) knowing that, or being reckless as to whether, the conduct is likely to frighten or intimidate”? That is my first question for this clause.

My second question for this clause is it says, “authorise the impoundment of, a motor vehicle for 28 days”. That’s not up to 28 days; it’s specifically 28 days. Is there a reason why it’s not “up to”? Why is it exactly 28 days that’s been selected in this case? Those are my two questions for clause 14, for the time being.

16:51

Kia orana, Mr Chair. I want to take a look at clause 16(2), which is replacing an entire section of the Act, 96AAB(1) and (2). I want to look at new subsection (2)(b). This is about the registered person or the hirer of a motor vehicle who’s failed to provide the information that’s been requested for the purposes of the offence. There’s the ability here for that person to be captured only where it’s without reasonable excuse, and it follows on Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s question about reasonable grounds. What can one expect in terms of that threshold for a reasonable excuse?

Now, we know that the police often, in other parts of legislation, are very familiar with this, but this is a new offence. Is it the Minister’s expectation that a similar sort of threshold when it comes to reasonableness is applied in relation to this particular offence? I guess that also goes to the point around how the police would be able to actively identify, distinguish, or tell apart the difference between what might be seen as a legitimate or legal or proper inability to identify a driver versus what is an intentional refusal. The intentionality of intentional refusal seems to be what captures a lot of what’s in this, but when we talk about “without reasonable excuse”, what can we expect that to mean for a police officer who’s going about exercising their powers under this piece of law?

16:53

In relation to both of the last two questions, there will be training that the police will engage in. I’m not the Minister of Police nor would I seek to intervene in the operational procedures of Police, but I’m sure they will be doing that. “Without reasonable excuse” is a term well known to the law. The short answer is it depends, and I’m not going to sit here and pontificate about what “without reasonable excuse” means, because it will be fact dependent. That’s the point.

I just want to check about the Minister’s statement before; the difference between the existing penalty, which is in the regulatory impact statement, page 20. The wording that was used, let’s say, for reckless or dangerous driving—this is sections 7 and 36 of the Land Transport Act—says “may confiscate” for the first offence, for example, when you’re looking at vehicles. Now, with clause 14, it says: “the enforcement officer must”. That’s quite a change, because, now, if an officer believes on reasonable grounds, then they have to. There’s no choice but for that officer to seize or impound the vehicle for exactly 28 days, which seems to be taking some of the ability for officers to make some of those decisions and also taking away their flexibility, as well. I think that is quite a substantial change from existing policy. This is why I think the training piece is quite important, as is also knowing what this particular section is referring to.

The reason I’m honing in on this part, particularly when it comes to enforcement officers and the way that the officers are able to judge certain circumstances, is we have, with the most recent summary offences (demonstrations outside residential premises) amendment bill—or something along the lines of that—also questioned, particularly asking the Police at that stage, about how an officer would be able to judge some of those and be able to do what officers should predominantly be doing, which is to de-escalate a potential situation to the best of their abilities. My second question to the Minister is: if an enforcement officer must impound if they have any reasonable grounds, how would that work alongside the ability for the police to also de-escalate the situation?

16:56

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’d like to ask the Minister of Transport questions about clause 20, which hasn’t been touched on yet. This is about the requirement for information to be provided around the identity of a driver or a passenger within 14 days. There is a little bit of discrepancy around the time frames throughout this bill. There’s no consistency. Is the Minister satisfied that 14 days is appropriate?

The other thing is that the Minister will be very aware of this because it’s a piece of legislation that he and his colleague have been familiar with around the introduction of, or capability for, electronic drivers’ licences. That 14-day ability to provide information, which also aligns with the clause just immediately before it—sorry, Minister, I was referring to new section 118A(1) and (2), but before that, it says, “(4) The registered person or hirer [of the vehicle] must provide the information requested … (a) to an enforcement officer …”—yes, but—“(b) immediately after it is requested. The question here is: what is “immediately”? Is it that it’s context dependent straight away and, therefore, if the hirer or the driver of the vehicle doesn’t provide it straight away, then that empowers the enforcement officer to move on and engage this provision, or is there some other form around immediately after the request?

16:58

In relation to court timeliness, which was a question asked some time ago, I’m advised we expect there may be some impact on the courts but not significant, and it will likely reduce overtime as deterrent effects take place.

Mr Utikere asked around 14 days. Yes, it’s true that there are different time periods throughout the bill, as there are throughout a variety of different Acts, but I don’t think a lot turns on that. In relation to the question about “immediately”: “immediately” means immediately.

So, straight away?

Well, yes, look it up—it’s in the dictionary—but “immediately” means immediately. Clearly, context goes into that in relation to offences, and, again, as I say, I’m not going to prognosticate around the range of circumstances and how things will play out factually.

In relation to the 28-day impoundment, I’m advised that 28 days of impoundment reflects existing Land Transport Act provisions and circumstances where a vehicle is impounded in relation to the information offence. The vehicle may be released before 28 days if that information is provided.

16:59

Thank you, Minister, for adding that information, but that raises another question for me. If I look at clause 14—and we’ve just talked about amending section 96 to require the 28-day impoundment for the new convoy offence that we’ve just previously paid some attention to—it also allows for a 28-day impoundment for failing to stop, which replaces what is the current six months for failing to stop regime. I just wonder if you could tell us a little bit more behind the thinking of why the failing to stop impoundment period is, effectively, being reduced from six months to 28 days, while, certainly, the intentionality behind other powers is to strengthen them. Is there any kind of operational guidance that has informed that policy position, or is this just a practicality that I haven’t been able to see by flicking through that clause 14? Thank you.

17:00

Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I’ve just been looking through some of the points outlined in the regulatory impact statement, so it’s more of a general point, but I’m interested to know from the Minister of Transport—one of the main areas that we’ve struggled with in the past is that there’s not strong science in deciding whether deterrence really effectively works or not. I’m just interested to know—there’s not a lot of analysis in terms of correlation directly between reducing offending and increasing community safety in line with greater penalties or increasing the threat of those. Road policing is a common one in this place, where you’re trying to weigh up the effectiveness, you’re trying to weigh up the cost efficiency and, also, proportionality. Does the option impose a penalty that’s proportionate to the policy?

What we’ve seen in this space over time is an increasing of penalties, but it doesn’t really, over a period of time, appear to be having a significant impact on, potentially, those communities, like in Levin, where we’re seeing repeat instances of really unruly behaviour that’s detrimental to public safety—where you’re seeing injuries, where you’re seeing front-line officers having their lives put on the line. I know that the Minister knows that in the Hutt Valley there are “rev-head” areas, particularly around the western hills, where you can go up and rip off a burnout and go down again.

I’m interested to know if he thinks that by just increasing the penalties in this space, this is actually going to have a meaningful difference to changing behaviour and improving community safety—particularly when there is avoidance behaviour that I’ve already referred to, where there is a culture of registering the vehicle to someone else, or doing things in a different way in terms of how the vehicle ownership is structured. Is deterrence really an option here, and does he think that will have a meaningful impact on the type of antisocial behaviour that we’re seeing in our communities?

17:02

Deterrence, without getting too philosophical about it, is a core role of the justice system. Clearly, it makes a difference. If we didn’t have offences in relation to what I think most reasonable people would consider to be terrible conduct or bad behaviour, then people would do it. If it wasn’t against the law, people would do it more, and we would not like that as a society. Clearly, at some level, deterrence has an impact.

I think the member raises a good question around whether or not lifting the penalties is more of a deterrent. I would argue yes, because I think there is broad acceptance—as evidenced by the fact that I think most members of the Parliament are voting for the bill, including the member’s own party—and there is a recognition that the law as it stands at the moment has gaps; has a lacuna in the law around dangerous behaviour and around reckless behaviour and convoys. That’s why the bill exists; there’s (a) a gap, or gaps plural, in the law that have been evidenced over time, and members in the House will be familiar with some of the behaviour that has led to this bill coming about, including in the Hutt, as the member says, but also Levin. I know Tim Costley is a strong proponent of this bill, and there’ll be other members, too.

What about West Auckland?

What’s that?

What about West Auckland?

Well, is the member a proponent for tougher action in his seat of West Auckland? He’s nodding, so that’s good—that’s good. In fact, Councillor Shane Henderson is in the paper out that member’s way—

Excellent councillor.

Well, he’s a smart proponent of greater urban density, which is not exactly why we’re here, but I’ll just give him a shout-out for that. Anyway, I understand, in relation to Mr Twyford’s point and Councillor Henderson’s area, that siren battles have been a real challenge. That is partly why the bill exists—to fill the gap in the law and then, secondly, get tough on those who commit these crimes. If you just go back to the start—why are we here—it is (a) to fill the gap in the law, and (b) to send a message through the Parliament, which is the ultimate lawmaking body in the country, that this behaviour is not going to be tolerated. Communities get, rightfully, royally annoyed when they see siren battles, they see burnouts late at night—

Yep, agreed—agreed.

Yeah, well, in that case, let’s get on with it and get it through, and then bring it into law.

17:05

Thank you, Mr Chair—I do want to—

Just be aware, we’re now into the realms of criminology. When the Minister starts using words like prog—prog—what is it?

Prognostication.

Yeah, prognostication.

Prognostication. Is it a word?

Yes.

I’m assured it’s a word. We’re getting near the end, but carry on.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’d also like to just mention that when we’re looking at new words of the day, the Minister of Transport has just used probably one of my favourite words, “lacuna”. I thought that was an excellent word. I used it all the time before in papyrology.

I do want to check a couple of things with the Minister. I’m looking at clause 20, section 118 replaced—specifically section 118(3). I want to start firstly with what the Hon Ginny Andersen or maybe Tangi Utikere mentioned before about “immediately”. I do want to check, in the context of subsection (3) of section 118, it does say that the “officer may request, orally or in writing”. I want to check: it doesn’t specify that the writing has to be immediately on the spot. Is there a feasible situation where the enforcement officer requests in writing via an email, or through a text message, later on to the person, and then now there’s an expectation that the person must respond immediately? I just want to check, does the “orally or in writing” for subsection (3), in this “immediate” section, also mean that the “orally or in writing” to the enforcement officer should be immediate and on the spot, as well? I think that’s an important clarification from the Minister.

My next question is something that the Justice Committee commentary has addressed before, so I think it’s important to engage with the Minister on this. It’s the fact that the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act (BORA) report, the consistency against the BORA report on this bill, was silent on section 14 of BORA around freedom of expression. This is specifically in the context of a person who is potentially both the offender as well as the registered person of the vehicle. It’s the presumption against self-incrimination in that, because that was specifically mentioned. I want to check if the Minister has any thoughts around this presumption against self-incrimination, which is mentioned on page 6 of the commentary of this bill. The Justice Committee report says, “Although we have not recommended any amendments to clause 20, we wish to highlight the matter”. The gap in the Land Transport Act as it stands doesn’t have any mentioning against self-incrimination.

