Summary Offences (Move-on Orders) Amendment Bill

Instruction to Select Committee Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Justice) (17:19): I move, 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. The reason for this slightly faster turn-around of 3½ months rather than the usual period is that this Government wants to get on with this legislation and have it enforced quickly, and because we believe that 3½ months does provide plenty of time for full consideration of the issues. Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (17:20): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move, That the motion be amended to replace the word “3 September 2026” with “22 September 2026”. Again, I want to first address the broader concerns with this bill in relation to the referral motion. Just for those who are watching, essentially, when we do debates such as this, it’s because when a select committee process that a Government has recommended is significantly shorter than the standard period of even the minimum period of four months, we are undermining the democratic process of the ability for the public to be able to submit on a bill such as this. Now, the reason I want to move that particular motion, which I will speak to, I think I’ll start with the fact that, despite what the Minister of Justice has said, 2½ months absolutely is not enough when we’re looking at a bill of this significance. Now, the reason also is the fact that this is one of the bills we have seen in this term, and potentially the first bill we have seen this year, that has a Section 7 report by the Attorney-General. What that means is that this is a bill that fundamentally undermines the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act here in Aotearoa New Zealand. It fundamentally undermines the right of every person here in Aotearoa, and that must not be taken lightly. If there is a Section 7 report, this is something that the Attorney-General himself must highlight to this House, and for us to have a shortened select committee period is unconscionable when it comes to anything that affects our human rights. I think it is important for us to first and foremost put that on the table In terms of the timing, I also would like to address the fact that there is absolutely no reason for this Government to shorten the select committee process, because bear in mind, if you’re looking at the regulatory impact statement, the date that the regulatory impact statement was finalised was 27 November 2025. This Government could absolutely give the people of New Zealand more than enough time to submit on this bill. If they introduce something like this early on in the year, they could in fact allow for a full six-month select committee without having to have a truncated process. But instead, the Government has chosen to introduce bills of a lesser significance, despite potentially knowing something like this would have the impact and would undermine our bill of rights. It is also important to note that when we are looking at a particular timing, as far as the select committee it is going to, the Justice Committee is one of the select committees that has the highest workload, and I do want to acknowledge every single person in the Justice Committee. It also means that we are going to be looking at timings and also a submission period that does not work for people. As my previous speakers, as speakers who spoke on this bill—particularly, I want to acknowledge our housing spokesperson as well as our MP for Wellington Central, Tamatha Paul, as well as our MP for Auckland Central, Chlöe Swarbrick, as well as our MP for Rongotai, Julie Anne Genter—these sort of things, the impact this will have on the community, cannot be understated. For us to shorten that select committee process is, again, basically disallowing people’s ability to participate democratically in our system. What 2½ months of a select committee process means is that what we’ll be looking at is a submission period—if we’re looking at any form of proportionality—of 2½ weeks. That is all it’s going to allow for people to make submissions. I want to challenge the Government, as well as the select committee, that if this is something they are going to be doing—and I note that the Minister in his motion has exempted Standing Order 195, which allows meeting outside of Wellington during sitting weeks—to use the full ability to travel across the country and meet our homeless whānau and our transient whānau on their own terms at those locations. I am urging, then, the select committee to go to Auckland Central and talk to the homeless whānau in Auckland Central. I am urging the select committee to go to Wellington Central, as well as the Rongotai, and talk to the constituents and talk to those people and our homeless whānau there. I think, if we’re going to have a truncated period, that is the right thing to do. That is the appropriate thing to do. It is also the democratic thing to do. There are also other considerations when we’re looking at this, and, again, when we are looking at a whole combination of different bills that the Government has introduced just this week, one of the things that is of concern for all of these bills is also the impact they will have on disabled communities. Again, like what you have seen with the previous bill, the disabilities bill, we’re also urging the select committee, if they are going to be looking at the truncated process, to allow full accessibility