
Space, Spies, Stalking, And Extra Sittings
The House took urgency on Tuesday evening which extended Tuesday's sitting until lunchtime Wednesday, then it returned on Thursday morning - that time as an extended sitting.
As a result, most select committees are not meeting this week. Some have had to cancel their plans or squeeze some work in at lunchtime. With a few exceptions - and excepting bills that committees are given special permission to consider outside normal rules - Select Committees and the House cannot sit at the same time.
Spare a thought for submitters and those who schedule them, who have had their plans upended again by urgency. The opposition did ask the Leader of the House last Thursday whether there would be urgency this week but was told to "wait and see". Last minute reveals of urgency are not unusual. Extended sittings (like Thursday morning) are signposted a week or two in advance, but usually little warning is given for urgency.
Bills under urgency
Tuesday's urgency was aimed at two bills - one relating to space and the other about international crime cooperation.
The Outer Space and High-altitude Activities Amendment Bill isn't so much about space as it is about the ground bases for satellites or other extra-terrestrial objects. The Minister for Space, Judith Collins was the bill's sponsor.
"This bill introduces a new authorisation regime for ground-based space infrastructure. Until now, these activities have not been subject to a dedicated regulatory framework."
The reason for the bill, revealed in the second reading debate, upped the interest.
"During the past five years, there have been several deceptive efforts by foreign actors to establish and/or use ground-based space infrastructure in New Zealand to harm our national security. They have deliberately disguised their affiliations to foreign militaries and misrepresented their intentions. To date, these risks have been managed through non-regulatory measures, including relying on the goodwill of ground-based infrastructure operators. These measures are no longer enough."
That sounds like the pitch for a thriller just begging to be written.
This was a bill that the parties largely agreed on. They even agreed that urgency was reasonable, but opposition speakers complained about the push-push pace of urgency after the Committee Stage, as governing-party MPs worked to abbreviate what Labour's Rachel Brooking called "very civil, thoughtful debates."
The pace really started to drag once the Budapest Convention and Related Matters Legislation Amendment Bill was the focus.
Its sponsor, Minister of Justice, Paul Goldsmith said the bill "aligns New Zealand's laws with the requirements of the Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime, also known as the Budapest Convention. The Budapest Convention is the first binding international treaty on cyber-crime, and it aligns members' national laws relating to computer-related offences, improves investigative techniques, and streamlines evidence sharing."
Labour supported the bill but played hardball in the Committee Stage, concerned about the possibility of the convention leading to New Zealand accidentally helping countries that don't share our values control their citizens. Duncan Webb put it like this.
"We need to be vigilant that we are not being unwittingly used to further either political ends or to allow a foreign state to pursue a proceeding against something that might be a crime in a foreign nation, but it certainly isn't a crime in New Zealand and shouldn't be something for which criminal sanction follows."
The opposition made the Committee Stage of the Budapest bill last through most of the rest of Wednesday. The government's original plan was to pass it through all remaining stages, but late on Wednesday evening, they abandoned it after the Committee Stage and moved on to their other priorities. The Budapest Convention Bill was left with just a third reading to complete.
Those were not the only interesting bills under discussion this week. Three other bills are of particular interest, relating to Health, Secondary Legislation, and Stalking.
Other key bills - Health
Tuesday saw the first reading of the Healthy Futures (Pae Ora) Amendment Bill which will now be considered by the Health Select Committee. Among its measures, that bill enacts health targets, and also alters or removes Māori consultation and obligations from the health administration. The Minister of Health, Simeon Brown described his bill succinctly.
"This bill is about cutting through bureaucracy, restoring accountability, and most importantly, putting patients first."
Opposition MPs had numerous gripes including this one from Dr. Tracey McLellan, regarding bringing Health New Zealand under the public service obligation for staff neutrality. "That is a chilling thing to do. Frontline health workers who have a professional obligation, an ethical and a legal obligation to call out things that they see in their professional practice. It is not political, it is professional, and they should not, in any way, shape, or form, have this hanging over them, this concept of-the misuse of-public service neutrality."