The question I have for the Minister around this now, particularly for this section, as well, when we’re looking in the context of self-incrimination, is: often, when you’re looking at, in a criminal law sense, particularly for the police officer—when they’re stopping someone, a police officer will need to list the rights of the person to the person; the right to remain silent and the right against self-incrimination. Are we then looking at now enforcement officers who may not be the police—or enforcement officers could only be the police—in this case, in the context of this amendment bill, also being required to be able to recite the rights to a person to at least allow them to understand that anything they say could potentially jeopardise their ability under the presumption against self-incrimination? Those are my questions for the Minister.

17:09

In relation to self-incrimination, the bill simply adds additional offences to which the existing power to compel information about a driver will apply. The bill does not change any safeguards or rights with respect to this extended information offence, including the requirement that police must not use the information power on a person arrested or detained in relation to the suspected offence.

In relation to the commentary in the Justice Committee report, it is worth noting that is in the commentary, but the previous Attorney-General, the Hon Judith Collins, assessed the bill for consistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. It is found to be consistent. As the new Attorney-General—or new-ish Attorney-General—I agree with that advice. The vet is on the Ministry of Justice website.

17:10

Thank you, Mr Chair. I move, That debate on this question now close.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to move to what is a new clause—it’s in clause 20—which seeks to add to section 118B(3). This is relating to the requirement for a transport service licence holder to provide information about identify of the driver within 14 days.

Now, when we go to subsection (3), this talks about the fact that “The licence holder must provide the information requested … (a) to an enforcement officer;”—I’ll come to my question on that one in a moment, but the second one is—“(b) within 14 days after it is requested.” So my first question to the Minister of Transport is within the 14 days after it is requested—what happens after the 14 days? Is it that there is no other alternative but for a charge to be filed or an infringement to be issued? Is there any discretion or flexibility around that? Because it might be that’s certainly not the case. If so, is he satisfied that if someone happens to provide that information on the 16th day after the request for a whole range of options as well—we’re talking about a transport service licence holder that might be in a particular set of circumstances where they’re not able to provide that information in a timely way—are there alternative options? Is there flexibility? Is there discretion available to apply that under subsection (3)(b)?

The second part of my question is Dr Xu-Nan has referred to electronic means. If that information is to be provided—for example, by way of an electronic email; often that information is provided through an electronic email—how is there some certainty that the provision contained in subsection (3)(a) is met; i.e., is provided to an enforcement officer?

Now, further in this bill, there has been some change, for example, around the revocation of infringements. Instead of that sitting with a police officer or a constable or an enforcement officer, that is removed and has been given over to the Commissioner for Police. Why is it that either the commissioner is not listed here and that those powers then are delegated, or that someone fulfils the requirement within 14 days, sends it by way of email to some generic address, or is it expected that the individual enforcement officer is the person who is going to be in receipt of that—I think the Minister understands my question.

17:13

I’m advised new section 118B is a redraft of an existing provision in the Land Transport Act—the bill doesn’t change that. After 14 days, in relation to the member’s question, there is the discretion to prosecute, but it’s a redraft of what’s already there. That’s the law now.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to touch on the Schedules 1 and 2 that relate to this part, because they have not been referenced in this debate or in this sort of questioning opportunity at the moment.

Schedule 1 does actually have quite a number of references in terms of sections related to the Land Transport Act 1998. All of these, as we can understand it here, relate to the maximum penalty that would be applied. Now, there are a number of individual sections that are listed there that actually have more than just a couple, in some regards. Is the Minister of Transport comfortable that all of those that are identified there adequately have been cross-referenced, that need to be collected? There are so many areas that have been identified there. One assumes that what it’s going to do, as it says there, is replace “maximum penalty is” with “person is liable to”. Is that going to incorporate any potential range of penalty options that might exist, and that’s the sort of genesis behind the change in terminology there as opposed to a maximum penalty?

In terms of Schedule 2, which is the other schedule that hasn’t been referred to yet, the Minister in the chair, as he, by his own admission, is the current—he says “new”—Attorney-General, so he may be able to shed some light on this. When it comes to new Part 10 of Schedule 1 of the Land Transport Act 1998, Schedule 2 will seek to identify section 31, which is the application of when these amendments take place. Now, of interest, subsection (1) relates to the amendment applying only to when the offence is committed on or after commencement. We’ll get to commencement date in due course, but the second one is about the fact that “(2) An offence committed, in whole or in part”. What does “in part” mean? You either commit an offence in whole or—is this in relation to an investigation process that someone might be through a process of investigation, as opposed to part before commencement, remains subject to this Act as enforced before commencement?

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan. We’re coming near the end of this, members, so it’ll be pretty specific and new.

17:15

Thank you, Mr Chair. I just actually want to ask the Minister of Transport a couple of very quick questions around the Minister’s amendment; noting that this Amendment Paper 508 has not gone through select committee stage but is relevant here for this Part 1. I just want to check with the Minister that, particularly when we’re looking at the new clause 18A that the Minister has amended section 98A(1)(a)(ii)—just checking. Oh yeah. I just want to check with the Minister on the rationale behind this particular part. Because with new clause 18A, this part refers to the authorisation to the Commissioner of Police to give notice prohibiting the sale or disposal of—I want to check, in this case, when you are looking at the changes, how would that work in practice? Also noting that it now requires a court to order the forfeiture, or the forfeiture and destruction of the vehicle. Would that then mean that if the person did not give permission for that, the court now is able to do that instead? Is that the whole point: to close that particular loophole in the existing system?

I want to check specifically on new clause 18A. With that—no, actually, that one has been answered. So, yeah, I guess that particular question for the Minister on his new Amendment Paper 508. Is it to do with now the court is able to do that instead of the registered person?

17:17

In relation to Schedule 1 that Mr Utikere raises: yes, I’m comfortable the cross-references are correct, but you never know. [Interruption] Well, you don’t. I mean, yes, I’m comfortable, but also I’m not a legal drafter. As the member points out, there’s 20, 25—give or take—so let’s hope and wait and see.

I’m advised that the maximum penalty phraseology with the replacement that the person is liable to reflects modern day Parliamentary Counsel Office drafting, so it’s a drafting decision.

In relation to “in part”, I did take some advice about this. It’s an interesting little issue, which is Schedule 2. “In part” covers the unlikely situation where the offence takes place at the time of or the moment of commencement, which is theoretically possible. If we passed this bill at midnight and there are some yahoos on the good streets of Palmerston North, you never know. Let’s hope not! The good local MP, I’m sure, will be very worked up about that.

That’s right. You know it!

What’s that?

You know it!

Well, ha, ha! Yeah.

17:19

I move, That debate on this question now close.

One final question for Ginny Andersen.

Thank you very much, Mr Chair—that’s so good of you. I have a genuine question around new section 118B, inserted by clause 20, in Part 1. It’s the requirement for a transport service licence holder to provide information. I just want to know, genuinely, is that like a taxi driver or a bus driver? What actually is a “transport service licence holder”? I’m assuming it’s like a taxi driver.

Assuming that there’s been a boy racer or someone and then the taxi driver knows something about them—like knows that they were the person who did the alleged crime. I’d just like to understand practically how this would operate. Then the police officer goes around to a taxi driver’s house and says, “Do you know about Gary doing a burnout? Did you see that?” Therefore, if he doesn’t cough up—if there’s some evidence that the taxi driver knows some information—will the police take the licence off the taxi driver for failing to provide the information? Just interested to know, practically: is it taxi drivers and bus drivers? What is the transport service licence holder, and how does this play into whether or not there’s a conviction for illegal street racer activity?

I’m really, genuinely, interested to know whether police have advice on how do you know if the Uber driver or the taxi driver isn’t telling the truth with their withholding information? Has there been any analysis on the risk of someone who relies upon that licence—for their weekly income, to provide for their family—if there’s been an allegation that they have information the police would like to receive, they don’t provide that? Can they lose their licence, and what’s the recourse for that, should they lose it?

17:20

It’s the licence holder. So in relation to a taxi company, it’s the company; they hold the licence, that’s who it applies to. There’s a range of—in 118B(1), (2), and (3), around that.

17:21

I move, That debate on this question now close.

The question is that the Minister’s amendment to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 508 be agreed to.

17:24

Thank you, Mr Chair. I welcome the Minister in the chair as well. Look, the way I see things is that this is around the workability of the court process in terms of—not just in, well, empowerment by the police or by the enforcement officer, but actually the decisions to be taken by the court around destruction and all of those sorts of things. So it’s about workability.

My question for the Minister is in relation to clause 29. This is where section 129A is replaced. It’s around the “Confiscation and destruction after third illegal street racing offence if substitute owns or has interest in vehicle”. This is applying to someone who has been convicted of two previous offences—under a specified section of the Land Transport Act—and that there is a time period of four years before the current offence would have been committed. Now, in this provision it talks about “a substitute for the offender owns or has an interest in the specified motor vehicle;”. Now, I think new section 123J relates to “substitute” and the definition, but my question to the Minister is: given that there is a discretion that follows by the court in new section 129A(3), where the court does have discretion to order the destruction—well firstly the confiscation of the motor vehicle in question, and then the destruction and we’ll have some questions around that. But with this use of the term “substitute”, is the Minister comfortable—well, perhaps even first clarify what that term actually means, even though it’s contained in new section 123J—that there is reference to a “substitute” as opposed to either the person themselves or any other way in which that provision could be expressed to meet the needs of the court’s consideration?

17:27

Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to start with a question around interpretation of this new Subpart 5A which is inserted by clause 25. The two interpretations I want to check with the Minister on are the “hire purchase agreement” and the “lease”.

Now, on the hire purchase agreement, my understanding is, looking at particularly, let’s say, what looks like the soon to be registered person—let’s use the terminology under the Land Transport Act and not the Sentencing Act. Let’s say you get the registered person, and this is to do with if they are buying a vehicle in instalments or potentially other mechanisms. Would that be the correct interpretation? We’re looking at “hire purchase agreement”.

The second question is: if a lease does not include a hire purchase agreement, what then would be the difference between a lease and a rental service agreement? Surely “rental” and “lease” would have comparable meanings. Those two definitions are the two that I want to kind of explore and get the Minister’s clarification on first.

17:28

Thank you, Mr Chair. You’ve been in the wars, Mr Chair. Poor fella.

He’s been in a rumble.

Don’t you start. I’ll just address Mr Utikere’s question. It was around the definition of “substitute” and the question was “What does substitute mean?” At a high level, a substitute is either a registered party to, or a person who owns or has an interest in, a vehicle that is used to commit certain offences by someone else. In that context, the offender or driver can’t own or have an interest in the vehicle that was used to commit the offence. That’s how you get the substitute reason in there.

