Summary Offences (Move-on Orders) Amendment Bill

I move, That the Summary Offences (Move-on Orders) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

Move-on orders are designed to reclaim our streets and town squares for the enjoyment of those who visit, who work, and who live in those town squares. For too long, businesses, residents, and visitors have had to deal with unacceptable levels of disruption. Many are just trying to make a living, but they have to face people camped outside their store day in, day out, intimidating customers and people who choose to work and live in the city.

We’ve got many tools—many tools—to help those who are in need, including access to one of the most generous welfare systems in the world, but we’re lacking tools to deal with those who seek to disrupt. When it comes to the tools to help those in need, in this term alone, we’ve funded 300 additional Housing First homes targeting rough sleepers, we’ve leased private market homes to enable immediate placements, we’ve provided $10 million in additional funding to proven front-line support services, we’ve expanded outreach and wraparound support in major urban cities, we’ve increased transitional housing occupancy and we’re reducing vacancy time, we’ve rebalanced transitional housing to areas of highest demand, we’ve strengthened the discretion of the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) for emergency housing decisions, we’ve implemented benefit redirection where appropriate to support tenancy stability, we’ve deployed an MSD tactical plan to directly engage in housing rough sleepers, and we’ve improved data tracking and placement onto the public housing register. All those things we’ve done to help those who were in need.

However, what we don’t have are effective tools to deal with disorderly behaviour, and I want to make one point clear right at the start, because there will be all sorts of nonsense spoken on the other side. Move-on orders do not criminalise homelessness. In reality, move-on orders provide police with an additional tool to deal with people who are displaying disorderly behaviour. Only people who refuse a move-on order will face prosecution. A move-on order is not a criminal charge, and avoiding any criminal charge is the easiest thing in the world—that is to follow the move-on order.

People are fair-minded in New Zealand. Our culture is one where we seek to help those in need. That doesn’t mean we should accept that our cities and our town squares, particularly our showcase tourist spots, are places of intimidation and dysfunction. This Government has been committed to fixing the basics in law and order and building a future where everyone feels safe to visit, to work, and to live in our central cities.

The bill amends the Summary Offences Act 1981 to provide police with the power to issue move-on orders. The power will allow police to direct a person to leave a public place and not return for up to 24 hours where their behaviour is either disorderly, intimidating, threatening, or disruptive; obstructing access to public spaces or businesses; breaching the peace; or the person is begging or rough sleeping with an intent to continuously occupy a public place.

The power is intended to address lower-level disorder and conduct that falls below the threshold from serious criminal offending. Police will specify the area that a person is to move on from, taking into account the circumstances, and may refer individuals to support services where appropriate. The Government also recognises that public spaces are used for many legitimate purposes. For that reason, move-on orders don’t apply to lawful protest activity, fundraising for charitable or not-for-profit or political purposes, or other specified exempt activities.

I do want to acknowledge the work of the Justice Committee for its consideration of the bill. I note the number of submissions received by this committee. The committee made several recommendations to amend the bill. The main changes were raising the age for which a move-on order can be issued to 18 years, responding to many concerns in that area; specifying that the distance a person is required to move on must be reasonable in the circumstances; amending the ground for issuing a move-on order to begging that is considered unreasonable in the circumstances; providing that people who are issued move-on orders for unreasonable begging or rough sleeping can return to the public place while the order is in force, so long as they do not engage in any of the prohibited behaviours in the bill; and amending the penalty for breaching the order for up to three months imprisonment or a maximum $1,000 fine.

Finally, the committee recommended greater transparency by requiring the police to report annually on the use of move-on orders and including a statutory review of the operation of the orders three years after it comes into force. I acknowledge the work of the committee, and so that’s that, but an amendment will replace the reference to unreasonable begging with begging that unreasonably interferes with another person’s use or enjoyment of a public place, providing a clearer and—we think—a more objective standard for the issuing and enforcement of move-on orders as a result, because we want this to be enforceable. A couple of changes were made which we weren’t entirely comfortable with, but overall we think this legislation is still very strong and will make a difference to our town squares.

It’s a very basic expectation of New Zealanders that they should feel safe and comfortable in our central cities. Now, we might hear from the other side that, well, somehow people shouldn’t feel unsafe and everything is fine, which denies the experiences of many, many people who do not feel safe in our town squares and demand and expect a higher standard. Right now, we’re committed, as I said, to fixing the basics in law and order and building a future where all New Zealanders feel safe in their communities. We’ve spent three years restoring law and order, and people at this election now have a choice between staying strong on law and order or going back to the mess that we were in three years ago.