and the ability for people to be able to make submissions. I want to draw attention to the House of previous things that the Justice Committee has done and how they choose to use social media to be able to engage with the public on submissions. I think if we are going to have a truncated process, that is an important and effective thing to do. I also note that while there is a truncated process, this bill doesn’t come into effect until one month after Royal assent. That’s also an important consideration that things could have been done and things could have changed in a way that allowed for a longer select committee period in exchange for, potentially, commencement the day after Royal assent. That, again, allows for more democracy and more of a democratic and transparent and participatory process for the public to be able to submit on this bill. While it has been said that this is something that has been signalled a long time ago, this bill itself wasn’t introduced until quite recently. Therefore, while it has been signalled, no one has been able to be consulted, and no one has been able to see the full details of this bill. And indeed, if I’m drawing to the limitations of this bill—as indicated in the regulatory impact statement pertaining to the length that we’re looking at in terms of the select committee process—we’re saying that this scope of the bill was constrained by ministerial decisions, and that there has been an inability to consult with a wide-ranging sector as well as the community around this. Again, the signalling is different from genuine engagement and consultation with the public, and therefore, once again, I stress our disappointment with a shortened select committee process. Now, on to my motion and on to my amendment that amends it from 3 September to 22 September. Noting that the dissolution of Parliament is on 1 October, I want to be balanced to say that even if we see a report-back date on 22 September, which grants an additional 2½ weeks on top of that, which means that we’re going to be seeing an extra few days that the submission is able to be opened, it still gives the current Government full ability to read this bill through all stages before the dissolution of Parliament. So I do want to urge members of this House to speak—and I want to hear your feedback as well as the Ministers now that we are resetting the clock—on the possibility of supporting my amendment. Once again, I think it is important that we allow people to submit. I think it’s important for us to allow for that extra couple of weeks. But if my amendment is not supported, I urge the Justice Committee to travel the country under the exemption of Standing Order 195 to be able to hear from the people themselves in those locations. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Before I take the next call, members, the question before the House for debate is that the amendment be agreed to. The amendment is now debatable together with the motion. CAMILLA BELICH (Labour) (17:30): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to support the motion. We’ve heard from the Minister to support the amended motion. We heard from the Minister very, very brief reasons as to why this bill needed to have a shortened report back of less than four months. I’m not sure if they really stacked up. He seemed to say that the reason we need a shortened report back is because he wanted the bill to be reported back more quickly, which doesn’t really seem to be a reason; it just seems to be a desire that he has. I don’t agree that there are good reasons for this to be a shortened report back and there are a few reasons for that. One of the reasons is that the bill has attracted a lot of opposition and public interest, and I think anyone viewing the first reading today will be aware of that. Any MP in Parliament would have received a lot of correspondence around this. I know, for our biggest city, Auckland, where probably most of the move-on orders would be issued, that it is something that requires consideration. I don’t think passing it before the election is really a reason to not have proper parliamentary process. This is something that would be referred to the Justice Committee. I sit on the Justice Committee and I just asked my colleague Glen Bennett to tally up the number of bills in front of the Justice Committee—I think there’s something like 13 bills, at least, coming up on the parliamentary website on the tool. That is a lot of legislation to consider. It would be unfortunate if, because this particular Government and because a lot of the members’ bills have been referred to the Justice Committee, that this was not given due hearing or due consideration because of the number of bills that are before it. We have more bills, I understand, on the Justice Committee than any other committee in Parliament, and the Minister wants us to take what is a very controversial subject and report back in a shortened period of time. I don’t agree with that, and I do think it would be better to have at least four months. Usually, with bills, we look at six months; that’s until this Government came into place where four months seems to be the norm, and, of course, we don’t debate it if it’s four months, but because this is less than four months, we’re able to have a perspective on it. The reason that Parliament gave us that right is because it is such an unusual departure from parliamentary process. Now, I want to acknowledge the staff in