17:29

Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I do have a question for the Minister—and apologies, I think I asked this in the wrong section earlier. There is a genuine issue with legislation here. In the past, it’s resulted in very few vehicles being actually confiscated and destroyed. The primary reason for this is that they’re registered to somebody else, and when that person fronts up in court, quite often hardship is used. We’re not backing away from the fact hardship is a legitimate reason, and we’re supportive of the fact that that can be used. But it has been, in the past, a fundamental reason why attempts to curtail street racing and illegal street racing haven’t been effective—because they’re registered to someone else and because they front up to the court and say, “I need this to get to work”, and it’s hardship. I just would at least like to know if the Minister’s turned his mind to this problem. We asked this question in select committee, and we asked officials if they could even tell us how many vehicles under the previous legislation were up for being destroyed but weren’t, because this provision had been utilised, so that we could get an understanding if this was really a driving factor for why so few cars had been crushed under the previous legislation. It’s clear, from asking, that no one had even done that level of analysis. I’ve looked through the regulatory impact statement. I can’t see any analysis here either. If the fundamental problem is that cars aren’t crushed, because they’re registered to someone else and the hardship clause is in, what is it that will prevent that from occurring again?

17:30

I should just finish off the remaining part of that answer to Tangi Utikere’s question, which is that the substitution won’t apply to this regime, because you need to have ownership or an interest in the vehicle. Just to clarify, that is, under my understanding, from the old regime.

17:31

Thank you. Can I just follow up on my colleague the Hon Ginny Andersen’s points and just take them one step further. It would be good to get a response from the Minister around this. Clearly there is an ability for the court, under clause 29, to consider when not to make an order. This is not actually saying that the default position will be that an order of the court will naturally follow but, instead, that there are circumstances where the court must not make an order, so there is no discretion in terms of its ability, but they must not. That’s outlined in new section 129A(4), and it does talk around the “undue hardship”. Now, naturally, this is kind of interrelated. Now, my colleague referred to the lack of information in front of the select committee at the time. Now, it’s worth noting that there has actually been a significant passage of time since this bill emerged from select committee and we’re dealing with it now. It would be interesting to hear from the Minister if any further information is forthcoming and if any modelling has been undertaken to deal with the issue around capacity. Now, we support this bill, and we think it will provide a legislative framework to give Police the tools to do so, but we also want to make sure that this bill, as it stands currently, is going to be able to be enforced. What we very clearly have in this country is a track record when it comes to giving Police and Ministers the tools to be able to do this, but, actually, the number of cars that were crushed under “Crusher” Collins was actually much fewer than perhaps some thought would have been the case. It is an important—

Because the deterrent worked.

What’s that?

Because the deterrent worked.

Well, you know, we’re back here with another piece of Government legislation to deal with this issue, and it’s important that we have a look at what that will mean in terms of its workability. To the Minister, have the Government or officials done any modelling on the actual number of vehicles that could be forfeited, not confiscated, not impounded, but forfeited? Forfeiture means you give it up whether you like it or you don’t. Is there any modelling that’s been provided around forfeiture? That presumption, if you’re wanting a legislative reference, sir, is new section 142AAH. That’s the new presumption for each year, so has any modelling been undertaken?

17:34

Thank you, Mr Chair. There were some questions from Ginny Andersen and also Tangi Utikere about hardship and numbers around vehicles that were confiscated under the previous regime. There are some statistics and numbers available, and I can read them out to the committee. Between 2014-15 and 2024-25, for street racing and burnouts, failing to stop, and failing to provide information, there were 136 confiscation orders, three confiscation and destruction orders, 24 destruction orders, and two forfeiture orders. Because of the way that the information is collected decentrally—it’s collected through district courts—it’s almost impossible to tell how many orders weren’t given or weren’t made based on the offending at hand. It’s very difficult to collect that information. However, now that there’s a presumptive mechanism in place, we would expect higher numbers, because the presumption is for forfeiture unless an order is made not to do so. From now on, we’ll be able to better collect statistics around the number of confiscation and destruction orders as compared to those which are not made because of that presumption. I guess it’s just generally not possible—well, it’s hard—to accurately describe how many vehicles will be forfeited and destroyed under the new regime. It will depend on whether the court orders forfeiture or forfeiture and destruction and on the circumstances of the case.

Then, just finally, on the hardship question that was raised, the court must not make an order when there’s undue hardship to a substitute for the offender. That’s the case where an offender is driving someone else’s vehicle—if I get this right—and an order for destruction of that vehicle would cause undue hardship to the substitute, to the person who owns the vehicle. That might be an instance where a court must not make the order.

17:35

Thank you. I thank the Minister for that response there. It does beg the question whether there’s been any assessment on the administrative burden on the Ministry of Justice, for example—particularly given this Government is making cuts to the Public Service—and their ability to be able to carry through on there as well.

I want to ask a question about clause 32. Now, clause 32, as it’s titled there, is the amendment around the “Offender must not acquire new interest in motor vehicle for [a period of] 12 months”. This is a circumstance, as we understand it, where someone has been convicted of an offence under this Act and they would not be able to acquire a new interest. They could retain an existing interest perhaps, although maybe not if their vehicle had been forfeited and disposed of. But we have this real situation where it is possible where offenders might not acquire an interest in a new motor vehicle as such for a period of 12 months but they certainly might perhaps apply some pressure on to other family members who might be, perhaps, in vulnerable circumstances for them to acquire the vehicle and for the person themselves to actually undertake the use of it.

Is there a difference in acquisition of an interest in a motor vehicle and actually losing one’s licence so that you’re not able to actually drive? It’s one thing to say you’re not allowed to acquire any additional interest in motor vehicles. Of course, it’s a new interest, so it’s one that they didn’t, obviously, used to have, but how is that going to serve as a deterrent where it is entirely possible for—and we hear about it—those that don’t necessarily have an interest in a motor vehicle to be able to get around that by having a family member acquire the interest for them and, therefore, potentially still have the offender utilise aspects of the vehicle themselves?

17:38

One possible deterrence factor in preventing someone from acquiring an interest in a motor vehicle may well be that it’s just not cool to have the vehicle that you race around in being owned by your mum. That could be a deterrence factor. There is quite a lot of pride and respect given to car ownership. As a young person who once owned my own car, it would be a deterrent, I would have thought, to me and my friends to not be able to own vehicles. Some of these activities are based on the status of that person, and, sometimes, one of the deterrents might be that if you don’t own your own vehicle and you’re running around in your mum’s Honda Civic, you might not have that status or be as cool to your mates any more. That could be a deterrent against this kind of behaviour, so that’s one possibility.

17:39

I just have some further questions in relation to the provisions around “Forfeiture, or forfeiture and destruction, of vehicles used in specified offences”. We’ve traversed the two key problems with “We’re worried about the towies not picking up the cars and storing them without any cost allocation.” We’ve covered that in Part 1. We’ve also covered the concern that there has been a history with this type of legislation where we don’t see the level of destructions, because of loopholes that have been utilised. I really would like the Minister to comment on whether he thinks a really good deterrent—a really good, effective way of getting on top of this problem—would be better resourcing of front-line police.

My understanding, when I visited those areas that have a disproportionate number of antisocial road users and boy racer activities that are disturbing the public, was those areas that have actually managed them better have had a dedicated group of road policing where those police officers get to know the repeat offenders, they repeatedly green-sticker them or sticker their vehicles, and they have a dedicated resource that goes out into key areas and polices. It’s in some of those places where we have seen that where there’s been a dedicated resource in place has been the most effective way to ensure that communities are not disrupted in an ongoing manner. It’s been where those areas are tight on resourcing—they have inadequate front-line police resource to be able to do that—where we see this behaviour where they do a one-off sting and then there’s retribution by the boy racer community, and we end up seeing potentially an escalation that not only endangers front-line police officers but also increases potentially the risk to bystanders and community members when we’re having this kind of retribution and escalation of activities going on.

I’m interested to know whether he has a view that some of the weaknesses that we’ve already discussed in this bill might be actually encountered if, for example, we’d reached the 500 promised police that was meant to be achieved in, I think, November last year—was it September? I forget—and that it’s actually a Police resourcing issue to be able to have adequate police officers who can routinely and regularly check in and have good intelligence on who those repeat offenders are and be able to use an existing range of legislation to be able to apply this in a way that is consistent, that is clear, and that there is an understanding within that community that this is not tolerated. My concern is that this is the second time National’s had a crack at this bill. Wouldn’t you be better off just appropriately resourcing the front-line police to do their job as well as they can instead of them being so stretched?

17:42

We may be a wee way from the strict clause of the bill, but the question is an important one. Of course, resourcing our Police and our justice sector is incredibly important to us. That’s why Budget 2026 invested $1.3 billion into law and order, led by people like justice Minister Paul Goldsmith. That includes $391 million for front-line policing resources, upgrades to our police stations in Greymouth and Whanganui, and of course investment in technology to better track and apprehend the criminal actors in our country. Of course, one of the best deterrents—along with resourcing our police force—is the certainty and swiftness of punishment under our law and order system, which has proven to be an effective deterrent. That is the point and the purpose of this bill.

17:43

Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to have a look at new section 142AAI, inserted by clause 36. This is where a court must not make an order under new section 142AAH. Now, this is in relation to either a forfeiture order, where the vehicle is forfeited to the Crown; or a forfeiture and destruction order, which speaks for itself—it’s forfeited to the Crown, and then it’s crushed.

Now, the court needs to be satisfied—there are a couple of things there about the “manifestly unjust” phrase. OK, they won’t make an order there that results in “extreme hardship to the offender”—so there’s not just hardship but a higher threshold of extremity there—or “undue hardship to any other person;”, so that could be, one assumes, a family member or perhaps an impact of hardship on the household that might relate to employment prospects if someone is reliant on a vehicle for their employment and that means that the household would suffer.

Now, in new paragraph (b), though, it talks about the fact that for any of the following sort of offences that were committed, if the vehicle was “stolen or converted” at the time—earlier on in this bill, there are four offences. Only three of them are captured here for there to be some discretion for the court not to make an order for forfeiture or forfeiture and destruction. It is the “aggravated failing to stop offender:”, the “frightening or intimidating convoy” piece, or being a street racer in terms of activity. The one that’s missing out here is the offence where you fail to provide information when requested to do so by an enforcement officer. That naturally creates a little bit of an anomaly in terms of the four offences in this bill that have been identified. Three of them are captured under here where the court may not place an order for forfeiture or forfeiture and destruction, but that then implies that there is no discretion for someone who fails to provide information and that the court must then actually either make a forfeiture order or a forfeiture and destruction order for an offence of that nature.

The question for the Associate Minister of Transport is: why is there that discrepancy as part of Part 2? It might be that the Government is relying on a provision elsewhere, but surely if there are four offences contained earlier in Part 1—I have no issue with the three being carried over, but why is there an anomaly with one of them not being carried over?

17:46

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Perhaps the Associate Minister of Transport would like to take a bit of time to respond to that, but I will move now to the new section, which is new section 142AAJ, inserted by clause 36. We haven’t talked about this. This is the offence to sell or dispose of, a motor vehicle that is subject to a forfeiture or a forfeiture and destruction order. We assume that a charge has been laid on an offender, that the court has made an order for forfeiture or for forfeiture and destruction, and that is not going to necessarily happen over time. We therefore infer that there is a time period that a vehicle would be subject to that court order, whatever that period might be.

