Oranga Tamariki (Responding to Serious Youth Offending) Amendment Bill

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Mr Chair. Part 2 contains consequential amendments required to support the operation of the new regime, including this young serious offender declaration and the military-style academy order established in Part 1. These amendments are necessary to ensure the new regime integrates effectively within the wider framework of the Oranga Tamariki Act.

Part 2 ensures the Youth Court, Police, and Oranga Tamariki can operate the new regime as intended by the bill. They update existing powers, processes, and references so that they appropriately capture young people who are declared a young serious offender, and the military-style academy order, among other changes. Together, the amendments in Part 2 support the implementation of the regime agreed to by the committee of the whole House in Part 1, and they ensure the new regime introduced by this bill can operate coherently within the wider youth justice system, and I commend these provisions to the committee. I’m proposing an amendment to correct two grammatical errors that have been identified in Part 2. This amendment relates to clause 58, Part 2 of the bill.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Mr Chair. Sorry, I haven’t had the chance to just jump to those sections, but I did want to talk to two amendments that I have: 07.06.02—actually, it’s in the name of the Hon Dr Duncan Webb, so I might leave that one for him to talk to and I will talk to amendment 7.06.03. That is Part 2, subpart 1, clause 41, which proposes to insert, after clause 41, new clause 41A and new section 4B. It’s in the name of Helen White and it’s about inserting in there consistency with international juvenile justice standards.

We did have a bit of conversation about this in earlier sections, because this amendment would require decision makers exercising the powers under the Act to have regard to internationally recognised standards relating to juvenile justice. In New Zealand, we’ve assumed obligations under key international instruments, including the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which emphasises that responses to youth offending must prioritise the best interests of the child, rehabilitation, proportionality, and respect the dignity and rights of young people. These principles are also reflected in complementary international standards, such as the Beijing Rules, and the Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty.

While these standards inform existing policy in practise, they are not expressly embedded in the statutory framework. This amendment is to strengthen the Act by requiring those exercising powers under it to actively consider these obligations when making decisions affecting children. The provision also reinforces core youth justice principles, including the importance of participation by young people in decisions affecting them, and the central role of family, whānau, hapū, iwi, and community in supporting positive outcomes.

Overall, this amendment is about enhancing transparency, aligning the legislation more closely with New Zealand’s international commitments, and supports best practise in youth justice systems by ensuring that interventions remain focused on rehabilitation while being a long-term positive development, and not just political slogans and vote-buying.

Committee of the whole House

In regards to the amendment 07.06.03, 5 August—look, section 5 of the Act already provides a range of protections relating to children’s and young person’s rights, including those in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Disabilities Convention, that must be respected and upheld. Section 208 also sets out principles applying to youth justice, which addresses the matters that are in this amendment bill. The bill is not changing any of those existing sections.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. The Hon Willow-Jean Prime was going to talk about one of my amendment, but that was actually about the last part, so no need to mention that one. I see the amendment there talked about the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, but I might leave that to Willow-Jean Prime—it is in her name—and turn towards the amendment which has got the timestamp of 07.06.05, 5 August, on it.

The Minister for Children has repeatedly expressed her desire to do something new. She’s expressed that in a number of different ways, some more strongly and stridently than others, and I think we accept she’s trying to do something new, and the question is whether or not it will work. She has expressed, I think, the fact that, if it’s not working, doing the same thing again and again is the wrong thing to do. That’s why this amendment provides for a review of the initiatives which are created by this legislation, because she is doing some stuff which is—you know, our comments in this committee of the whole House have shown that we think it’s a little heavy-handed, and perhaps I overstepped the mark, but it’s the Government’s view that it’s a good idea, and so it will happen. In light of this, I’m hoping that she’ll agree that a formal and required review—not one that can be kicked down the road, because we know what it’s like when departments get busy, and Oranga Tamariki, of all our agencies, is one of our most busy—allows for that important function of looking backwards and saying, “Well, here’s what we’ve done. Let’s measure, appropriately, whether there has been a change, an improvement, or not; and if it is an improvement, what are those things we can build on and what are the things we should perhaps stop doing?” Do more, stop, go do more, as I think my colleague from the military would say.