the select committees that we have in Parliament. They do an amazing job, and I think they actually try and make sure that people are heard, and they try and make sure that we have enough time to consider all of the legislation that we have before us. But this has been increasingly harder for those staff members to actually enable that. That has been, partly, because we’ve had so many shortened report-back times, but it’s also been because we’ve had so many extended settings in this Parliament as well. That means, for those who are not aware of the parliamentary terminology, essentially, that a day that we would normally be at select committee, we are not at select committee, and we are in the House passing laws and debating things. That has meant that we haven’t had as much time to debate bills despite the fact we have, and to look at bills and to hear submissions on bills to fight, despite the fact we also have more bills. Another important aspect of this is that there are important human rights considerations that the committee will need to receive advice on. The Attorney-General’s report on section 7 outlines two breaches of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Now, that is quite unusual to have two breaches of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act actually acknowledged by the Attorney-General, although, I’ve only read two of his opinions so far, and they seem to have found breaches in both of them. If that’s the way that the new Attorney-General will continue, then maybe we have more of these section 7 reports. But it does mean that the committee will have to get advice specifically on if there a way of remedying the bill that does not contradict with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. And this is about people being in public spaces. It’s a very important fundamental right— basically the freedom to exist and the freedom of movement. That’s why it was kind of surprising to hear some parties that had previously stood up for those types of rights, happy to curtail this right in this instance. So we’ll need to get advice on that. Another thing which indicates to me that a less than four-month—3½ month—report-back time will not be sufficient is we haven’t yet opened for submissions. Many people may not be aware of this, but when we have bills introduced to the House, our very, very helpful parliamentary library put together a debate pack and it, essentially, puts all of the media articles and all of the press releases and all of the commentary on bills before parliamentarians. I don’t know if they’re available publicly, but they’re a collation of all of the relevant material. Now, most often, they are a few pages long and it might be because the bill hasn’t been to select committee, there hasn’t been a lot of media commentary on it, but in this case, we have a significant debate pack of, I think, around 26 pages of organisations and individuals who have commented on the fact that the Government is introducing these move-on orders, and have either put out a media release or written an article or in some way commented publicly on that fact. That indicates—26 pages of this material prior to even the introduction of this bill and the first reading—indicates a level of interest which is likely to be substantial. I think, on the Justice Committee, we do always try and make sure that we hear from everyone who asked for an oral submission, who has written a relevant submission. I understand it hasn’t been possible for all of the Justice Committee bills, and colleagues who have been on the Justice Committee prior to the time that I joined, have indicated frustration that on things like the Treaty principles bill, they weren’t able to hear all of the submissions. We don’t want move-on orders to be a situation where we have so many submissions and such a short space of time that we cannot listen to New Zealanders. The people who have already commented on this are wide-ranging. We have a comment on the record from a number of different Government agencies, through the process of getting this bill to the House, and a lot of that commentary has been negative. It wouldn’t surprise me if the Justice Committee decided to ask those agencies, who have publicly said that there are issues with this bill, either to appear or for advice. I think that would be a perfectly reasonable thing for the Justice Committee to do in order to satisfy ourselves that we understand the issues before it. Also, a number of non-governmental organisations, who work with homeless young people in particular, I know have a big interest in this. I know that the organisation Kick Back in Auckland, for example, has been very active in advocating for the rights of homeless young people in Auckland, and I’m sure that they will want to have a period of time that is sufficient. I do think the suggestion—we do sometimes travel outside of Wellington to hear submissions, and because this bill mainly affects Auckland, I think that that would be a relevant consideration for the Justice Committee to consider as to whether it would be appropriate to go to Auckland and actually give those people, who we’re talking about in the bill, an opportunity to provide their advocacy to us. I think it would be unrealistic to expect them to travel to Wellington. Obviously, these days we have a lot of submissions by Zoom, but, in this instance, it may be more appropriate for the Justice Committee to head hearings in Auckland. I know a