Now, it seems that there are circumstances where someone might interfere with that court order in that process. This particular new subsection, 142AAJ(2), identifies that if someone actually does that—if someone does either interfere with a vehicle by selling it or disposing of it—the person is then liable to a conviction or to a fine not exceeding $2,000. Well, what if a person sells it for 15 grand? What if someone goes through and sells a vehicle for something that is more than $2,000? What provision is there, Minister, to recoup, effectively, a profit that is made when someone’s—and, as we know, often in the court system the maximum is not applied; maybe the maximum might be applied in those circumstances of $2,000 because someone made a net gain of 13,000 bucks. There is a question there around the level of the fine and whether that is appropriate but also whether there is, if anywhere, a provision to recoup, effectively, profit that might be gained by someone who can gerrymander an outcome, effectively, in their favour?

17:48

Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I just had a couple of questions in relation to the process outlined in the legislation pertaining to “Appeal by third party against forfeiture, or forfeiture and destruction, order”—I think that’s new section 142AAM, inserted by clause 36, on page 24 of the legislation. This section applies if the court has made, in respect to the vehicle in question, an order for forfeiture of the vehicle or forfeiture and destruction, and it provides that the person may appeal to the appropriate court on one or more of the following grounds. This is my question: is the third party another impacted person, or is that applying to the person who did the illegal street racing? That’s my question.

The forfeiture or the forfeiture and destruction order, as we’ve already discussed, can cause hardship, but also, if the appellant is a secured party under the security agreement relating to the motor vehicle but has no relationship of another kind to the offender—maybe it’s a financer, so there’s the cut of cars over a long period of time being paid off and there’s actually a company that owns part of the car—is that able to stop that destruction if they’ve got a financial interest in part of that car that’s going to be potentially destroyed? It also provides that the appellant is the lessor of a motor vehicle under a lease that has no relationship of another kind with the offender.

Another situation would be that the motor vehicle was on hire at the material time in accordance with the rental service licence under the Land Transport Act, and I’m really interested to understand what the chances of that are. I mean, there’ll be lots of financial companies out there who would be interested to know that if they’re required to lodge the appeal within 20 working days after the date of the order—what if they miss that? If they’re late or if they’re not notified, is there any way through the legislation for the courts to notify that potential entity that has a financial interest in order for them to have notification within the 20 working days after the date of the order? How would that be carried out through the courts?

Also noted here is the service of the notice of appeal. It talks about the prosecutor in the proceeding that has resulted in the relevant conviction and how that is actually being served upon some of those—and sometimes there are finance companies, and sometimes they’re on high-interest terms in many of these situations. I’m really interested to know how the communication of that court order is done and how we’d find the person who is the interested party.

I also have another question, and I’m really sad that Chris Bishop is not able to answer that one, but I’m interested to know this from the Minister in the chair. When the first car was crushed under the previous legislation, I vividly remember that it was Anne Tolley who was the Minister at the time. There was a great front-page picture of her in a pink high-vis vest and stiletto heels standing on top of the crushed car, and I was just wondering whether we would get the same undertaking from the current Minister of Transport to re-enact that photograph.

17:51

I can only speak for myself, but I don’t think they make heels in my size at the moment, and so I can’t make that—

They do—I think they do.

Oh, they do? Well, there you go—never say never.

Look, just to address the questions from Mr Utikere and Ginny Andersen, there was a question on new section 142AAI, inserted by clause 36, about why the offence of failing to provide information offenders is not being carried over. It’s because the provision itself anticipates a vehicle which is stolen or converted, and if you were an individual who was asked to provide that information, it would be a reasonable excuse not to provide that information because, as the owner of the vehicle, you wouldn’t necessarily know who the thief is. So it wouldn’t be necessary to port that provision over, because the two wouldn’t necessarily marry up.

The second question, I think, or the second contribution, was around the proceeds of sale. I think that the key point to that one is that if the offender sells a vehicle despite an order, the courts can recover from the proceeds of that sale. That’s the key point around that issue.

Then there was the first of two questions from Ginny Andersen. The first one was around third parties. The third party must be a person other than the offender—I think that that was the key thing—and the court must then set aside the order of forfeiture if one of those grounds of appeal in new subsection (2) applies.

The final point was around notification. The third party is notified of the order by the court and can then apply to the court to have the vehicle transferred to them, or the proceeds thereof.

17:53

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Members, the time has come for me to leave the Chair for the meal break. The House will resume at 7.30 p.m.

19:30

Kia orana. Good evening, Madam Chair. I’ve got a number of questions. This is a pretty important part, because, I guess, fundamentally it gives the police the particular powers to do a whole range of different things, because it seeks to amend the Policing Act 2008. I want to direct the Minister’s attention first to clause 42, which relates to the temporary closing of roads. This is a whole replacement of section 35. It effectively identifies where there is a need for the police to utilise the new power to close a road or part of a road to traffic.

When we look at replacement section 35(2), this is about the power to close a road or part of a road to traffic: “The constable may temporarily close to traffic any road, or part of a road,—(a) leading to or from the place;”—which is fine. But there’s a second paragraph there, (b), which is “in the vicinity of the place.” Now, given this is a specific power that would restrict the liberty of people to move around freely, it is important that the powers are appropriately defined. My first question for the Minister is: where it refers to “the vicinity of the place”, how is that going to be defined?

If we think about different parts of the country—rural parts of the country; urban parts of the country—they are quite different in terms of landscape and how they are laid out. Can the Minister give an undertaking—and if he does, it would be good to understand the scope of that undertaking—that this won’t be used as a power, for example, to completely close off whole suburbs in communities? I want to just understand what “the vicinity” looks like in terms of a definition for the police utilising that power.

19:32

I think generally we’ll just take a plain statutory interpretation to wording in our statutes and look at the plain English meaning of the word in its context and in light of its purpose.

If you look at what the part of the Act is trying to do, it’s giving police the power to temporarily close roads. That power already exists in the current Policing Act. The member was right to raise that this will also give the power to close to traffic any road or part of a road in the vicinity of a place in which disorder is or a range of other effects. Taking a common-sense approach, it would be a reasonable location from the particular place where the disorder or the danger exists for a reasonable time for the purpose of maintaining order over that place. It would be a stretch, I think, to try and stretch this to an entire suburb, but it would always be context dependent, depending on the circumstances with which the police are faced at the time. I think it’s a reasonableness approach about what “vicinity” might be.

19:33

Thank you, Madam Chair. I thank the Minister for that—the context-dependent aspect. I won’t, then, go into the other parts of that particular new subsection, because he has addressed that.

One change that the Justice Committee did make when it comes to new section 35A—this is specifically in relation to utilising the grounds of antisocial road use. In new section 35A(1)(b) “a person is operating, or may reasonably be expected to operate, a motor vehicle at or near the place in a way that—(iii) causes, or is likely to cause, damage”. It was “substantial damage”. Is it just that the utilisation is not really trying to find a quantifiable as to the type of damage but just that damage itself exists?

19:34

I’m just trying to dig through the select committee report, because I think that was a change made at the select committee stage. We’ve got page 3 of the report: the select committee reports back that “the reference to ‘substantial’ could limit the Police’s ability to apply the new power. Further, it would require them to also consider whether any damage or potential damage was substantial, which could invite legal challenge.” The committee recommended deleting the word “substantial” from new section 35A(1)(b)(iii), and the House agreed to that change at the second reading.

19:35

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thanks, Minister. I want to move now to new section 35A(4). This is about where a constable is, effectively, utilising the power to do two things for a person: either you’re not to enter this particular area or you are required to leave. This is a very important piece of the legislation because it outlines the powers for the constable to engage that rest there.

In a circumstance where a place or part of a place is closed, there needs to be some way in which that information is easily and readily relayed to members who are there. It is highly possible that there will be individuals, that might be in the area that’s just been closed by a constable, who may not know what’s going on there. If we think about a neighbourhood, for example, this is very common when it comes to some antisocial behaviours that are undertaken in neighbourhoods where someone might be coming out of a property or nearby, they happen to be in the area, and there is now a requirement to give some direction for people to vacate or move on from that area.

Now, it’s not clear as to how that direction would take place. It is likely, I assume, that it is by audible means that a constable is empowered to simply indicate, “Right, you need to move on.” or whatever it might be. Is there any concern to be expressed by the Minister that there needs to be anything else around this? Is it his expectation that the police would utilise methods of communication that might be befitting of the gathering—if we’re talking about large gatherings, for example, an announcement by loud hail speaker, those sorts of things?

I think it is important, because it’s one thing for the Police to have the power—we don’t have any issues with that power—but it is important for those who are there, either they are part of the initial gathering or may have joined subsequently, that there needs to be an understanding as to how that particular direction is expected to be relayed to the community so they don’t find themselves falling foul of this.

19:37

The Police currently have temporary closure powers that they do exercise, and there is existing supporting guidance within Police about how they direct people with regards to those powers. In terms of how the Police do that, there is existing guidance within Police operations.

Dr Tracey McLellan, did you still want a call? Oh, have you deferred to Tangi Utikere?

No, it’s all right. You carry on with your line. I’ll skip ahead.

19:38

Thank you. I appreciate the Minister for his answers. I think—yeah, no, OK, I accept that.

Moving on to new subsection (5) in new clause 35A, inserted by clause 42, this is talking about what is an accessible place. It’s important that we get the definitions right, where it says it’s “a place that is capable of being used, or is being used, by the public”. Now, what if it is a circumstance where it is a road that is capable of being used by the public but it is, effectively, already closed to the public?

I’m sure the Minister will have in his own electorate examples from time to time where there are stretches of road—or, indeed, parks or reserves—where a number of these gatherings can potentially take place. Let’s not forget that we are talking about antisocial road-use behaviour. That does not have to mean that we’re talking about a complete stretch of road; it could be a car park area, for example, where a number of these activities are undertaken. In a circumstance where access to the public has, effectively, been closed—to those that might have longer memories of Palmerston North, we have a place called “Pork Chop Hill” up there. It’s not called that any more.

Tell us more.

No, I’ll leave it for others to talk about their own experiences, Mr Bennett, in terms of “Pork Chop Hill”—and I do like a pork chop. That was often an area where you would see some antisocial behaviour, and that would be utilised alongside vehicles. There were times when that was, effectively, closed. It wouldn’t be available to be publicly accessible, because it was closed to the public. How does this bill kind of relate with that and the ability for the Police to still have powers in that circumstance?

19:40

Well, I don’t know what goes on up at Pork Chop Hill, but even if it had a sign saying “closed” or maybe had a fence or gate which closed off access, the section itself defines a place or accessible place as a place that is capable of being used or is being used by the public for motor vehicle access.

If it is capable of being used, I guess you’d have to look at the definition, or, again, the context-specific circumstance of “can the public actually access that place at the time; is it capable of being used?” If there is a gathering up on Pork Chop Hill of members of the public doing whatever it is they do on Pork Chop Hill, outside their car, if they’re capable of accessing it and if the place is capable of being used, I guess it would fit that definition of an accessible place, regardless of whether or not they are lawfully entitled to be there.

Tangi Utikere.

Madam Chair—Madam Chair.

19:41

Thank you, Madam Chair—she’s already called me, thanks.

I’ve just called Tangi Utikere.

