Summary Offences (Move-on Orders) Amendment Bill

Summary Offences (Move-on Orders) Amendment Bill Instruction to Select Committee Debate resumed from 21 May. CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (16:48): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am pleased to be able to take another call on this referral motion to speak to my colleague Duncan Webb’s additional amendment that he put forward, which was, I believe, to delete the words after “the date referral”. This is particularly—Mr Speaker, I’ll just ask if the clock has been—thank you. This is important because move-on orders are a particularly important piece of legislation that changes the way that the Government deals with people who are not only acting in a way which is considered to be disruptive, but also this particular bill covers the fact of begging. It also covers people who are rough sleeping. It is a departure from what has previously been put forward. I did mention previously that we are a very busy committee in the Justice Committee, so I think that letting a normal process, which is, essentially, what Duncan Webb’s amendment would do, is exactly what should be put in place. Lawrence Xu-Nan has put an amendment which has a specific date, which I am also more supportive of, which I have already spoken to, but this would actually take it back to a normal policy process that would allow the Justice Committee to go through it in a decent period of time. We do know, obviously it goes without saying, I suppose the elephant in the room is the fact that we have an election coming up. However, I think that Duncan Webb’s proposal, which importantly sets out that the normal procedure would take place, would allow either this Government or the next Government to take advice and to have a full select committee process without having to rush the submissions process too. We do know, and I spoke last time, about the parliamentary staff, but I also want to acknowledge the staff that work at the Ministry of Justice, who, I understand, would be providing advice on this bill. Now, the Ministry of Justice has had probably the highest number of bills referred to it for its advice, and they give very good, candid advice, they advise the Government of the day, which is their job, but it must be seen within the context of having such a significant workload that making any shortened report back would impede the advice which they have been providing. I did previously speak about parliamentary staff, but I do think that perhaps, more importantly, the ministerial staff in place should be considered. They have so many bills that, actually, it is going to be a little bit problematic. I won’t take the full 10-minute call, as I’ve already contributed to this debate, but I didn’t have the opportunity to speak to my colleague Dr Duncan Webb’s amendment, so I just wanted to put on record that I am supportive of that. I do think it takes it back to its original purpose. There are additional considerations that we have to have in terms of the Summary Offences (Move-on Orders) Amendment Bill, which I think the committee should take into account. The other thing I think it’s really important to know is that this isn’t something that touches just on justice; this is also something that touches on our strategy towards homelessness. I know my colleague Kieran McAnulty, who is the Labour Party’s justice spokesperson, has a contribution he wants to make from that perspective, and that is almost equally important because of the nature of this particular bill. I won’t use the full 10 minutes, being respectful of making sure there isn’t any repetition. I am wanting to put on record that I support Dr Duncan Webb’s amendment that we need to consider the Ministry of Justice and making sure that they have the capacity to be able to respond in a thoughtful way that New Zealanders would expect in such a departure from the existing policy in relation to dealing not only with perhaps what we thought this bill would be about, which is about antisocial behaviour, but additionally with the additional measures of rough sleeping, homelessness, and also an important matter which I covered in my contribution to the House in the first reading, which is the fact that it impacts children. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): The Hon Kieran McAnulty—bearing in mind I hope you weren’t set up by your colleague Camilla Belich that this is very much on the instructions to the select committee, not the wide range of topics that were indicated by your colleague. Hon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour) (16:53): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am keen to make a contribution on this debate on the instructions to the select committee because the nature of this bill warrants a particular level of contribution from the community, such is what has been proposed by the bill. As was indicated by Camilla Belich, there is primarily a justice angle on this. However, I’m coming at this from a housing angle, and indeed, actually, that is how most people are looking at this, because, on the one hand, we have the Government saying that this is essential to address unruly behaviour, but, on the other hand, their insistence to include rough sleeping in the criteria means that, actually, this bill is about addressing rough sleeping and homelessness. Now, why that’s important to ensure that there is a full process here is that, if we consider the context that homelessness has grown to an unprecedented level—it is the worst it has been, ever, according to the Wellington City Mission; now, keeping in mind how long they have been serving the Wellington city, that is quite a significant statement to make. Now, those that are involved in this are not prone to hyperbole; they are saying this because it is reflecting what they are experiencing. There is a very important point to make here, in that when the Government first indicated that they were wanting to do something along the lines of move-on orders, there was a response to that, which is natural. Now, one might assume, in something of this nature, you would get a mixed response, but, actually, there’s been Sunny Kaushal and Viv Beck in favour of it, and, basically, everybody else opposed to it. Every relevant agency that were consulted by the Government raised material concerns about this, and three—the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development, Ministry of Social Development, and Police—on the specific point of rough sleeping. The fact that the Government have ignored that advice from their own officials and have included rough sleeping shows that the move-on orders aren’t actually about antisocial behaviour. The fact that the Government is proposing to limit the opportunity for the public to have a say on that is at the core of this debate that we’re having now. How many proposals that have gone through this Parliament, that have had such a clear opposition not just from the public but also from Government agencies—in fact, I haven’t been able to find advice from any Government agency that says the inclusion of rough sleeping is a good idea. Clearly that is something that the