number of members already reside there, so that wouldn’t be too much of an issue. But those things take time because it means the secretariat has to travel there. It means that you have to have all of the organisation around having in-person hearings in Auckland. We did do this recently on the Governance and Administration Committee, where we had a really full day of submissions in Auckland and it was really good. I think that that would be an act of good faith to listen to Aucklanders and have those submissions there. But of course, with a shortened report-back time, we are limited and we haven’t heard, as I said, from the Minister any substantive reasons as to why there can be the place. I mean, we can proffer that there might be a reason, which is that the Government is unsure of its re-election and therefore wants to put something—this bill—that they obviously state that they feel strongly about, in place before the next general election. If that is the reason, I have to be clear, that isn’t what has been stated. But if that was the reason, I don’t think that there is a reason that the House should support because, of course, Governments are elected for a three-year term— Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: We know it. CAMILLA BELICH: Yeah, we should know it. Governments are elected for a three-year term. They have that period of time to enact the legislation and curtailing normal parliamentary procedure that allows for the input from the public on something that is important, and there is a lot of passionate debate, as you would have seen on this bill, means that we should have at least four months, if not longer. An option for another amendment that we’re possibly thinking about, although it would be after the election, would be six months, which is the usual time period. Up to other members whether they want to consider whether that is an amendment that might need to be moved. But I do support the amendment of Xu-Nan. I do not support the shortened report-back time for the reasons that I’ve outlined. I think, really, the Minister owed us some additional reasons if he did want to curtail public engagement on such an important bill before the House. Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) (17:40): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have tabled an amendment to the motion because it troubles me that when these shortened report-back motions are put to the House, they always throw in a few extras to further liberalise the powers of the committee to meet. My motion is, and I move that all of the words after the words— ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): Is the member moving a motion? Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: I just said, “I move.” ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): Thank you. Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: I move, That all of the words after the words “3 September 2026” be struck out. Those words that appear after that motion are the words which allow the committee to meet during the evening of a day on which the House has sat and to meet on a Saturday and to meet whilst the House is sitting and to meet outside of Wellington. Now, take “outside of Wellington”. My friend Camilla Belich has just observed that that might be useful, but it’s not a power that is necessary. It’s interesting, I note that none of the Government members from the Justice Committee are in the House for this debate, which goes to show— Rima Nakhle: What are you talking about? Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Oh, no, you’re right, sorry. They’ve appeared. But the point is this—the point is this— Suze Redmayne: You should have crossed that line out. Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: No, I’ve corrected it; they’ve appeared. I’ve corrected it. Don’t get alarmed. But the point is this: when the House is sitting, I would like to be in the House doing the work of this House in these debates. This is the premier institution of Parliament. It is the House of Representatives, and I take my role of representing my constituents in this House, in this seat, very seriously. The Justice Committee now has the power to sit whilst the House is sitting and to drag me away from anything other than question time, and we know there are important bills going through this House, important debates, including general debates that I want to contribute to, that I want to represent the interests of my constituency in this House. By that motion that Minister Paul Goldsmith has put forward, he can deny me my right, because I have a conflicting duty to go and represent on the select committee at the same time, and that’s not right. The real point is this: it’s entirely unnecessary. As the good members of the Justice Committee who are in the House know, the committee can meet in recesses, and it frequently does. It is an extraordinarily busy committee and it does meet in recesses, quite often for whole days. We might grumble about it and we might have discussions in the committee about how and when we meet, but we do it—but we do it. That’s the appropriate thing to do, not to take away one of the most important functions of a member of Parliament, which is to stand up in this House. I guess the other thing is this. I mean, here we are on a Thursday afternoon approaching the adjournment for the week. Well, next Thursday afternoon, we’ll probably be in Budget urgency, but the next Thursday afternoon