Thank you, Madam Chair. For clarity, Pork Chop Hill is now known as Te Motu o Poutoa: Anzac Park, and there’s a lot of change that’s happened here, but that’s all good.

Who would’ve made the connection?

There you go. [Interruption] Still do. Now, I want to ask about new section 54D—this is a new part of “Infringement offences” and how they are dealt with, under clause 44. Clause 44 is inserting a whole range of different options there.

I did allude to this in a previous part when Minister Bishop, I think it was, was in the chair and I was asking questions about the ability of an enforcement officer and aligned that alongside the commissioner. This one here, new section 54B(2), is where an infringement notice may be cancelled or revoked before a payment is made. The change that the Justice Committee has made has been to remove that power or reference from a constable and to put it with the Commissioner of Police. Now, I understand from the committee’s report that that is because that reflects the way in which things are done and it also allows for a more independent kind of approach to that, rather than that focusing on constable by constable having that particular call.

Is the Minister comfortable—with the changes that have been, effectively, agreed to by the House, through the select committee process—that that is a comfortable move in terms of the commissioner and that there aren’t other parts within the bill as currently in front of the committee where those changes should also take place? That’s the first thing.

The second thing is about new section 54D, which is how the infringement notice may be served. Now, there are some changes there that relate to the inclusion of a postal address. There is also some language in there about it, basically, being served by prepaid post and all of those sorts of things. I’m assuming, Minister, that that’s just an accurate reflection of how infringements are treated elsewhere within Police, and, if that is the case, is he comfortable that that, effectively, is fit for purpose for the future?

19:43

Yes, I think I can confirm both of those assertions by the member Tangi Utikere. The second one is that it, essentially, just reflects how infringement notices are served in part of the statute but also just in general. I think the Justice Committee added some structure to better define where you could send it to, and the messages around prepaid post are probably accurate, although postage is quite expensive these days, so I’m sure the Police, like most organisations, are looking to cover their costs and maybe send things electronically one day, if we get to that point.

The point around replacing “constable” with “Commissioner” is outlined again, as the member said, in the select committee report. Essentially, having it with the constable wouldn’t fit well with the current system. The function currently sits with the Police Infringement Bureau, and so the committee recommended amending new section 54B, inserted by clause 44, to replace references to “constable” with “Commissioner”, and that’s consistent with the approach taken elsewhere in the Policing Act.

The question is that the Minister’s amendment to Schedule 4, set out on Amendment Paper 508, be agreed to.

19:49

I’ll take a quick call just to point out that the commencement is one of those commencements where the Act comes into force not the day after Royal assent but on a couple of dates. The first is that the bulk of the Act comes into force six months after Royal assent—that’s to give Police time to operationalise the changes in the legislation. The second is, if we look at clause 2(2) and (3), there are some provisions that will come into force on a date set by Order in Council or, as a backup, the second anniversary of the Royal assent. Those provisions are all around the new infringement processing system, so that just reflects that it may take some time to get the new infringement processing system in place, and so the law won’t come into force until that system is in place. It could be faster than six months, or it could be slower.

19:50

Thank you, Madam Chair. I thank the Associate Minister of Transport for that. There were some questions around why there are different approaches there, and the Minister said that it gives adequate time. We obviously want to see this bill as containing tools available to the Police as soon as is possible, but we obviously accept that there needs to be an opportunity to operationalise that. Having said that, is it the Minister’s expectation that, even though all the provisions will come into effect as outlined under clause 2, the roll-out of all of this will be across the country at the one time?

The reason why I’m sort of asking this question is that we do have, for example, previous legislation when it comes to roadside drug testing, where, working through select committee, we had an expectation that it would come into effect, but the actual roll-out of that operationally has been staggered in particular areas until it’s got to a point where it’s across the whole country. While, on the one hand, the Minister is saying that it’s been given time—and hopefully adequate time—so that it’ll be rolled out as soon as it possibly can, we want to make sure that it works. I’m just checking that the expectation is that this will be applied across all policing districts rather than a staged or staggered roll-out.

19:51

The intention is for it to be rolled out across the country all at once. There aren’t the same, I guess, kinds of equipment requirements that were necessary for the trials or the pilots for the drug-driver testing. I should just clarify that, earlier, I said, strictly under clause 2, the commencement date for those infringement provisions could, in theory, be earlier than the six months, but it’s unlikely to be, because the offences need to be in for the infringements to apply, so it’s likely that, all going well, we can get it all in at the same time.

19:52

Thank you. I guess this might be my final contribution in relation to clause 1, the title. This is, obviously, a bill that contains a number of different measures that seek to amend a number of different Acts but primarily the Land Transport Act and the Policing Act. What we’re wanting to do here in providing our support for it is to quell the disorderly behaviour that is associated with the choices, that some make, that have an absolute impact on communities. We certainly don’t support that, but we often say that what it says on the tin is what it actually is about. Is the Minister comfortable that, actually, the Antisocial Road Use Legislation Amendment Bill is what it should be called, or should it be something that, actually, is more of a focus on antisocial use by road users and the impact that that has on communities and the need to empower our police out in communities so that they have the tools to deal to what is terrible behaviour that goes on and causes a lot of negative focus and experience out in the community?

19:53

Yeah, I think the select committee was comfortable with this title, and we are too. The member makes a good point that the purpose of the legislation is to clamp down on antisocial road users, but also inherent in that is the road use itself, so we’re comfortable with the title. We think it explains pretty well what the bill does.

Mr Speaker, the committee has considered the Antisocial Road Use Legislation Amendment Bill and reports it with amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

The Antisocial Road Use Legislation Amendment Bill is set down for third reading immediately.

19:56

on behalf of the Minister of Transport: I present a legislative statement on the Antisocial Road Use Legislation Amendment Bill.

That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

19:57

on behalf of the Minister of Transport: I move, That the Antisocial Road Use Legislation Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

Colleagues, today is a great day for communities up and down New Zealand. People have had enough of the chaos, the fleeing police, illegal street racing, burnouts, disorderly dirt bike gatherings, intimidating vehicle convoys, and siren battles. These activities are not harmless thrills; they are disruptive, they’re dangerous, and they’re deeply damaging to the sense of safety that people deserve in their own neighbourhoods. This bill is about restoring order, restoring confidence, and restoring the basic right of people to feel safe in their own streets. Throughout the legislative process, the purpose of this bill has remained very clear—to ensure that Police and the courts have the right tools and penalties to deter antisocial road use and to protect the public. After select committee scrutiny and very robust debate at committee of the whole House, I’m confident that we have a bill that does just that. The bill hasn’t materially changed since it was first introduced into the House in July 2025. I think that reflects the mandate that is there for these changes both from communities and from this House, as well as the well-crafted nature of the legislation, of course.

None the less, I will celebrate some of the key features one last time. First of all, presumptive sentences. At the heart of this bill is the establishment of presumptive sentences of vehicle forfeiture or of forfeiture and destruction. This applies to first and subsequent offences of illegal street racing or burnouts. This presumptive sentence will also apply to the new offence for individuals participating in an intimidating convoy and the extended offence for failing to provide Police with information that will help them to identify drivers. Let’s be clear what this means under the new legislation: if anyone out there commits any one of these offences, their vehicle will likely be forfeited or crushed.

In the House, today, we tabled a minor and technical Amendment Paper in advance of the committee of the whole House debate to carry over the Police’s existing power to prevent the sale or disposal of a motor vehicle following impoundment, and this helps to ensure offenders’ vehicles are forfeited or destroyed. Another thing this bill does is it gives Police stronger powers. We are giving Police the ability to temporarily close a larger range of areas, notably those areas that are used for antisocial road use events and behaviours, such as beaches and car parks. The bill also creates a new $1,000 infringement fine for anyone who fails to leave a temporarily closed area when directed to by Police. These powers will help Police to prevent and manage unruly antisocial road use events, which can attract hundreds of participants and bystanders.

It’s not always safe for police to respond at the time of the event. Much of this dangerous behaviour occurs at night, which poses some enforcement challenges for our police. This bill will strengthen the existing powers that police have to help them identify a broad range of offenders and will penalise vehicle owners who then withhold that identifying information.

Finally, to the issue of siren battles, and we all know what these are and we all know what we’re talking about. This bill will increase the penalty for excessive noise coming from within or on a vehicle to $300—no more $50 slaps on the wrist. This is primarily to target and deter what’s known as siren battle behaviour, where people compete with each other to make the loudest noise. It reminds me a lot of Parliament sometimes, and maybe we need some siren battle prohibitions here in Parliament!

Submitters and other members of the public have spoken or have written to our offices to remind us how distressing this is. It’s distressing due to nights of having no or disrupted sleep because of this totally inconsiderate behaviour.

It’s important to note that the bill maintains important protections. Appeal rights remain available, courts maintain discretion as to whether or not offenders are allowed to purchase new vehicles, the new offence for participating in an intimidating convoy applies to individual drivers rather than a whole convoy, and—let me repeat what has been said many times—this bill does not target car enthusiasts or legal car meetings. It targets illegal, antisocial behaviour.

I thank my colleagues and previous Ministers of Transport for commencing this work, alongside the Minister of Police, the Hon Mark Mitchell. I want to recognise colleagues from across the House who have also supported this bill and its passage throughout select committee and here this evening. Finally, thank you to the members of the public, the councils, organisations, and the community who have submitted on this bill and who have told us how these events interfere with their sleep, restrict access to their homes, and create an atmosphere of intimidation. It is their experiences which reinforce why this legislation is necessary, and today is a win for those who have been asking for action. I think that we all commend this bill to the House.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

20:02

Madam Speaker, thank you. Kia orana. I rise as Labour’s transport spokesperson in support of this bill. We supported this bill at first reading. There were a couple of aspects that we wanted to have teased out at the select committee stage. The bill has emerged through that process, and it has come through this evening in a state where the Labour Party will continue to support it.

This is, as we know, a bill that was introduced as an omnibus bill that sought to change a number of discrete pieces of legislation—the Land Transport Act, the Sentencing Act, the Policing Act, and the Land Transport (Offences and Penalties) Regulations—and when we step back and look at why that was, it was because the police in New Zealand needed to have the tools to be able to deal with what is a very clear form of antisocial road-user behaviour in New Zealand. It’s important that our police are resourced and equipped to undertake the roles that they do to protect the community from a whole range of different offences and aspects, and I’ll go through some of them in a moment. But before I do, I also want to acknowledge those who submitted through the select committee process. As a result of that, this bill did receive a number of changes that we think have actually made it much more usable and workable.

There are still some aspects in the bill that I think are not yet tried and tested. The Minister of Transport, during the committee of the whole House stage, did indicate that there was no guarantee that this bill would deal to some of the things that were contained in the bill as it currently stands, but there was a lot of hope and promise that it would.

The fundamental concern that we have around the workability of this, of course, is that it’s one thing to give the police the tools to be able to do this—it is already a police force in this country that is not fully resourced in terms of numbers; despite the current Government’s attempt to say that they will increase resourcing for police, they have failed to deliver that—but the other side of that is that when the police have these tools at their disposal and they utilise them, it is expected that they do actually make a difference. One only needs to look back to the person who was colloquially known as “Crusher Collins” in terms of the nickname that she got and the inability to deliver a huge number of cars that were actually crushed. On the one hand, it’s great to have these tools, but on the other hand, we expect them to be utilised, where appropriate.