public would want to have a say on. Is the public comfortable with the idea of a 14-year-old rough sleeper being moved on and fined $2,000? That is what has been proposed, and now the opportunity for the public to have their say on that is significantly reduced by the instructions that this Government has moved to the select committee. Now, an important point of process—and it is relevant to this instruction—is that, on numerous occasions, as is indicated by the public minutes of the Business Committee, select committees have had to seek permission from the Business Committee to extend the time in which they have been allocated to consider a bill, and, on every single one of those occasions, it’s because there was a motion from the Government, an instruction from this House, opposed by the Opposition but supported by Government parties, to restrict the time that select committees consider bills, in the instruction that they’ve moved. That is poor process. There’s been a clear indication that there is clearly a trend that people are getting sick of it, and, actually, we could avoid that if the Government simply allowed a full select committee process to flow through. Why that is significant not only from a parliamentary procedural perspective but from a rough sleeping perspective is that, given the Government’s decision to no longer continue with the census, that was actually the only formal, recognised measure of homelessness in this country. Now, in the absence of the census, we, as a country, have no other measurement in terms of the level of homelessness, except for the testimony of those on the front line, who, as I said earlier, have indicated that it’s now at the highest level it has ever been. But the combination of the removal of the only official measure, and a restriction on the public’s ability to have a say on this bill, front-line providers are universal in their opposition to this and they have talked about the significant impact that this will have on those people who literally have nothing and are facing a $2,000 fine because they have nowhere else to go. Also, the public should have the opportunity to question what measures are in place to actually address that level of homelessness. Keeping in mind that this has been billed by the Government as an anti – disorderly behaviour mechanism, their insistence to include rough sleeping does warrant a full select committee process. Where are these people going to go? There are trusted agencies in this country, like the Salvation Army and the City Missions, that have been around for decades, for generations, that have built tremendous goodwill over that time. When they speak, people listen and they trust them. When these agencies say that all this will do is shift the issue from the centre city into people’s suburbs—into their front yards, essentially, the areas where they live, work, and play—in front of suburban shops instead of city shops. That is a significant consequence of what is being proposed in this bill that the Government is now proposing to restrict the public’s ability to have a say in that. When we’re talking about, on one hand, this is a response to the growing level of homelessness that actually will not house a single person, that will move the issue into— Hon Paul Goldsmith: This is repetition. Hon KIERAN McANULTY: The Minister is talking about repetition. Perhaps he might want to listen. Perhaps he should have listened when he tried to include this when he was an Auckland City councillor and even John Banks as mayor was too ashamed to pursue it. But he’s finally got his chance. He shouldn’t be too concerned about repetition, he should be concerned about listening to the public. That should be the Minister’s focus here. But instead, he has shamelessly indicated that he will move an instruction to the committee to limit the public’s ability to do that. That is shameful. It is shameful because it is yet another example of this Government wanting to bypass proper parliamentary process. It is shameful because they want to restrict the public’s ability to have a say on this, and it is shameful because they want to pretend that the homelessness that their policies have created doesn’t exist by shifting it out of the centre city. In the Prime Minister’s own words, he doesn’t want tourists to come in and see homeless people on the streets. Well, let’s not grow the number of homeless people. That is the best way to address that concern. There are many concerns about this, including that the Department of Corrections have flagged that this bill has the capacity to increase the cost to Corrections by $300 million. Now, we’re about to have a Budget this week, and there will be measures that are a fraction of $300 million that the Government will want to go around the country crowing about how great it is and will want the public to have their say on that. But they don’t want the public to have a full opportunity to have a say on a bill that not only impacts those who are the poorest and most vulnerable in our society, but also, through the words of their own department, could have a fiscal implication of $300 million. And this instruction that this Government has moved will limit the public’s capacity to have a say on that. That is why we are opposing this instruction. RIMA NAKHLE (National—Takanini) (17:03): I move, That debate on this question now close. A party vote was called for on the question, That debate on this question now close. Ayes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Noes 53 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Motion agreed to. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the amendment in the name of Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the motion be amended to replace the word “3 September 2026” with “22 September 2026”. Ayes 53 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the amendment in the name of the Hon Dr Duncan Webb be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That all of the words after the words “3 September 2026” be struck out. Ayes 53 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Noes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Amendment not agreed to. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the motion be agreed to. A party vote was called for on the question, That the Summary Offences (Move-on Orders) Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 3 September 2026 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions), during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, and outside the Wellington area, despite Standing Orders 193, 195, and 196. Ayes 67 New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8. Noes 53 New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi. Motion agreed to. The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 73, Noes 47. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Education and Training (System Reform) Amendment Bill, the Building and Construction Sector (Self-certification by Plumbers and Drainlayers) Amendment Bill, the Regulatory Systems (Internal Affairs) Amendment Bill, and the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Amendment Bill.