I put it to you, Madam Speaker, and everybody tuning in to this debate that we’ve made great progress as a country. We now have 37,000 fewer victims of serious violent offending in over 2½ years, we’ve scrapped taxpayer-funded cultural reports, we’ve scrapped the prison reduction target, we’ve given police additional tools to go after gangs, we’ve toughened up our sentencing regime, we’ve brought back three strikes, we’ve brought action against methamphetamine, we’ve reinstated a prisoner voting ban, we’ve been clamping and seizing cars for people who have been evading court fines and reparations, we’ve criminalised stalking, we’ve given that the victims of sexual violence the power to determine whether their attackers receive permanent name suppression, we’ve expanded citizen’s arrest powers for retailers, and we’ve created new offences for coward punches. We’ve done a lot to restore law and order and this last piece of legislation before the House rises to bring in move-on orders will ensure that New Zealand stays strong on law and order. On that basis, I commend this bill to the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. This week, I stood outside the steps of Parliament and I received a petition signed by almost 5,000 New Zealanders. It was a petition that was put together by Family for Every Child. I want to acknowledge Rob Thomson and Sophia Parera from Family for Every Child. They had that petition on their website for one week and they got 5,000 submissions—5,000 New Zealanders who oppose these move-on orders.

The Minister says that this is a law and order issue, but the problems with the move-on order bill are not about law and order; they’re about human beings. They’re about respecting human beings and they’re about the type of society that we are in New Zealand and how we treat other people.

I want to talk about the select committee process. The Minister has mentioned this briefly and I do want to thank the Justice Committee and the chair, Tom Rutherford, for his chairing of this committee. This select committee received over 7,500 submissions. Of them, 98 percent were opposed to move-on orders, and only 1 percent were in support—less than 1 percent, actually, were in support. This is not something that New Zealanders want and the select committee process showed overwhelmingly that New Zealanders rejected move-on orders.

The select committee process, though, was probably one of the more profound experiences that I’ve had in this Parliament. Despite the content of this bill, instead of coming to the select committee with anger or with hate, all submitters—almost universally—came graciously to the select committee with a message of hope. At the select committee, we had karakia; we had tears; we had songs; we had music; we had poems; we had wero, justifiably; we did have some anger; we had humility; we had love; and we had support for the most vulnerable in our country. Seeing the way New Zealanders united against this bill in the most human way possible made me extremely proud of our country and made me even more sure that the provisions in this bill do not reflect who we are.

The message that we got again and again from submitters was that this bill, especially as it applies to our homeless community, to children—as it was originally introduced; children as young as 14—and as it applies to people who are begging, often because they are hungry, often because they’re living in poverty, is not us; this is not who we are; and we are better than this. It was hugely affirming, and I want to acknowledge each and every person that submitted to the Justice Committee.

Many times, when you are in a select committee process, there’s frustration because there’s no change or there’s no response or, for whatever reason, the submitters can’t get through to the officials or the officials can’t get through to the MPs or there’s no change, and that was not the experience of this select committee. I feel that—even though I still fully oppose this bill and many of the things within it—there were real positive changes to the bill. The reason that there were such changes is because of the overwhelming credibility, respect, and dignity of those that contributed. I want to thank everyone who contributed, because you have made these changes. You haven’t defeated move-on orders yet, but you certainly have really challenged the structure of how they will be imposed, and many of our most vulnerable will be in a much better position because of the advocacy that you have made to Parliament and the fact that you were able to come and tell your story about how the bill will be impacted.

Now, there are a lot of technical aspects of this bill. Originally, as I said, it applied to children who were under 18. This was something that was never going to work, and it actually shows the problems with the drafting of this bill. My view is that this bill as introduced would never work because of the inconsistency with the Oranga Tamariki Act. That message came through extremely strong in select committee, and I think it’s something to reflect on when we’re drafting bills—that we look for consistency across legislation, especially when it comes to children. We can’t trifle with the well-thought-out policies that have been developed over years, especially when it comes to vulnerable children, that apply to vulnerable children. It is appropriate that the Oranga Tamariki Act is the principal Act. The fact that this Act was in direct contradiction with it made it unworkable, so the right thing happened. We’ve listened to submitters, and this was removed from the bill and now only applies to those over 18.