When we think about the enforcement opportunities that will follow through this bill, it is important that there are three components around enforcement: firstly, that the enforcement is fair, and that is why, on this side of the House, we have been keen to ensure that the language that is included in this bill is able to reflect a fair approach to the implementation of this legislation. Secondly, that it is consistent, so that when the bill says that it’s going to do something, then that can consistently be applied across a whole range of circumstances. The final point is that the bill is transparent, and this is fundamental. Where this Parliament gives a number of powers to the New Zealand Police to utilise, if they choose to, it’s important that we understand that there is that level of transparency so that everyone knows exactly what those powers are. The police know what they are, what they’re entitled to do, and what they’re not, and it is also so that the public—who may be innocent bystanders in some of these activities and who are going about their normal day or evening activities—don’t get caught up in this, but are able to actually have a fair go in terms of when they’re told to disperse and move on that they’re able to do that.

That’s why things like how a police officer or a constable is going to communicate the direction for people to move on or to leave are very, very important. It might be one thing for the Government or the Minister of Transport to say, “Look, there will be a training process rolled out.”, and it is important that there is training—particularly when it comes to new legislation that is rolled out in our community and out in the public—but it is important that that’s able to be relied upon as something that is not just transparent but is also able to be followed through.

The types of behaviours that we are talking about are behaviours where some folk, unfortunately, flee from the police. That is a behaviour that is captured under this bill. Where there is illegal street racing, nobody in communities around the country, whether it’s in rural communities or urban communities, wants to have the constant, or even non-constant, experience of having illegal street racing or events of that nature in their own neighbourhood or outside their own home. Unruly dirt bike gatherings, frightening or intimidating convoys—these are the sorts of examples of behaviours that would be captured by this bill.

When it comes to a convoy, a “convoy” in this bill is defined as “2 or more motor vehicles”. I do think that there is a risk here in terms of the workability of this bill where you could have a circumstance where there are individual vehicles coming to one location and it might be very difficult to define that as a convoy. Now, I know that those are some of the concerns that have been expressed in this House, and I do hope that in terms of the workability and implementation of the structures that will be stood up to support this bill, they are worked through and they are considered.

The final one—and it’s one that the Associate Minister of Transport himself touched on—is excessive noise. Nobody who is in their homes around the country wants to deal with excessive noise blaring out from motor vehicles—no. I don’t, you don’t, and no one else does. I know that my colleague the Hon Phil Twyford certainly doesn’t, and there was the suggestion that if it was Celine Dion, perhaps that was an aggravating factor to disturbances of that nature. But this is a particular bill that will ensure that there is a little bit of peace and harmony around households—

So harsh on Celine!

—well, each to their own—around the country, as well.

There are some concerns here around the ability for some offenders who would be banned, effectively, from gaining a new interest in a motor vehicle for a period of 12 months. If you are an offender who is someone who is constantly offending and this it’s your third time, there are more limitations on your liberty and restrictions imposed as a result. We all know that, sometimes, it is very easy for someone to perhaps sidle up alongside perhaps a vulnerable member of a community—an older person or a friend who perhaps doesn’t have the compunction, necessarily, to say no—and this could be used as a workaround that defeats some aspects of this bill. So I do hope that whilst there is no kind of review or monitoring process as part of this bill, that if there are some aspects that are simply not workable, then there needs to be some understanding as to how those can be addressed to make sure that these powers that we’re giving to our police and that this harmony that we’re expecting in neighbourhoods and communities is able to be addressed, because it is important that that is the case.

There are some changes in this bill that we do support—you know, we do support this bill. We do support neighbourhoods and households being able to go about their daily business without the constant barrage of some activities and behaviours that some road users—not all, but some road users—actually utilise from time to time. I know, in the conversations that I’ve had with my local Police hierarchy in Palmerston North, that there is an absolute need for the police to have more tools and more powers to deal with what are becoming frequent opportunities for antisocial road users to come together and to cause havoc in communities. This is an opportunity to have a bill that says that that simply will not be tolerated; that it must cease, it must stop; and that we’re prepared to give the police the tools to be able to do that. When the police now will be able to go into neighbourhoods and communities and require people to effectively cease what they’re doing and to move on from this antisocial behaviour—these gatherings that do gather a whole pile of folk around them—that is a good move.

We do have the concern, though, in terms of it being rolled out by a police force that is constantly under resourcing pressure, to ensure that we do things right. This Parliament needs to pass good laws, but it also needs to pass laws that can actually be rolled out. What we don’t want is to have a false expectation for communities that this is a bill that’s going to make a difference; that the police have the tools to be able to use this to good effect, but, actually, the choices are that they don’t do that because the resourcing is not there.

In conclusion, this is a bill that’s taken a wee while, actually, to get from the Justice Committee through to where we are tonight. This is about giving some certainty to communities, giving tools to those that need them, and we certainly believe that this bill will make a difference, provided that it’s workable and it’s able to be resourced to be rolled out in the community. We commend this bill to the House.

20:12

众院议长晚上好。 Happy Chinese Language Week.

I rise on behalf of the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand to oppose this bill, and for very good reason and I want to lay some of that out. A lot of that comes down to the conversations we had with the Minister of Transport, both during the committee of the whole House stage and also at the Justice Committee. I want to unpack parts of this bill—noting that this is an omnibus bill and it covers a few specific areas—and I want to start with the Land Transport Act; so, Part 1.

I think, in terms of Part 1, a lot of the conversations we had, both during the committee of the whole House stage and also during select committee, were partly around clarifications in terms of some of the definitions and what it would mean, for example, if the registered person and the actual driver are different. Part of the responses that we got from the Minister around this was, “Look, we just have to let things happen and all will be well if we just implement the law.”, which is not the most convincing argument at times, particularly when it comes to when you’re looking at offences and criminal charges and fines of exorbitant amounts—up towards $20,000 in some instances.

I think, more broadly, fundamentally there is—and we did discuss this—this philosophical underlying question around this bill, which is this bill and the offences that are introduced. A number of them are existing offences, if you’re looking at the regulatory impact statement. If you’re looking at the regulatory impact statement, illegal street racing already has existing penalties. Fleeing drivers—existing penalties. Reckless, dangerous driving or careless driving causing injury or death—existing penalties. Impounding penalties for those illegal street racers, fleeing drivers, and intimidating convoy, and the fact that the vehicle owner failed to provide information they have on the driver. You already find that there are existing penalties around this, which then begs the question of why, then, introduce a new bill into the House with additional elements if the existing penalties, or the penalties we have for any of these punitive actions, do not have the deterrence effect that we want them to have.

That brings me to the second part of that philosophical discussion when we’re looking at bills such as this: that international evidence shows that deterrence—particularly for smaller crimes—simply does not work. For larger crimes, particularly when we look at murder, manslaughter, and some of the more serious sexual violence and family violence crimes, deterrence is an important factor, and harsher penalties have that effect of deterrence. But a lot of these smaller crimes? There’s just simply not enough data to suggest that they have that effect. When we do ask the Minister some of those questions as well, there is no convincing data that has been produced that suggests such a thing would work. In saying that, does that mean that we simply don’t care about things like excessive noise intimidation? Absolutely not. But is producing these additional, I guess, tiered penalties and offences going to have that outcome we’re seeking without the kind of resources that we need to actually be able to implement some of these new penalties?

I think that is the real question when we’re looking at a bill like this. Like I said, when you’re looking at existing offences under the Land Transport Act, we already have those, but we’re still seeing that excessive noise; we’re still seeing illegal street racing; but what we’re seeing is the inability for people to be able to report and for police to be attending on time and for those sorts of cases to be caught on the spot. Convoys, I understand, are ostensibly a different issue, and I’ll come to convoys in a little bit. I think, in those kinds of cases, if we have an existing penalty, wouldn’t it be better if we actually simply resourced the kinds of areas we’re looking at so they will actually be able to undertake some of these? We are seeing, for example, the Government had a target of how many new police we’re going to have, and we have seen that target consistently being delayed again and again.

That then comes to the question of what we’re seeing this entire week, which is an increasing amount of legislation being introduced. Again, we are probably one of the countries with the fastest turnaround time when it comes to legislation. Although Australia and the UK sit longer than we do, they also have a two-House system, so it takes longer for any bill to pass. Yet, what we’re seeing this week are 22 pieces of legislation that will be going under urgency, and that’s just simply not how we’re looking at the democratic process or anything that we’re looking at with a bill such as this, which could have been addressed through a policy decision as opposed to a legislative decision.

One of the other areas in Part 1 around the Land Transport Act is around convoys. Again, I think we had a lot of questions during the committee of the whole House stage around what those convoys potentially could look like. The idea, I believe, is if it’s “frightening or intending to frighten or intimidate”. It’s incredibly subjective. As a part of the committee of the whole House stage, we talked about the mens rea component of this and who would then determine such mens rea, particularly when you’re looking at the intention to frighten and intimidate, because the onus is actually on the prosecutor to prove that a person is intending to frighten and intimidate, as opposed to, subjectively, any person who may feel that they are being frightened and intimidated. That then actually opens up an entire, incredibly broad scope. I think, in one of the earlier readings, we gave an example of Groundswell, where we saw lots of people come out in opposition of the so-called “ute tax”. That, to some members of the public, would be considered intimidating or frightening. In those kinds of cases, would that then mean that all of those people would have their vehicles seized and impounded and forfeited, etc., under this current legislation? I think that is an important question to check, in terms of what is, then, the scope of that.

I think another piece, when we’re looking at clause 20 of this particular bill, is that it also talks about the fact that, when it applies, you’re looking at the enforcement officer being able to judge some of these intentions or whether they—I think the term is—“within reasonable doubt” think that the person is intending to intimidate or frighten a person. I think that also potentially opens quite a broad scope in terms of the presumption that we have, one of the key fundamental presumptions we have under both the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act (BORA), but also a general legal presumption—the presumption against self-incrimination. Again, this is something we asked the Minister about during the committee stage, because it was also something that was noted in the select committee report as a part of the consideration where the BORA report itself didn’t identify section 14 with freedom of expression, and precisely that presumption against self-incrimination. What would that mean in this case, and how would the officers, for example, be able to have the skills, or would they have that basic requirement to recite the rights of a person before they pursue with any sort of impounding of the vehicle?

I know I’m running out of time, Madam Speaker, but I want to touch on a few other things. One of them is in Part 2, in terms of sentencing. Again, this is something to do with the idea that the Associate Minister of Transport mentioned before around the presumptive sentence. The fact that this also sets an incredibly high potential legal threshold when you’re looking at the way that we allow the judiciary to make some of those balanced judgments, because the only way for you to appeal such presumptive sentencing is using what we’re seeing frequently, over and over again in legislation, which this idea of “manifestly unjust”. I think that’s also an important consideration of the role of—and the burden it will place on the judiciary, in a lot of these.