That’s what the amendment does, and I guess it’s recognising that this is a significant shift in the youth justice framework, and that things like military-style academies, whilst they’ve been experimented with before, now have a legislative framework for them. I actually hope that the Minister—not that Minister, I hope, but a Labour Minister—will be able to return to this House and say, “Actually we’ve had some good outcomes and here’s how we can do it even better.” But you don’t get that unless you have a thoughtful and required review and, importantly, one that focuses on the wellbeing of the children and young persons that are involved in there; and also whether there’s any concerns, because one of the problems is that you’ll see a graph and you’re like, “Oh, well, overall, it’s good.” But if we’ve got outliers where there’s been very serious harm, and we’ve seen, as I understand it, in one of the pilots, there was a young person who’s no longer with us. Now, whether there’s a causal link between the death and the pilot, I don’t know, but we need to make sure that the individual costs where young people are seriously harmed, whether mentally or physically, aren’t lost in the graphs of, “Overall, we’ve got a better outcome.”

I think it’s important that we have a really careful and thoughtful review, and that it comes back to this House. That’s the other thing, that the report should be tabled here so that it can be considered by Parliament, and preferably by an appropriate select committee that can really have a close look at whether there’s been an improvement or whether, in fact, the opposite has happened.

Now, none of us can see into the future. We have starkly divergent views about whether or not this is a good idea, but it would be good if we can test which of us is correct in a future Parliament by a clear, comprehensive, and debatable report on whether it’s been effective or not.

Committee of the whole House

In regards to amendment 07.06.05, 5 August, I’ve been informed that legislating a full review of the Oranga Tamariki Act is unusual and unnecessary. Those reviews can happen at any time at the direction of Ministers.

I’d also like to address another tabled amendment—7.06.06, 5 August—which is looking at a sunset clause. Look, this bill is intended to be an enduring response to serious persistent youth offending. A sunset clause would undermine that objective, and it also creates uncertainty for the courts, departments, and young people in the youth justice system.

Committee of the whole House

I thank the member for highlighting the sunset clause and giving me the opportunity to speak on that, because I haven’t had an opportunity to seek to persuade the Minister that a sunset clause is appropriate. But I’m sure, once she’s carefully listened to my plea, she’ll come around.

I guess the point is this: it’s not a compulsory sunset clause. If you look at it—perhaps you missed this—it’s actually a sunset clause unless Parliament says “Keep going.” In the proposed section 280B(2), it says subsection (1) does not apply if before the date for that date—five years date—the House of Representatives resolves that those provisions are to continue in force. This kind of provision is not unknown, and, of course, we have confirmation provisions in respect of regulations all the time.

But I guess my point is this: from our side, we see these as very significant provisions which are doing something which is both extraordinary and extreme in the sense of having these military-style academies that you don’t like calling “bootcamps”, but ultimately that’s what they are—these ideas where you have strict military discipline, getting them out of bed, as you said, and marching them around the parade ground, and so on.

We think that if you’re going to go ahead with it, let’s give it a safety valve. If you are right, you and your party can come back to this Parliament and say, “Look, we’ve got much better outcomes.”, then Parliament can join and say, “OK, we were wrong, and let’s approve, under subsection (2), that these provisions continue in force.”

But one of the dangers is that these things don’t work that well. They perhaps are wound back, but, because Parliament is busy, it doesn’t get around to actually amending the law and they kind of languish on the statute book. And then, as time passes, some enthusiastic Minister digs it out again and starts using a broken system, which should have been removed from the statute book. So it’s actually a really good clean way to keep our statute book tidy without having to consume the time of Parliament by going back and having an amendment Act to remove unworkable provisions.

I know the Minister is sort of trying to get a twofer out of her last contribution, but I do think it’s important that these amendments, which are serious amendments, are fully traversed and not bundled together and pre-emptively dismissed. I’m sure the Minister didn’t intend to do that.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ve got a couple of questions to start with under Part 2 for a few clauses, so I’m going to move through these ones.