Other key bills - Regulation
Also on Tuesday, the Legislation Amendment Bill had a first reading and now heads to the Justice Committee for public feedback. The Legislation Amendment Bill has been in development for a few years, and among its aims are making secondary legislation (e.g. regulations) more easily accessible and more likely to be pruned once obsolete. Secondary legislation includes all of the various kinds of laws that don't come directly from a piece of legislation but from power that legislation delegates to ministers, ministries, agencies, councils etc. There is much more secondary legislation than primary legislation but it isn't as easy to search or access. Primary legislation is all stored on a legislation website managed by the Parliamentary Counsel Office (PCO); currently secondary legislation is not.
In debate, Labour's Camilla Belich observed that, "the main big change will be the single point of access that it will allow to secondary legislation. The point of the work that we do is to try and make sure that when either primary legislation or secondary legislation has an impact on people's lives, they have access to that. It shouldn't be something which is hidden away and it shouldn't be something which is difficult to find."
Don't confuse the Legislation Amendment Bill with ACT's Regulatory Standards Bill which is also going through parliament and which appears to be trying to do something rather different. The Regulatory Standards Bill has influenced the shape of the Legislation Amendment Bill though, which Opposition MPs were unhappy with in debate, despite supporting the wider effort.
Other key bills - Stalking
The Crimes Legislation (Stalking and Harassment) Amendment Bill had its second reading late on Wednesday. It creates a new offence specific to stalking and harassment and the myriad forms that these can take. It includes indirect harassment like undermining reputation, opportunities or relationships. The bill itself is a fascinating read as an example of how much cleverness is required to effectively draft law for crime that is, by definition, quite nebulous. Policy staff at Justice and legal drafters at PCO may have taken to heart the idiom 'to catch a criminal, you have to think like one'.
National minister Erica Stanford outlined changes made to the bill as a result of public feedback to the Select Committee.
"To be convicted of the new offence, the prosecution will need to prove the person engaged in a pattern of behaviour towards their victim. The committee recommended a broader definition for the pattern of behaviour. The offence will now require two specified acts within two years, rather than three specified acts within one year. This broadens the pattern of behaviour by capturing fewer acts across a longer time frame. I agree that this change will better address strategies such as anniversary-based stalking..."
"A further recommendation made by the committee was to add doxing to the list of "specified act". Doxing is the publication of personal information such as addresses or contact details, including whether a stalker claims to be their victim. It encourages third parties to contact, threaten, and intimidate the victim…"
"The committee also added two further important amendments to the bill. Firstly, to allow the courts to order the destruction of intimate visual recordings...secondly, to allow a court to make restraining [orders], firearm prohibition [orders], and Harmful Digital Communications Act orders, where a defendant is discharged without convictions."
One more for the road - Espionage
There are other bills of note on the Order Paper that the government would have hoped to progress, but progress this week has been slow. Opposition MPs have taken their time working through bills in the committee of the whole House, whether they support them or not. This will likely annoy the government, but thoroughly testing bills is the job of all MPs in the House.
That sluggish pace meant the second reading of the Parliament Bill also slipped down the Order Paper (along with the third reading of the Budapest Convention Bill).
One bill the House may reach is worth noting. The Crimes (Countering Foreign Interference) Amendment Bill would be a second espionage-related bill for the week. This one hopes to plug gaps in the law around things like treason, espionage and even incitement to mutiny.