I think, for the last few seconds, the Green Party absolutely believes that people should be able to have their enjoyment at home and be safe at home and be free from being frightened or intimidated. But again, this bill—through select committee, through committee stage—fell short of that. Without the proper resourcing, this will have no more effect than what we’re currently already seeing as existing in our legislation.

20:22

I rise on behalf of ACT to speak in support of the Antisocial Road Use Legislation Amendment Bill. ACT campaigned at the last election on actually protecting our community, cracking down on crime in our community, and making sure victims were safe. We then got into coalition with National and New Zealand First, and that is something we have shared through this Government. We actually want to focus on victims in our communities and actually making sure people feel safe in the places that they live and work and raise their families. We’ve seen a number of quite disturbing antisocial road activities, and I’m very happy to commend this bill to the House.

20:23

Thanks, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on this Antisocial Road Use Legislation Amendment Bill. Look, it’s got a very singular policy intent: to deter antisocial driving behaviour. New Zealand First is proud to stand fair and square on behalf of the victims of antisocial behaviour and crime, not on behalf of those who conduct that sort of behaviour. We all know about the impacts of antisocial road-user behaviour. We talk about boy racers, the excessive speed, risk, substance abuse, noise, damage, intimidation—communities essentially feeling unsafe. This bill, really, is all about giving police the powers to act not just once something has happened but also proactively, with reason.

We’ve heard a little bit about closing areas off, and I take the point about that, but it’s about doing that with good reason. It also gives the power to police to take action ahead of large and potentially explosive gatherings. Just before this legislation was introduced, of course, there was that major event in the Horowhenua when about 1,000 people gathered, which was clearly a very intimidating and explosive event. It creates new offences—the frightening or intimidating convoy—and puts some rules around fleeing police as well. It gives police powers to act, powers to require information disclosure, confiscation powers, and penalties to support our police as well. I did hear from Tangi Utikere about police resources. I would have thought the police can do a lot more with less resources if they actually have the powers behind them to do that.

This bill is about proactively keeping law-abiding New Zealanders safe. “Crusher Collins” has left the building, but whether it’s a long-lived “Masher Meager” or “Basher Bish”, I commend this bill to the House.

The Hon Julie Anne Genter, five-minute call.

20:24

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I think, unfortunately, this bill is more of a PR and marketing exercise than genuinely making our communities safer, and that’s why the Green Party won’t be supporting the bill. [Interruption] I note, as usual when I stand and speak in this House, there’s a whole lot of heckling from the other side of the House that for some reason my colleagues don’t experience. But I’m fine with that, because I’ve been here much longer than most people in this House. I’ve seen them all come and go.

In my own electorate, I know that, just like every other part of the country, it is frustrating when there are people driving loud cars around and doing burnouts. There’s several parts of my electorate that are afflicted by so-called boy racers and that activity. But as I regularly work with the community constable and community policing, I’m well aware of the steps that they have taken under the existing legislation to take significant action that has resulted in a significant decrease. In fact, no activity in problematic parts of the electorate, like up at Mount Crawford Prison, Mātai Moana, in the Miramar Peninsula. This is the point that my colleague was making, which is that police already had the powers, and many of the offences already existed. We’ve seen, demonstrably, it is possible to take action to prevent this antisocial road use.

Police already have the powers to impound vehicles. They already have the ability to give fines for excessive noise. They already had the power to close roads. The real challenge was that they couldn’t always use those tools quickly or effectively, and this bill doesn’t really change that fundamental problem. I can tell you that, in my electorate, the community policing team is really, really great and they work really well, but they don’t have enough resources. They’ve actually had quite a long period of time of a decline in resources for policing and there aren’t sufficient people to be able to address all the different issues there are. Oftentimes, just their presence can be enough to contribute to less of the antisocial behaviour, whether it’s with a car or not. Until we fundamentally resource our public services properly, we’re not going to solve the issue simply by increasing the penalties that are available.

This is the other point that my colleague Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan made, which, unfortunately, none of the members of the Government parties seemed to grasp, which is that when you’re dealing with young people, and young men in particular, the frontal lobe is not fully formed and they take a lot of risky behaviour. That’s true, up to the age of 25. So there’s no point—

Leave me alone! I take offence!

Tom Rutherford—we know you’re over 25. Carry on.

Yes, I did know that Tom Rutherford was over the age of 25. But the point is that, sometimes, teenagers and young people will get together and do silly things and they will be annoying to many of us, and even dangerous. The last thing we want as parents or members of the community is for them to be doing so with motor vehicles, which are lethal if used incorrectly. Simply changing the law and giving the police more powers and increasing penalties doesn’t address the issue because people aren’t deterred by the consequences. They’re not thinking about the consequences when they do stupid things. And when they run from the police knowing that there might—one, they probably won’t know that the consequences are worse than they used to be. But secondly, when they run from the police, if the police chase them, it’s far more likely that there will be a deadly or devastating outcome for innocent bystanders.

Why are we doing things that make the harm worse? It’s silly. There are much better ways to look at engaging youth, giving them opportunities, to have challenges, and to do various things. Taking a punitive approach simply doesn’t work in the medium to long term. If we take an evidence-based approach, this bill, I guarantee, is not going to reduce antisocial road use, unfortunately. It is kind of a shame that we’re wasting the time in the House when there’s so many significant issues facing our country that this Government just wants to go around and be like, “Oh, we’re putting the baddies in jail. And, you know, we’re cracking down on the bad people so the good people can live their lives.” I’m surprised to see the supposedly libertarian party just throwing out any sort of commitment to civil liberties. You know, a Police State is not going to make us safer.

20:29

Constituents in the Whanganui electorate are sick of antisocial road users. In answer to the Opposition’s question earlier in this debate, I can see the headline on the Whanganui Chronicle as I press that button as the first car gets crushed: “Crusher Carl, Let’s Get This Done”. I commend it to the House.

20:30

Thank you, Madam Speaker. That’s about as much substance as you’ll get from the current National Party.

We’re not going to stand in the way of letting the National Party have a go with this bill, but I just want to point out that we have real concerns around workability. If you look at the centrepiece of this legislation, the offence of “Dangerous or reckless activity conduct[ed] in [a] frightening or intimidating convoy”—if you look at the ingredients that you have to prove to get that across the line, I struggle to see how it will ever be done.

Now, the first thing you have to show—the first thing you have to show—is that another offence is being committed, because you can only be convicted of this offence if you are also committing an offence in subsection (2) of new section 39A. They’re not trivial offences; they’re not speeding or driving carelessly. No, they’re offences like dangerous driving causing death, reckless driving, dangerous driving, racing, or intentional loss of traction. The first thing you’ve got to do is prove all of the ingredients of that offence, and then you have to prove a whole lot of other things.

You then have to show that the conduct while operating the motor vehicle was part of a convoy, so you have to show that this person is intentionally part of a group of moving vehicles. Now, I’ll come to that a bit further on, because there’s some funny twists and turns in that, as well. You’ve got to show that they’re intentionally part—so not just that they’re parked up watching someone do burnouts but that they’re actually part of a moving group of vehicles. Then you have to show that they intended it “to frighten or intimidate another person”. So you’ve got to look—and this is the mental element; Lawrence Xu-Nan pointed this out—into their heads, or at least show that they were reckless.

Now, Julie Anne Genter just pointed out that not all people engaging in this kind of behaviour are particularly thoughtful, but it isn’t being stupid as to whether you were acting in an intimidating manner, because that certainly happens a lot. Recklessness is a particular kind of knowledge. It’s the kind of knowledge where you turn your mind to the question, but you don’t care. Most of these young people—and, yes, they are generally men—don’t even turn their mind to the question, so stupidity won’t do it. You’ve got to actually, positively not care. If you think about all of those ingredients coming together, I don’t think there’s ever going to be a situation in which this particular offence will be proven. Now, it may well be that what the police really want is an ability to seize these vehicles, because they reasonably believe that’s the case, but that will run into problems of its own.

Turning, then, to another problem of this—and this is the one I particularly like—and this is what amounts to a convoy. In our mind, when we think of a convoy, I wouldn’t have thought a convoy is two cars travelling together, but this definition says two’s enough. But here’s the really—and this is funny, because it is truly bizarre—the person who’s subject to the charge “intentionally or knowingly operates the vehicle to travel as part of that convoy”—but here’s the funny bit; this is new subsection (4): even if the other vehicle or vehicles travelling with that convoy are not intentionally part of the convoy. So if Lawrence Xu-Nan’s driving down the road and I’m like, “I want to hang out with Lawrence.”, and I chase him and drive behind him, it’s a convoy that Lawrence is part of and he doesn’t know he’s part of it, which is absolute madness. The idea that you could just be following someone because you want to be part of that group—no one else knows they are; there could be 10 cars in a line and nine of them don’t know they’re part of a convoy—is absolutely ridiculous.

Then why are you voting for it?

The other thing—well, Rima Nakhle, you can have your play in the sandpit, but the fact of the matter is that this is one of the worst-drafted and least-effective pieces of legislation that I’ve seen.

The other thing, of course, is that you’re going to seize these vehicles for 28 days, and we know that many of these vehicles are not high value. In the Justice Committee, we tested quite a lot how this is going to work, and it turns out that, most of the time, the costs of detaining a vehicle for 28 days and taking it to the place of detention exceeds the value of the vehicle. And who pays for the storage costs? Well, these people who have had their cars confiscated don’t come up and say, “Oops, here you go: here’s my life savings.” They just disappear into the ether, and what happens is that it becomes an impost on the State. If we do get to the point where cars are, in fact, seized, the chances are that you’ll maybe get to crush them, but it’ll cost the State an enormous amount of money.

This kind of policy where you give the police these relatively sweeping powers and you have these tough-on-crime, car-crushing approaches—they don’t actually address the problem. I’m the MP for Christchurch Central, so I know what antisocial road use looks like, and I’ll tell you, the Christchurch City Council has—

Oh, settle!

Not because I’m an antisocial road user, Matt Doocey, but because I’ve seen it. But the Christchurch City Council has grappled with this for some time, and it had no-cruising zones and all this sort of stuff, but you know what actually solved it in the long term? It was traffic management. They had the genius idea of changing the phasing of the traffic lights so that people would have to stop more frequently, and it wasn’t as much fun. All of a sudden, that problem abated. It didn’t disappear, but it abated significantly.

So, yes, look, we all accept that intimidating use of motor vehicles, and all of those other things—although this piece of legislation doesn’t actually address the problem of people simply driving noisy, noisy cars around in circles. This piece of legislation doesn’t actually address that; it addresses something quite different. But, in fact, if that’s the problem, that kind of antisocial road use, we have to think about more innovative ways to address those problems. Giving an under-resourced police force more powers to try and enforce very complicated, multi-layered legislation to seize cars which will be in storage at the Crown’s expense is not the way to go about it.