The first one is clause 42. This is page 53. I want to check with the Minister, when it comes to the idea of allowing a court or person to make or keep a child or young person, in this case—can I check?—is this sort of akin to how the remand system works currently, where a child or young person who’s got allegations of offending will be kept in custody until that is dealt with? If it is similar to the way that we look at the existing remand system, would the Minister know what the current duration is that a child has been kept in those sorts of circumstances.

I’m going to move on to clause 45 now, and then my final question is on clause 46.

Clause 45—young advocate. Now, under the definition of “young advocate” in the principal Act, it’s a barrister or solicitor, which I would assume could naturally respond anyway. So I wonder what the rationale is behind explicitly mentioning that a youth advocate “is entitled, with the consent … to represent the young person”. I’d assume that solicitors and barristers could represent anyone anyway, so I just wanted to check what the rationale is for explicitly mentioning that.

My last few questions at this stage are for clause 46. This is also on page 54. It’s good to see that, when it comes to groups 3 to 7 response, there is a requirement for there to be a report from a social worker. But I want to check with the Minister what the rationale is for having group 1 or 2 response on one end, where the report is optional, and then 3 to 7 being required. What’s the threshold? Why is there a change from not being fully required to being fully required between group 2 and 3? When we’re looking at a report, if I’m looking at clause 46—this is section 334(2A); around line 8 of page 55—the court is able to request information from the social worker to be put in some of those reports. Can I just check if that kind of request and the kind of report that we’re looking at is similar to what we are seeing with, for example, a section 27 report and that the court is able to request from the social worker aspects of, I guess, cultural or hereditary or familial, etc., as well, as a part of that report.

I just want to get, I guess, a couple of examples from the Minister on what are the things that the court may possibly have or will be able to request from a social worker.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just to continue on the questions that my colleague Lawrence Xu-Nan has asked around clause 46, relating to the report by a social worker, I just had a few more questions relating to that. The first one is: how is “a social worker” interpreted? Is that Oranga Tamariki’s own social workers, or can these be third-party social workers as well?

I guess the other big question that I had when I saw this part is it raised alarm bells for me in terms of if these are Oranga Tamariki social workers who are preparing these reports, because there have been kind of ongoing reports throughout the term of the massive workloads that Oranga Tamariki social workers have. And, just citing this RNZ article from 28 February 2025: “Fears children will be harmed as Oranga Tamariki staff grapple with overwhelming workloads”. I think this has been well canvassed in the House throughout the term, but there have been a lot of red flags about that workload. Has the Minister or her officials had conversations or considerations towards whether their social workers are able to take on yet another duty or another potential obligation that they might be required to undertake?

I also wondered whether there was a time frame on when this report had to be produced, because my colleague Dr Xu-Nan makes a good point in that there could be lots of different factors that this social worker might have to pull into this report, and I can see here under clause 46(2A) that all of this must be dealt with in one report. Is there a time frame around when this report is expected to be provided, and will there be resourcing available for those social workers who have to pull that report together, noting the caseload and capacity constraints but also noting that in some other parts of the legal system there are, or there was, resources available for people to be able to prepare these types of reports to give a fulsome picture to the people making the decision?

So I will leave that there for the social worker aspects.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to speak to my—yes, it is in my name—tabled amendment, 7.06.04. I know that the Government are quite allergic to Te Tiriti o Waitangi and the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. I know later on in the week we’ve got a number of bills that are being introduced to water down and weaken the Te Tiriti o Waitangi principles. I am going to ask the Minister anyway, but I want to know if the Minister would consider inserting a new section 6A into new clause 41B, which puts in there the recognition of Te Tiriti o Waitangi principles.

One of the things that really concerns me about this legislation, and why I am so opposed to it, among many reasons, is because we know that tamariki Māori will be disproportionately impacted by this legislation. A majority of the young people who will be captured by this legislation, we understand from official advice, will be tamariki Māori. I understand that 80, 90, almost 100 percent of those in the first pilot and in the second programme are tamariki Māori. More than 80 percent of those whom officials have identified would qualify for this are tamariki Māori, so I ask the Minister if she would consider supporting this tabled amendment that provides for the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. If the Minister doesn’t agree with that, could she please tell us why she doesn’t think that’s important when we are dealing with predominantly tamariki Māori?