There was also a very scathing Attorney-General’s opinion on this bill. It found breaches in the original drafting in relation to the provisions in relation to begging and in relation to the freedom of movement. It’s very unusual to see a New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vet that finds inconsistency, and this was one that found strongly that there were inconsistencies with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. That gave the select committee a strong mandate to change those provisions. I’m happy that both of those aspects of it have been changed slightly. I do think a better way to deal with the bill would have been removing begging entirely.

We have to remember this bill would apply to any of us for whatever reason—you lose your wallet, you lose your way, and you can’t get anywhere without asking for help. The original drafting would have made you covered by this bill and at risk of a move-on order. It just really beggars belief that it was in the original bill at all. It has been improved slightly, but it still, in my view, should be removed.

There is a big subject area that has not been changed at all as a result of the select committee process, and that is in relation to our homeless or rough-sleeping community. The vast majority of our submitters were submitting on the basis that they did not think that homeless or rough sleepers should be included in move-on orders at all. The silence from the Government in relation to those very, very articulate and well-thought-out arguments about why homeless people should not be in this bill has been deafening. The silence from this Government in relation to the homeless community in this bill has been absolutely deafening, and it is shameful. This is the main issue that remains within this bill.

Now, we heard a huge amount, and we heard some very emotional testimony, and we did hear from a mother who had lost her daughter. She spoke about this publicly. Her name was Wendy Proffitt, and her daughter’s name was Caitlin McDonald. I think it’s important that that is recorded in the House, because Wendy came to the committee with an incredible amount of courage and bravery to speak to this bill. It was her view—and it’s an honour to be able to bring her words to the House—that she felt that if move-on orders had been in place, it would have meant that her daughter would have had a more difficult life and a more painful life. She did not support move-on orders. Sadly, since we heard that very, very heartfelt testimony from a mother who had lost her child, we have had at least three other homeless people die in New Zealand during our consideration of this bill—three homeless New Zealanders have died while we have been considering this.

💬 Steve Abel: Shame.

It is shameful. When I looked at some of the statistics around homelessness, it’s really heartbreaking, because hospitalisations—which are not individuals, but they are hospitalisations—have doubled since 2019. Those hospitalisations of homeless people—and I just have to read this, because it was so shocking to me. Seven of those were babies under four and 25 of those were discharged from maternity. This is a crisis in our country, and the Government’s answer to this is to give people who are homeless a move-on order and tell them that because of how they want the city centre to look, they should not be there. This is the wrong answer to what is a crisis in our country. We have to treat this issue with the seriousness and compassion that it deserves. It is a blight on all of us if we do not find a solution for those who are homeless in New Zealand. This is a challenge for all of us, and this bill is going to only make the situation for our homeless community worse. I do not commend this bill to the House.

I understand we’ve got a long night ahead, picking this bill apart, but there is new information that has emerged since the first reading of this bill in this House. One of the most important ones is around, I think, the premise of this bill, and even listening to the Minister’s speech right now, it’s just so evident how unwilling the Government is to actually take into account—since they love that term—the real facts of the situation. The facts are that public disorder in the last decade in New Zealand has been declining.

Another aspect of this bill was actually when the Minister of Justice came to Estimates and talked about the cost of this bill. He said to me, “Why don’t you go out into your electorate and talk to businesses about what they think about the move-on orders?” That was interesting, because I know the city that I represent and I know that their heart is bigger than this bill. I know that they are smarter than to fall for the rhetoric of this bill. That’s why over 50 local businesses in the CBD in Wellington now display this poster, which says that “This business supports housing, not handcuffs.”

Because it is reasonable—it is reasonable for people to be concerned about the levels of homelessness in this country, because, according to Community Housing Aotearoa, we are experiencing the highest levels of recorded homelessness in the history of this country. It is reasonable for those businesses and for all people who enjoy this city to want to end homelessness, but what is also clear—what the evidence makes clear and what history, recent and in the last few decades, shows us—is that a criminal response to homelessness does not fix the problem. In fact, it makes it worse and entraps people who have been marginalised into cycles of institutionalisation.