We endorse the idea that we need to encourage, one way or another, more responsible road use. We have agreed that if the National Party wants to put this legislation in place and try and apply it, well, good luck to them. I mean, I do worry that there is going to be an expectation in the community that this legislation will be a panacea—that, as soon as someone does a burnout, the police will immediately appear and arrest that person and confiscate their cars. Well, that’s simply not going to happen. Having said that, we would like to see a more thoughtful approach to how we address this problem, including things like the regulations around car modifications, which are part of the problem, because most of these cars are modified vehicles; many of them are not legal. Why wait for the burnouts when these cars can be stopped and detained on safety grounds as they drive past, in any event?

Have a go, but the legislation itself is largely unworkable. In summary, the idea that you’re going to charge someone with driving in a convoy in an intimidating manner when they’ve just been engaged in dangerous driving causing death or injury kind of makes me think that that you’ve probably got bigger fish to fry, and that won’t be the particular offence that they’re charged with. But the National Party seems determined on this perverse course of action. We’re not going to stand in their way tonight. Good luck to them.

20:40

New Zealanders across the country are sick and tired of these people taking over the roads and causing absolute havoc and impacting on innocent victims across our country. We, on this side, put victims at the heart of our justice system. That’s what this piece of legislation is doing. I commend it to the House.

It’s good to take a call on the Antisocial Road Use Legislation Amendment Bill in its third reading. Labour supports safer communities and safer roads, and that is, essentially, why we are supporting this bill. We know that dangerous, antisocial driving causes harm, and we support decisive enforcement. There are different aspects, I guess, when we look at what it means to have safer streets and safer communities. This bill is one part of that, but there is a much larger picture that must be considered in this context when looking at creating legislation in this space.

The first one, as other speakers have spoken to already this evening, is around how you’ve got to have the resource to support the increased powers given to Police. The National Government promised 500 extra front-line police. We haven’t seen them, and we’re still waiting. I’m not sure how we can truly implement and manage this new piece of legislation when we don’t have the resource in our police force to support it. We know that laws only work if Police have the staff and the resources to enforce them, and my main concern, moving forward, is that we simply do not have that resource in place. In order to create safer streets and safer communities, we need to make sure those resources are there. Some of the actions that the bill sets out to achieve are actions around aggravating, failing to stop, street racing, sustained loss of traction, and frightening or intimidating convoy offences. These are new offences that police will be able to take action on if seen in our communities, but if we don’t have the police in order to enforce this, these actions will continue to occur, and we won’t have the safer communities that I think we all would like to have.

I think there’s a question here around the community impact, and other speakers have spoken to this. For me, I’m looking at parts of the legislation that allow vehicles to be seized and impounded for 28 days. I understand, in situations where people are acting unlawfully and antisocially on our streets, that we need tough penalties, and they’re justified for these serious offences and dangerous behaviours. I’m pleased the Justice Committee considered a broader lens when it came to looking at the 28 days of seizing and impounding vehicles and were able to consider individual circumstances of different people in these situations. We have concerns for young people, people living in rural situations, and low-income people if they have either their vehicle impounded for 28 days or a 12-month ban on acquiring a vehicle, because we know that people use their vehicles for things other than boy, girl, or non-binary racing. At night, they might be boy racing, but during the day, they might be going to work, or during the day, they may be lending their car to a family member who’s using it to work or sharing a car with a family member.

We need to make sure that we know this is predominantly young people and young men that are acting in an intimidating way on our streets. We need to make sure that we are not preventing them from having a future beyond their bad decisions, and if they need to lend their car to someone else the next day, we don’t want that to impact their family members or prevent them from getting to work and continuing in their employment. To summarise, those are the concerns we have with the bill, but, overall, we support safer streets and communities.

20:45

People of Mt Roskill are fed up with reckless drivers tearing through our streets in places like Keith Hay Park, putting families at risk. This Government has zero tolerance for that behaviour because National stands as the party of law and order. If you want to drive dangerously, face the consequences. Race on our streets, and you will be walking home. I commend this bill to the House.

20:46

Gosh! Talking about Speedy Gonzales, that was a very, very fast contribution. I rise in support of the Antisocial Road Use Legislation Amendment Bill. This is one of the bills where the title can sound a little bit technical but the issue itself is actually really real for real people. We’re talking about illegal street racing, the burnouts, the siren battles that the Associate Minister of Transport had previously spoken about, dangerous convoys—although there’s some contention with what that definition actually entails—fleeing drivers, and vehicles being used in ways where, quite frankly, the intentionality behind it is something to intimidate people, and, ultimately, that makes communities feel unsafe where they shouldn’t feel unsafe, which is in their own neighbourhoods.

For the people who live with this, I do want to reiterate that it’s not just a bit of noise, and it’s not just young people mucking around with nothing better to do; the sound of cars gathering late at night, screeching tyres, engines revving, and all of that sort of stuff leaves people wondering whether the next sound will be a crash. I really want to make that quite explicit. I’ve spoken to people—and I’ve got colleagues in this House that would have spoken to people—in Governors Bay, who sit there at night listening into the evening with the background noise and are anticipating whether someone makes the next bend and whether this results in an accident. They can’t relax, and it’s really stressful. They’re living on their nerves, and it’s not fair. It’s families worrying about narrow local roads being, essentially, treated like racetracks. That is why Labour is supporting this bill.

As has been said by other colleagues, we were happy to support this bill at first reading. We had some reservations. We do believe that the select committee process was able to afford some opportunities to improve the bill. It’s not a perfect bill. There are still some remaining issues with it, and I will get to that, but, at this stage, we are happy to support the bill because something does need to be done.

In Banks Peninsula, in particular, this issue isn’t abstract, and I know, for some people, it will be. Some people never face this kind of issue in their homes or in their neighbourhoods, but for people in Banks Peninsula, it’s certainly not an abstract issue. Communities around Lyttelton; Governors Bay, as I said; Cass Bay; and the wider harbour basin, actually, in totality have dealt with antisocial road users for quite some time. Whether it’s the illegal street racing, the burnouts, the excessive speeding, and the siren battles, it doesn’t matter. It comes and goes in cycles and people move around. It’s unpredictable, but one commonality that it always comes back to is those very alluring, windy, attractive roads through those hills that seem to draw this type of antisocial road user to them.

It’s dangerous, and I may be quite biased, but these are stunning roads. They’re also narrow. They are a bit winding. They’re residential, first and foremost, but they’re also, in places, incredibly unforgiving. Ultimately, though, they are roads that people use to get to and from work, to drop their kids off at school, and to access local business, etc. It’s where people are supposed to enjoy living, certainly not racetracks.

The bill does give police and the courts stronger tools to deal with this type of dangerous and intimidating road use that, quite frankly, a lot of communities have had an utter gutsful of. I want to acknowledge those residents, many of whom have not just made complaints—and they have, over a lengthy period of time—but they’ve also tried to solve the problem themselves. They’ve raised it with police. They’ve pushed for more patrols. They have looked at ways that they can actually gather their own information. They’ve set up stations where they can collect data. They’re doing that kind of community service to provide authorities with the information and the intelligence that they might need to be able to put a stop to this, and that’s what community advocacy looks like. If people are saying that they’ve got a problem, I think that we should do anything we can to restore the fact that they need to be able to continue to love where they live and not accept that this type of behaviour is normal.

In general, though, the bill gives police and the courts some stronger tools to deal with the serious end of antisocial road use. It creates a new offence for frightening and intimidating convoys. We’ve heard tonight, though, however, that there’s not necessarily clear agreement on what constitutes a convoy. We’ve heard of a couple of examples of how that could seem quite farcical. It does sometimes see particular examples of, as my colleague the Hon Dr Duncan Webb said, someone in front of a two-person convoy not necessarily knowing that they are part of a convoy.

However, the bill also strengthens the consequences for lots of other things, and in serious cases, vehicles can be impounded, they can be forfeited, or they can be destroyed. We have actually also heard about that tonight and about some of the practicalities about actually making that happen and the costs that could be involved. On the surface, it could seem like there are big consequences, but the proof, as they say, will be in the pudding. Whilst I say that the bill potentially helps police get to the bottom of this problem, the police need to be able to fundamentally access the resources and have the resources available to them to turn this into something that doesn’t just sound good on paper but can actually practically make a difference, and I’ll come back to that.

But the bill has been improved in a couple of different ways through the select committee process, as I said, and I do want to acknowledge the many people who made submissions on the process and gifted us some of their lived experience. One important change is around court discretion. The bill originally had a much more rigid approach to stopping someone from acquiring another vehicle after forfeiture, and submitters did raise some really sensible concerns about how that could potentially affect people in rural communities, young people, people on low incomes, and anybody who genuinely needed to be able to continue to use their car for work, education, or daily life. The bill also allows the courts to take some of those circumstances into account, and I do think that that has been an improvement through the select committee process. The bill is kept largely intact, but it also makes it a little bit more fair and a little bit more workable, which is a good thing.

There are a couple of other practical changes too about including how infringement notices are managed. I don’t think that’s necessarily quite hit the right spot, but making police powers more clear when closing areas temporarily is required, so we continue to support the bill because of those changes.

But what needs to happen next? Passing this bill, or continuing with this process, certainly doesn’t mean it’s the end of the job. As I said, this has the potential to simply be window dressing. It has the potential to merely do nothing more than symbolise that the Government has taken an issue seriously and provided an actual, specific, concrete solution to a very, very real problem. But if we do want this to work, police and courts absolutely need the resources to be able to do so, so that they can exercise these powers properly. Impounding vehicles, as we’ve heard, takes storage, forfeiture, destruction—all those sorts of things. It takes a process and it takes storage and it takes time, and enforcement, as we said, has to be consistent and fair.

Of course, road safety isn’t actually achieved through punishment alone: we still need to see prevention; we still need to see a suitable and appropriate youth engagement; we still need safer roads, better infrastructure, and strong local partnerships; and we also absolutely need to listen to communities who know exactly where the hotspots are and what is happening on the ground. However, this bill is a start. It’s part of the response. It says clearly, potentially, that public roads belong to the public, but what it says and what it does could easily turn into two very different things, as I said, unless it is resourced properly.

To the people in Lyttelton, Governors Bay, Cass Bay, and all of those communities around the Banks Peninsula, I really do hope that this bill is able to be implemented in a way that actually does provide some relief and provides them with a little bit of hope that they could finally get to the bottom of this absolute problem. Despite having some very reasonable concerns, and a little bit of cynicism, given this Government has made lots of cuts and not resourced Police properly, I commend this bill to the House.

20:56

“There’s just not enough data.” They were the exact words of one of the Green Party members—essentially saying, or justifying, that strengthening the laws and giving police more tools around antisocial behaviour is not warranted. Well, I want to ask Dr Vanessa Weenink whether her neighbours in Banks Peninsula, Carl Bates’ neighbours in Whanganui, Tim Costley’s neighbours in Kāpiti, Phil Twyford’s neighbours in West Auckland, and my neighbours in Takanini are waiting for more scientific, elitist, academic proof that antisocial driving is making them experience fear, disruption to their lives, and intimidation. I’m pretty sure they’ll say they don’t need extra evidence; the evidence is happening every day to them. It’s antisocial driving, and we’re making it even more unlawful. I commend this bill to the House.

Scott Willis, are you seeking the Te Pāti Māori call?