Committee of the whole House

Sure. I don’t agree with this amendment, because section 4 of the Act currently already does this.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. Can I just check with the Minister for Children, in terms of the bills that are being introduced to make changes to Treaty provisions within legislation, what does that mean in terms of section 4 for the Oranga Tamariki Act?

Committee of the whole House

Section 4 of the Act includes providing a practical commitment to the principles of the Treaty.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. My question was about proposed changes under the Treaty clause review to references to the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi in legislation. The Minister for Children is responsible for this piece of legislation. What do those proposed changes, that clause review, mean in terms of this section? If the Minister is dismissing my amendment on the basis that that’s already provided for but there are actually moves afoot to make changes as part of that Treaty clause review, could the Minister please give me an assurance and the confidence that that is going to continue?

Committee of the whole House

There is no plan to change the purpose of the Act, which includes providing a practical commitment to the principles of the Treaty.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just following on from my questions—hopefully the Minister for Children is getting some advice for both mine and my colleague Tamatha Paul’s questions. I do want to move on a little bit, which is around clauses 47, 48, and 50. For clause 48, section 352 amended, in this case “Appeal by parents or guardians”, can I just check that that is interlinked with clause 47 and the appeal by parents or guardians or other persons would also then need to go to a High Court against the orders that the Youth Court made? Is that the correct assumption there, as we see in clause 47?

My next question—and this is my final question for this little bit before I will move on to Subpart 2 as well. Clause 50, “Section 358 amended (Presence of young person at hearing of appeal)”, I want to check with the Minister: when we’re looking at the Youth Court, the Youth Court sometimes allows for things like prehearings, in the sense that there’s the ability to discuss some protocols and some guidance, particularly based on the need of the young person at that stage. I think both my colleague Tamatha Paul and I have visited the Youth Court in Tāmaki-makau-rau Auckland, where we have seen some of these dynamics, where it’s putting the wellbeing of the child at the centre if a child has particular needs.

I do want to check, if we’re looking at an appeal process as well, would the High Court look at similar protocols as a Youth Court, where there’s the ability to have that kind of prehearing discussions? I can’t remember the technical term for it off the top of my head, but it’s those prehearing discussions with advocates and the judges to be able to set aside some sort of protocols and guidelines of how that High Court or that appeals hearing may take place.

Committee of the whole House

Just in response to social worker reports: these are done by Oranga Tamariki social workers, just to confirm. This is a normal part of their work. It is not considered that there’ll be a significant increase in their workload, as it’s just their daily work.

Can a court request a social worker report? Yes, the court can always request reports that they would like.

The question around why reports are sometimes required and sometimes not: I guess that would be on a case-by-case basis and considered on the seriousness of what’s happening and what we need from the reports. It’s important to understand that a court can always request a report and information that they want.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m now going to move to Subpart 2, looking specifically at clause 52 around interpretation.

I’m especially interested in engaging with the Minister for Children on specifically the two terms around approved worker and qualifying provider, because I think those are really, really important—that we get that in the Hansard and distinguish exactly what that means. One of the big messages and recommendations and lessons from the royal commission of inquiry into abuse in State care was highlighting how the workers in those bootcamps on Aotea Great Barrier Island, but also some of the people who were providing these bootcamps and also programmes within detention centres and borstals—there were a whole lot of red flags before those workers were—there was just no vetting going on. I think it’s really important that we canvass what safeguards are in place around who will actually be delivering these military-style academies and how they’re defined within the legislation.

I wanted to ask the Minister, in terms of approved workers, I know that clause 58 refers to the Oranga Tamariki Act under section 447, which is the part that relates to regulations. I went and had a look at that section under the Oranga Tamariki Act and it wasn’t clear to me what the criteria will be for somebody to be approved in the first place. If the Minister could speak to that, that would be incredibly helpful.