*RNZ's The House, with insights into Parliament, legislation and issues, is made with funding from Parliament's Office of the Clerk. Enjoy our articles or podcast at RNZ.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

NZ Herald
a day ago
- NZ Herald
Facing prospect of election defeat, Government tries to change the rules
There's no good reason to remove election-day enrolment, which has been in place since 2020. And there's certainly no reason to remove the ability to enrol during the advance voting period. You've been able to enrol up to the day before election day since 1993. The idea that election-day enrolment was delaying the official results is also nonsense. Whether people update their enrolment details two weeks before the election or on election day, that form still has to be processed and their information updated. It's the same amount of workers' time, either way. The Government can just hire more people to do it after election day, rather than before, and the job will get done on time. Don't give me the 'well, they should sort out their enrolment details earlier' line. I thought National and Act were against bureaucracy? And now they're saying you should lose your right to vote unless you know about the bureaucracy of voter enrolment and tick the state's forms well ahead of time? We should be making it as easy as possible for people to exercise their right to vote. Aotearoa New Zealand has a good record in that regard. We were world leaders in votes for Māori, votes for women, removing the property-ownership test. We don't have people queuing for hours like in the United States. But now the Government wants to use bureaucracy to trip people up and stop them voting. Even Judith Collins has said it is wrong: 'The proposal for a 13-day registration deadline appears to constitute an unjustified limit on s12 of the NZBORA [the right to vote]. The accepted starting point is the fundamental importance of the right to vote within a liberal democracy. A compelling justification is required to limit that right.' The Deputy Prime Minister says you're a 'dropkick' if you don't get your registration sorted well before the election. But why shouldn't a person be able to come along on election day or in the early voting period, cast their vote, and, if their enrolment details need updating, do it at the same time? Why force us to use an inefficient, two-step process? Since when has the supposedly libertarian Act Party loved bureaucracy? Truth is, we know why the Government is doing this. It's a Government that's failing to deliver and fading in the polls. In most recent polls, Labour has been ahead of National. Forty-eight per cent of voters say it's time for a new Government. Only 38% want to give this Government a second chance. So they're trying to screw the scrum in their favour. David Seymour let it slip with his 'dropkicks' comment. Act MP Todd Stephenson put it even more bluntly: 'It's outrageous that someone completely disengaged and lazy can rock up to the voting booth, get registered there and then, and then vote to tax other people's money away.' Trying to make sure only the 'right' people are voting is dangerous, anti-democratic thinking. We all know this change is about setting up barriers for people who are young, Māori, disengaged or alienated from the structures of power and wealth in this country – because those people are unlikely to vote for a Government that works in the interests of the wealthy and powerful. The Government knows full well that these New Zealanders, who have the same right to vote as anyone else, are less likely to be familiar with the rules around registration. The Government also knows there will be many people, Kiwis not as politically engaged as you and me, dear reader, but no less worthy of the vote, who will turn up to a polling place on election day or during the advance voting period thinking that they can update their registration at the same time as they vote – because that's how it has been and they haven't heard about the change – and be turned away under this new law. Democracy is meant to be a contest of ideas. And it is fundamental to democracy that the voters choose the Government, not the other way around. If the Government wants to be re-elected, it should give people a reason to vote for it, not try to exclude voters it doesn't like.


Otago Daily Times
2 days ago
- Otago Daily Times
Leary dignified as sun sets on her Bill — and gains unlikely fan
Ingrid Leary. Photo: RNZ Taieri Labour MP Ingrid Leary is proud of her Dutch heritage. On Wednesday she must have had a feeling akin to that which the Netherlands rugby team might have if it were ever to line up against the All Blacks ... knowing that you have to run out on the field but that you are going to get absolutely pummelled. At which point, you either fold up or fight your darndest — and Leary opted for the latter. Back on July 16, during the most recent Members' Day, the House managed to sneak in the first couple of speeches on Leary's Property Law (Sunset Clauses) Amendment Bill. This Bill, if passed (spoiler alert ... things did not go well for Leary) would have amended the Property Law Act so that house buyers would have to give their consent if vendors wanted to rescind their sale and purchase agreement under a sunset clause. Despite it being a well-intentioned and arguably sensible layer of added protection for people buying homes off the plans, it become all too apparent that all three governing parties were going to vote against it. But things were not all doom and gloom for Leary. As well as the sunset clauses Bill, Leary also has the Retirement Villages (Fairer Repayments) Amendment Bill in the Members' Bill ballot, which — if drawn and enacted — would require retirement villages to greatly accelerate the timeframe to repay residents or their families any money owed to them if the resident moved to higher care levels or died. This