When we went through the select committee, there was a lot to pull apart, and there were some really big parts of this bill that absolutely had to change. As the prior speaker, Camilla Belich, canvassed, the age that this bill applied to was potentially one of the biggest, cruellest elements of this bill, which meant that move-on orders could be applied to children as young as 14 to 17 years old. Thankfully, through the wisdom and partnership within the committee, we were able to change that age. That would not have happened were it not for the bravery of the New Zealand Police, and particularly those senior police officers who advised us that even if this became law and applied to 14-year-olds, it would not be used against 14-year-olds—not just because the Oranga Tamariki Act trumps this bill but because morally and consciously, as adults who also have children—those police officers and those constables that will have to serve these orders to kids—they could not stomach having to do that. And I want to thank the Police for their bravery and their courage at speaking out against the ineffectiveness of this bill, because they know that locking up vulnerable people will not end homelessness.

We should ask ourselves why we are experiencing record levels of homelessness, and that has been clearly articulated through homelessness insights briefings, which tell us that the cancellation of building State housing and denying people access to emergency housing are the leading drivers of homelessness.

What this is, essentially, is the Government not being able to stomach the real-life consequences of their own decision making—the decision making to not provide people with the support that they need and the housing that they need, which is far cheaper than locking somebody up. We all know how expensive it is to lock somebody up. It is far more affordable but also humane and more compassionate to actually meet somebody’s need rather than seeing somebody in need and deciding that they belong in a prison cell.

The other changes that have been made through the select committee process are that the Police have actually convened an operationalisation group within the Police about how they will implement these move-on orders. Through discussions that myself and my colleague—our co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick—have had with the Police, we’ve been able to recommend some really good people to sit on that board—people like Judge Tony Fitzgerald, who was one of the submitters to this bill.

I want to acknowledge him because there’s a really interesting parallel here. In Auckland Central, there was, at the time, high levels of homelessness. There are two types of people in this world. There are the Paul Goldsmiths of this world, who, at that time—20 years ago—were campaigning for a bylaw to ban homeless people from the city centre. At the very same time, there were good people, like Judge Tony Fitzgerald, who, alongside a constable from the Auckland police station, decided to create the Court of New Beginnings, which is a specialist court that deals with low-level offending by people who have no accommodation.

This just shows the character of different solutions, where you have someone who is committed to punishment and you have someone who is committed to compassion and following the evidence about what works. And that Court of New Beginnings—or Court of Special Circumstances, as it’s called in Wellington, has been phenomenal, because what it addresses is that a criminal justice approach does not reduce homelessness and does not lead to safer outcomes for anybody, and especially not for those people who are experiencing rough sleeping.

I want to note that one of the biggest growing cohorts of people who are experiencing homelessness are women. But we wouldn’t know that because we don’t actually collect any data that tells us any accurate or helpful information about who is rough sleeping. But if you go and talk to the people who are working on the front line, such as the Auckland City Mission, the Wellington City Mission, Salvation Army, Downtown Community Ministry, Wellington Women’s Homelessness Trust, they will tell you that the number of women—particularly younger and older women, as in women over 65—is increasing. So let’s ask ourselves: why would people choose to want to rough sleep in a city centre? And it’s obvious: because they are choosing a well-lit place that is far safer for them than it is for them to go and sleep under a bridge, than to go and sleep in a car and go and sleep somewhere where there is nobody that can help them if they run into trouble.

But there’s also the practical element that all of the support services are concentrated within central cities. I wonder if the Government ever considered that those people wanted to be close to the organisations that are there to help them as opposed to being out of site because it’s an inconvenience for some.

But, Government, you do not speak for all of the central cities in this country. You definitely do not speak for Wellington Central and the 50-plus business. And we still have a whole long list of businesses—not just in central Wellington; in Newtown as well—who have also been experiencing increased levels of rough sleeping. They do not support this approach. They don’t support you. That’s the capital city of New Zealand. And it’s the same in Auckland Central where we had compelling arguments from organisations like the Karangahape Road Business Association, who outright reject this. So the Government cannot stand up and say that this bill is in the best interests of businesses, because it’s not. And Heart of the City, who I know were a big proponent for this bill, completely fell apart in the weeks after this bill was introduced. This Government and Minister Goldsmith do not speak for the businesses in New Zealand. They certainly don’t speak for the one that we stand in right now either.

I want to acknowledge the people within select committee who also supported adding elements to this bill that diminish the human rights impact on this bill. We’ve known from the beginning that this bill, in the way that it criminalises begging, is a breach of freedom of speech, and the elements of this bill that criminalise rough sleeping and the movement of people who are rough sleeping is a breach of freedom of movement. So I commend those who tried to find solutions to diminish that impact, because that is important.