that the House is sitting, the select committee meeting can be called. So we won’t be going home at 6 p.m. to our constituencies; we may well be sitting into the night on a day that the House has sat. Of course, we can roll into Friday as well. One of the things that’s not well appreciated is that there is no particular limit, other than Sunday, on when a select committee can sit and this will encroach, again, on important work that MPs have to do, including work in constituencies, so we may well be sitting on a Saturday through to a Friday of a sitting week and on to a Saturday, because we saw in this House the degree of interest in this bill. We have seen quite a few bills go through this House and many, many first readings. It’s very rare that you see the gallery full for a first reading speech, but here we have it today. That is an indication of the interest that is in this bill, and yet we’re going to be shuffling through this bill including on Fridays and Saturdays, if necessary. Hon James Meager: Oh no! Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Look, I know that my colleagues across the House constantly tell me how important and busy they are in their electorates. I imagine Carl Bates will be at City Mission Whanganui on Saturday helping at the food bank. But those things— Carl Bates: Friday morning. Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: No, you won’t; not if the select committee is sitting, because that constituency work is important as well. I’m out on the streets doing some street collection tomorrow—not if the select committee’s meeting. I’m meeting Presbyterian Support tomorrow; not if the select committee is meeting. Hon Cameron Brewer: You’re a legislator, mate; do your job. Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: That’s the problem; there is a place for the work of legislation, but it is regulated by Standing Orders for a reason. This is my real point, I suppose. It may well be that none of those powers are exercised, because I’ve seen these powers being put in motions before and they’re just a belt and braces: “Just in case you want it. Here you go. Have these extra powers to sit.” But they’re never exercised, because, actually, once we get in the room, despite the harping from across the House, we generally sit down and work out what’s the best way to get through these things, so to give unnecessary extraordinary powers really cuts across what should be done here. Look, I was disappointed that the Minister didn’t give a reason as to why this piece of legislation should have a shortened period, other than to say, essentially, a circular argument: “I would like this piece of legislation to proceed through the House quickly because I want to get it done quickly.” That’s all he said. He didn’t say, for example, the issue is at crisis point and we need these powers as soon as possible, which would have been false, or “It’s a simple piece of legislation. It won’t take long.” He didn’t say that there’s no interest in this legislation, and there won’t be many people wanting to submit. He didn’t give a single substantive reason, and so here we are wondering why he wants to rush it. In fact, it would be much more appropriate—I know that Lawrence Xu-Nan’s amendment pushed it out to I think a bit over four months, but it’s much more appropriate for this to be pushed out for the full period, which would be over the election period, so that we can deliberate this properly, because it does deserve careful consideration. For example, one of the things that really deserves full consideration of the committee is the issue of begging, right? Now, in their speeches, the members on the other side sort of avoided the fact that begging can precipitate a move-on order, which can precipitate a fine, which can then precipitate imprisonment. What exactly is begging? I will be on the streets I think it’s tomorrow afternoon for Aviva asking for money from passers-by. That sounds a bit like begging to me. Apparently there’s some carve-out for legitimate begging or legitimate requests for money. Well, let’s talk about what that is. If I ask for money for Lawrence, and Lawrence asks for money for me, does that mean that it’s legitimate because I’m not asking for myself? I don’t know. They’re the kind of questions that the select committee needs to be delving into. We need to hear from people who are directly affected, the people who might be asked to move on. We need their views, and they’re not views that are got quickly or easily; in fact, they might not even be in writing. One of the things, of course, the select committee has trouble with is hearing enough oral submissions. Sometimes we get one-line submissions with a request to be heard. I hope, in this case, we’ll have enough time to hear them, even though they say, “I oppose this bill. Please hear me.”, perhaps not even spelt correctly. They may well be the people who are affected by this bill, who don’t have good literacy skills, who may be able to come and tell their story in person, but if we don’t have enough time to do it, then we’re in real trouble. Look, I know the select committee by and large works well and hard at the work it does, and relatively cooperatively, but, in this case, that’s going to be very hard to do because it’s a very tricky problem, both legally in terms of how the law’s going to work, but also kind of socially and personally. These are complex people we’re dealing with and so we need as much time as we can to do that, and we certainly don’t need the list of other constraints on the bill. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): The question before the House for debate is that the amendment be agreed to. The amendment is now debatable together with the motion. Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green) (17:50): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Knowing the rules, I want to speak specifically to the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s amendment around the strike-out for anything that’s after 3 September. I actually would support the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s amendment, because my amendment simply makes a rational push out to what is before the dissolution of Parliament. I think that if we’re able to give the opportunity to have the full six months by striking out that date completely, that does allow us more time to consider. My understanding—and this is something that I personally haven’t experienced before—is that when the previous Parliament dissolves and then a new Parliament commences, once the new Parliament commences, the process is that there will be a reinstatement motion that allows the continuation of any previous Parliament’s activities. My amendment, in some ways, was quite cynical in the sense that it makes the assumption that the Government wants to push this through, noting that it will neither be picked up or it will be repealed by the next Government. I think that if we are able to take on board the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s amendment, it actually is also a sign, I guess, in some ways, of confidence and reassurance by the current Government that no matter what happens in the election and what happens next term, this bill will continue to be considered by the select committee. I think that if they really think that this is something that is supposed to be effective and long and enduring, they wouldn’t mind accepting what the Hon Dr Duncan Webb has proposed and having a full-on six-month select committee process as opposed to what I proposed, which is just, essentially, four months and a day. I also think that when we are looking at what the Hon Dr Duncan Webb and my colleague Camilla Belich have said, we simply don’t know as a select committee the sheer interest for this bill—how many submissions we’re going to get. Again, if we are able to get something that’s substantial like the Treaty principles bill, then it actually would mean that there is potentially no possible way that we would be able to even consider this bill as well as everything else in the Justice Committee without having that six-month period like the honourable member’s amendment. It also means that as a select committee, what you then need to do is try to push everything and start to have to think about the priority of the bills that we have in front of us and what that would mean. Obviously, we want to be able to work to our current deadline for some of the bills. Potentially, again, for consideration—this is something I haven’t mentioned before—it wouldn’t be necessary, if we take on board the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s amendment, to write to the Business Committee to ask for those kinds of extensions. I also think the other consideration to make, if we are allowed to have a full-on six-month select committee by striking out 3 September 2026, is that when we are looking at the submission process and also the hearings during the select committee, we make certain assumptions. I want to really pick up on something that Camilla Belich mentioned, which is that we are now used to doing things on Zoom or on video or using audiovisual technology. However, what we often fail to consider is that our submission portal, our selection process, my colleague Tamatha Paul can confirm, requires people to have access to a device to the internet, and to be able to operate technology, and that may not be the case when we are looking at the requirements or the constituents we’re trying to reach with this particular bill. Again, if we are going to have a full six months, we may be able to tease that out, but I don’t know if the select committee at this stage is prepared to have to accept submissions via writing. If we have submissions via writing and the submission period is only 2½ weeks as opposed to six weeks for a six-month bill, does that mean that we can accept late submissions if they’re done in writing but the date stamp of that writing, whatever happens to our New Zealand Post service, is on a day that is within that period? Potentially, that means that our hearings will need to be pushed out. It’s the same thing when we’re looking at being able to travel the country and having discussions, because sometimes, for the people and the communities that we want to hear from, they may not be able to have access to Zoom and audiovisual technology. This is why I’m taking this particular call—just to really support and tautoko what the Hon Dr Duncan Webb has suggested in his amendment. I think, with that, that is sufficient from me, and I’m sure other people may have further considerations. TODD STEPHENSON (Whip—ACT) (17:56): I move, That debate on this question now close. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): This debate is interrupted and is set down for resumption next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 26 May 2026. Debate interrupted. The House adjourned at 5.56 p.m.