proposed law change is not a million miles away from what the government is eventually going to do in this space anyway ... and the reason why we know that the government is likely to enact a law like Leary's in the future is because last week someone leaked One News a recording of Tauranga National MP Sam Uffindell speaking at an unspecified time and place in a manner which seemed to endorse Leary's endeavours in this space. "Ingrid Leary ... has quite cunningly put forward a members' Bill which would address some of this. And she's savvy enough to have garnered up a lot of attention around retirement villages," Uffindell said. "And so that's in the pipeline as well. We need to arrest or take the key parts out of that [which] are workable and make sure we build that into something." Uffindell then revealed — over pizza and Pepsi Max — that Prime Minister Christopher Luxon had raised issues concerning retirement villages with a group of backbench MPs, including himself. He further offered some electoral spice to the mix by adding: "Importantly, it needs to go through the House before the end of this term, because if it hasn't, we're going to have a whole bunch of disgruntled people and retirement villages who all vote and all talk to each other about it. Who will go, 'oh, National hasn't actually delivered and Labour was going to do this'." Oh dear. And just to add hot sauce to an already piquant piece of audio, One News asked Uffindell, and the PM, about his backbencher's reckons the other Thursday, while Luxon was on a visit to Tauranga. Back to this Wednesday, when a somewhat embarrassed government made little effort to defend itself for not backing Leary's sunset clauses Bill, National sending out first-term backbenchers Rima Nakhle and Hamish Campbell to take up 10 minutes of our lives that no-one is ever getting back in speaking on the Bill. Nakhle did at least say that she understood that Leary was trying to protect consumers from bad-faith developers, before taking a wide tangent to extol the natural beauties of her Takanini electorate; but who knows what Campbell was on about in a, frankly, incoherent offering which had very little to do with Leary's Bill — or anything else. Labour, knowing it was beat, opted to make the most of it and have some fun with the government's discomfiture on the subject of Leary's other Members' Bill. "This Bill introduced by Ingrid Leary, who I want to actually acknowledge — she's doing tremendous work in this area," Labour Housing spokesman Kieran McAnulty extolled. "She's doing tremendous work in the area of retirement villages. Sam Uffindell is a fan. Sam Uffindell recognises that Ingrid Leary is doing tremendous work. "I think deep down, Sam Uffindell recognises that Ingrid Leary is doing tremendous work in the area of sunset causes. I have a suspicion that there are a few of them over there that deep down would actually quite like to support this Bill, but they've been whipped. They've been whipped and told that they cannot support this Bill." When the fall is all that's left it matters a great deal how one falls, and in her concluding speech Leary's buried her Bill with dignity. "It's been a real privilege to be able to have this reading on my Bill, and I want to acknowledge my late mother for her Leary luck in getting my Bill drawn. It's continuing even after her departure, so thanks very much, Mum," she said. "I can feel the sun setting on my sunset clauses Bill ... it's such a shame that the government members won't support it in its first reading, because if they had, I think they would find, actually, there would be many property developers who would support this Bill because they do not want to be tarnished by the reputation of a few bad apples. That's certainly been the experience in Australia, where their equivalent Bill was overwhelmingly supported ... That's, I'm sure, what would have happened here, but, sadly, we won't get that chance." Leary then put in a plug for her other Bill, stressing that yet again she was trying to protect the little guy or gal against the big players. "I note that this legislation has worked very well in Australia. I am going to let the sun set on it now — it's the last gasp — but don't worry, we've got the Retirement Villages (Fairer Repayments) Amendment Bill and you still have a chance to support that, National Party members." Well, at least Leary knows that she has one likely backer.


NZ Herald
2 days ago
- NZ Herald
Use of urgency to upend pay equity scheme decided after PM's meeting with senior ministers
Listening to articles is free for open-access content—explore other articles or learn more about text-to-speech. Use of urgency to upend pay equity scheme decided after PM's meeting with senior ministers Pay equity protesters rally outside Minister Brooke van Velden's electorate office in Auckland in May. Photo / Jason Dorday New documents reveal the Government's use of urgency to rush through controversial changes to the country's pay equity scheme wasn't decided until after a high-powered meeting between the Prime Minister and senior ministers. A document dump yesterday from several government agencies provides an insight into the Government's shock decision in May to amend the Equal Pay Act, which ministers claimed created a fiscally unsustainable pay equity scheme as changes saved almost $13 billion over the next four years. The changes, which stopped 33 live pay equity claims, raised the threshold for claims to be made and limited the job types workforces could use as comparators when arguing inequity. The amendments announced by Workplace Relations Minister Brooke van Velden had not been publicly forecast, and the Government used urgency to pass the bill through the House, meaning no public consultation was done. Now, documents released yesterday showed urgency hadn't been raised by officials in the months of preparation through 2024 before potential reform.