Unfortunately, we have made those changes but that does not go far enough, and we’ll be breaking that down in the committee of the whole House over the rest of today and tomorrow.

What we really need is a duty of care, and you have an opportunity—this House has an opportunity over the next few hours to the end of today, till midnight tonight—to genuinely consider whether we might do something bold and pragmatic together to put a duty of care on to the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development so that the people who are impacted by these move-on orders actually get the support that they need. And I would love to hear any argument against a duty of care.

What I know is that three years ago this Government inherited a situation where New Zealanders were very concerned about law and order and safety in their community. The parties here brought their different ideas together, whether it was ACT’s three strikes, New Zealand First with additional police numbers, etc. And we’re very happy to be supporting these move-on orders because, as the Minister said, it’s to do with disruptive and antisocial behaviours, particularly in our business communities.

I do want to acknowledge all of the submitters who did come to the select committee. They were dealt with with respect and they were listened to, and, obviously, some of the things they’ve raised have been picked up. ACT did identify four issues that we were concerned with immediately. The age and the amount of the fine—they are being dealt with. And we were concerned about a couple of the aspects related to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, where trying to outlaw begging actually does impinge on freedom of expression, and, of course, freedom of movement—once you’re moved on, in what circumstances could you come back to the place you’ve been moved on from.

I’m glad that we were able to secure some agreement around that. Obviously, the Minister has a slightly different way of dealing with unreasonable begging, but still he’s accepted that there needs to be an unreasonable test around begging. So we’re very happy to be commending this to the House, and we look forward to discussing it further in the remaining stages.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to support the Summary Offences (Move-on Orders) Amendment Bill. I, like many people in the House tonight—and as being a member on the Justice Committee—found this was a very contentious piece of legislation, and so first I would like to thank those over 7,600 submissions that the select committee did receive. We did hear, as we’ve heard, a number of the submissions. We’ve heard over 178 submissions on this issue. There was a wide range of concerns, and some of those I will touch on, but first we’ve got to go back to the purpose of the bill.

The purpose of the bill was around public disorder in our city centres. Every New Zealander should have the right to go into our city centres without fear and without disorder. We should be able to use our public centres, whether we’re young or old or seniors. We should be able to go into those spaces and be able to use them and not be obstructed by certain activities that are happening in those areas. We did hear that there was a lot of fear from some citizens using city centres, and we don’t want that to be part of New Zealand’s culture. Also, around economic harm for our businesses, with the disruption that was happening outside of their shop fronts—a lot of the concern was around the retail shops in hospitality areas, and that’s something that has been picked up in this legislation.

The committee, as we’ve heard, has made a number of changes. We did hear from the submitters. We’ve changed the age from, originally, 14 up to 18. We’ve made exceptions to the begging rules around making sure that fund-raising is not classed as begging, and also the term now being used in the legislation is around “unreasonable begging”. The penalty has been changed from $2,000 to $1,000. Importantly, there’s a statutory review in three years’ time, which is going to be really important.

Something I do want to highlight is the Commissioner of Police’s annual report. That will be annual, and so every year we will get an annual report on this.

One thing I do want to say is that in new section 8A in clause 5 of the bill. It’s very clear that “A constable may”, and it says the word they “may” issue a move-on order. They’re not going to be policing the streets and moving everybody on. I think that’s the wrong intention, which the Opposition is actually trying to put across in this debate.

Also, if we go through some of the legislation, around “behaving in a manner that is disorderly, intimidating, or threatening:”, we don’t want to see those types of activities, that type of behaviour, and that type of conduct in our CBDs.

Just in finishing, the part that I have not heard a lot on is around police discretion. Police have the discretion when they’re in our CBDs with this move-on order. It is a tool in the tool box. It gives police the option to move people on for those behaviours and for that conduct. On that, I will commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): This is a split call.

There’s no way to start this kauhau without addressing the fact that this winter, three people who were rough sleepers died on the streets of Aotearoa within the space of just one week—three in one week—and on 28 August, just two weeks ago, a homeless man died in the affluent suburb of Epsom, within Tāmaki-makau-rau, right outside the office of three National MPs, one of whom is the very Minister who brought this monstrosity of a bill back into the House under urgency in the final days of Parliament. He is the same Minister who claims that this bill isn’t about criminalising homelessness—he just said it—but at the same time he delivers a bill that quite clearly targets beggars, rough sleepers, and the most under-supported community in our country.