To be specific about what I’m looking for here, I do refer back to the royal commission inquiry under that chapter that talks about staff and how important it is that there are safeguards and that staff who are working with vulnerable young people are adequately trained, vetted, and supported through their work. One of the things that led to a lot of that abuse was inadequate vetting processes for those staff, but also that they were inadequately trained, among a whole lot of other things. What safeguards are in place that differ now due to this bill which means that staff who are carrying out these military-style academies will be appropriately vetted and trained so that they understand how to work with these young people in all of these complexity?

I also wanted to ask for similar clarifications around qualifying providers, because we know that there are a whole lot of different providers out there—third-party providers—who will have a whole lot of power through this bill and will have a whole lot of power to determine the trajectory of a young person’s life. Again, what I’m really looking for is: where are the safeguards in this bill, and if they’re not in here and they’re in the Oranga Tamariki Act, could the Minister for Children speak to those? How will Oranga Tamariki make sure that the people who are carrying out these academies do not have any convictions? How will they make sure that these people are appropriately trained? How will they be monitored in terms of their work to make sure that they’re operating within best practice within youth social work?

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. This is just in response to a question around appeals, confirming that an appeal by a parent or a guardian or other person in clause 48 is to the High Court, as outlined in amended section 352.

In response to Tamatha Paul, I take this very seriously. The report that she’s referring to is absolutely horrific, and there was a sentence in there where you said, “What has changed within this bill to bring safeguards?” I think a lot has changed not just within this bill but over the years to make sure that there are safeguards for our young people and oversight around what happens with our young people. We already have processes in place, working with external providers when they become accredited, and there are certain areas that they will have to meet before they can become an accredited provider, and they are always reviewed—never just set for long periods of time without being reviewed. Many accredited providers have lost their accreditation if they aren’t providing the service in a way that we feel is in a safe manner for young people.

The oversight—that is different now to back then. I think about one of the sections of that report that I read that left me absolutely devastated, which was hearing that somebody thought it was a good idea to send young people onto an island in the middle of nowhere, with no form of that young person being able to escape that island, where people had firearms, had convictions, were gang members, and nobody thought to ask the questions. These days, we have vetting processes that are in place through police vets, and also we have strict criteria around who can be working with our young people.

Part of that process was actually what we’ve been doing over the last two years around professionalising the workforce and making sure that they know what is expected of them, that they know what the consequences are if they cross the line with those expectations, and that, actually, we follow through with those consequences to send a clear message that if you are treating our young people with dignity and respect and giving them everything that they need to live a better life, you’ve got no problems with me, but if you’re hurting or harming our young people, we will come down on you with the full force of the law. That message has been made very clear from me as I’ve gone around the country and spoken to many providers and youth justice facilities face to face.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Thank you. Just before I take the next question, I’m just going to say that we’ve had a really good session with this Minister, and I want to commend the Minister on how forthcoming she’s been and how good and positive the questioning has been on a tough topic. I think it would be really good if we can just stick to really short, sharp, last few questions now. We’ve got a few votes to do, and, in my view, I really don’t want to see the Minister back in this chair after question time on this piece of legislation if we can avoid it, because—[Interruption] No, I do think we’ve had a very good go on this.

Committee of the whole House

Point of order. I’m just concerned with your suggestion that you’ve got a predetermined schedule as to when you think the Opposition has done its job.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Can I say, it’s not about the schedule, Dr Webb. There are a couple of pages left. I’ve had one person stand up to take a call. I was commending Dr Xu-Nan on his short, sharp questions. No one else stood up to take a call just then.

No, I appreciate that, but you said—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The committee has indicated to me that we’re near the end of it. Yes, I know what I said about how I wouldn’t like to see the Minister here after question time. What I’m saying is that we’ve got 45 minutes now, and as the Chair, given everything I’ve seen from the Chair and from watching from afar, I feel like we’ve given this a good go and we’re getting to the end of the section. Thank you. Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan.