The Government claims it’s about public safety, but it is not; it’s about poverty control. It’s about punishing the poorest of us, out of sight, and hiding the ugly truth that has existed on our streets for generations. This bill is about building a path, a pipeline, from poverty to prison—and that’s for children—and then from prison to poverty for the rest of those who are homeless and severely deprived of homes.

The proof is in the sequence of events. Poverty triggers an order, an order creates a legal duty, inability or refusal to comply becomes an offence, and the punishment can be either a $1,000 fine or jail time. The bill might not name homelessness as the offence, but it certainly builds the pathway from homelessness to one.

The Government was warned again: its own ministry found limited evidence that move-on orders would achieve the Government’s objectives. The ministry preferred the status quo because existing powers already cover disorder. They already cover intimidation, obstruction, and breaches of the peace. So what new conduct does this bill need? Well, it’s written in black and white: begging, rough sleeping, and existing while visibly poor.

One of many rangatahi voices written into the More Than a Home report released by Manaaki Rangatahi last year said, “Rangatahi don’t fit in adult systems—remove the red tape. Rangatahi make up a significant proportion of the homeless population across Aotearoa.” The Government heard that truth and wrote more red tape instead; this time carried by a constable.

In Tāmaki-makau-rau, providers tell us that people choose visible, well-lit places because darkness is dangerous. Light, cameras, and foot traffic offer some protection. This bill can push them away from that safety and away from kai, transport, healthcare, and the outreach workers trying to find them. People who are harder to find are harder to help.

For wāhine, the danger is acute. The Coalition to End Women’s Homelessness says that women sleep in cars and on couches, and some return to abusive relationships because it feels safer than the alternative. Wāhine Māori are disproportionately unhoused on our own whenua, and they make up 57,000 of the homeless population. Dr Kathie Irwin puts the intergenerational machinery plainly—and I quote—“You don’t turn up at 65 as an older Māori woman with poor economic opportunities by chance. You’ve been trekking there for three or four generations.”

Colonisation stripped whenua, fractured whakapapa, suppressed knowledge, and channelled generations of wāhine Māori towards poverty. Now Māori are expected to clean up that damage while teaching the Crown again how it caused it. There is no other way.

Mā Te Huruhuru built a kaupapa Māori youth housing model grounded in the marae and te āo Māori. The results are not slogans: zero property damage, zero police call-outs, and not one claim on the supported housing fund. That is what Māori-designed, Māori-led, and Māori-delivered investment can do, and that is the type of solutions we need—not this bullcrap. It’s crap, and the many submitters that put in the time and effort to come down to Parliament to introduce their arguments—they’re based on evidence—has been ignored, and that is an absolute shame.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): I’ll remind the member that we prefer to keep the language parliamentary.

💬 Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Oh, now we do. What about “cunt”?

In my electorate, Rongotai, we have an incredibly diverse, vibrant community called Newtown. It’s not the city centre, but it’s like—

💬 Hon Casey Costello: Point of order, Madam Speaker. I apologise to the member for interrupting her speech, but as the Speaker gave a direction, the Māori Party member then used the word—which I will not use—that begins with “c”, in order to use it as a reflection. The fact that it has been used once in this House does not make it common use. I find it particularly offensive and disrespectful to you, Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Can I just clarify where that comment was directed?

💬 Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Point of order. The member—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): I’m dealing with a point of order already.

💬 Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Well, speaking to the point of order.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): When I’ve finished with the Hon Casey Costello.

💬 Hon Casey Costello: It was the Māori Party member to my right.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Directed where?

💬 Hon Casey Costello: It was directed at you, Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): OK. Thank you.

💬 Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Speaking to the point of order, yes, it was me, and three times the word “cunt” has been used in this House by the Government—

💬 Hon Member: Oh!

💬 Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: —by the Government—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): That’s enough. I don’t actually like it—

💬 Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: —by the Government, and so either—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Sit down.

💬 Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: —that word is offensive, or “bullcrap” is.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Sit down. And now I personally find that offensive, and I’ll ask the member to leave the Chamber.

💬 Hon Willie Jackson: Oh, point of order, Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Are you going to now challenge my ruling?

💬 Hon Willie Jackson: No, Madam Speaker.