Committee of the whole House

Madam Chair, thank you so much, and thank you for that response, Minister. Can I just ask a few questions around when you’re talking about the review—and I really appreciate the examples that have been given. Can I check if these providers are being reviewed or quality-assured or checked for compliance, if you’re visiting a location, is it a planned visit or is it an unplanned visit? Is there a way for Oranga Tamariki to actively do their own investigation based on material or is it just a response? We’ll start with that one, and I have a few more questions.

Committee of the whole House

There are many ways that this can happen. There are unannounced visits that happen all the time from compliance teams, from the Independent Children’s Monitor to the Children’s Commissioner to—VOYCE Whakarongo Mai often goes in and speaks to young people. If any concerns are raised, then that will raise a red flag and that will cause us to look more into something.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you. That’s super helpful. I’m going to move on to clause 57, and this is to do with “Report to be accompanied by plan”. I want to check—this is clause 57(3). Two questions around this. Number one is that it does state what kind of details are in there, but how detailed would the Minister for Children expect such a plan to potentially look? Before, we talked about learning programmes, etc. Are we looking at a timetable level of detail, or like syllabus level of detail, or just more broad in terms of the outcomes that they are able to seek in that particular plan? I can ask a question after that, but if the Minister is ready to answer that question?

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Go ahead with your next one.

Oh, I’ll keep going. The next question is around—in new section 335(3), added by clause 57(3), it says the plan needs to accompany a report and is approved by the Youth Court. What’s there in terms of the flexibility or change to that plan? Does the Youth Court need to approve any changes to the plan as well, or is this just a one-off and what you see in the plan is what you get? I want to check in terms of the flexibility and the change to that plan.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just in response to that, I just had a little bit of advice given to me around the detail. We don’t want to become so stringent that we don’t allow flexibility for us to create a programme for a young person based on their needs. It’ll be enough information for the court to make a decision in the best interests and wellbeing of that young person, but it won’t be an hour-by-hour, minute by minute detail.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for that. I’m actually going to move on to Subpart 3, which is “Other amendments”—noting that my colleagues may have other questions. I want to focus on—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Other colleagues don’t appear to have questions.

Don’t appear to have any!

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): So I’m just going to ask the member to wind his questions up quite quickly.

OK. This is also in conjunction with the question I had before, and this is to do with clause 62. This is where “Chief executive may apply to vary plan”, but then I want to check—if my reading of new section 355A is correct, there’s a plan that’s approved by the Youth Court, but if the chief executive, through conversations, etc., with the young person, with a representative, advocate, etc., sees that the plan needs to be changed, they do need to do that revised plan back to the Youth Court for a separate—[Minister nods] OK, I see a nod from the Minister for Children. That’s my question.

Committee of the whole House

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 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Motion agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 2 set out on Amendment Paper 662 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.

Ayes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Amendments agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The Hon Willow-Jean Prime’s tabled amendment to Part 2 replacing “YSO” and “young serious offender” in each place is ruled out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The question is that Helen White’s tabled amendment to insert new clause 41A be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; 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.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Willow-Jean Prime’s tabled amendment to insert new clause 41B be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; 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.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is That the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to insert new clause 41C be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; 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.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is That the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to insert new clause 42A be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; 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.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is That the Hon Willow-Jean Prime’s tabled amendment to clause 46 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; 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.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 54, new section 283, deleting paragraph (na) be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; 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.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to delete references to “military-style academy order” and “military-style academy programme” in Part 2 is ruled out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The Hon Willow-Jean Prime’s tabled amendments to new paragraph (na) in clause 54 and replacing references to “military-style academy order” and “military-style academy programme” in Part 2 are ruled out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The question is that Tamatha Paul’s tabled amendment deleting clause 63 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; 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.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 2 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Part 2 as amended agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Now for the Schedule. The question is that the Minister’s amendment to the Schedule set out on Amendment Paper 662 be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Amendment agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The Hon Willow-Jean Prime’s tabled amendment to the Schedule replacing “young serious offender” in each place is ruled out of order as inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Schedule as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 67

New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.

Noes 55

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Schedule as amended agreed to.

Committee of the whole House

Clauses 1 to 3

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members, we come now to our final debate, clauses 1 to 3, the debate on title, commencement, and principal Act.