Summary Offences (Move-on Orders) Amendment Bill

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Mr Chair. This is a really interesting section, because when we’re looking at “Interpretation”, because this is section 2 amended—and I think I want to start with the premise that under good statutory interpretation of any legislation, you always start with the higher-order clause, and with a section 2 on interpretation, it actually underpins a lot of how the other parts should be interpreted. I think it’s really important for us to get the interpretation right.

Because of that, I want to start with the definition for “begging”, and I want to start with new paragraph (a), noting that I’m sure lots of people have questions for both (a) and (b). I want to start with just specifically (a): “means requesting or demanding a donation of money, food, or other goods”. Now, my first question is: what about services? Would that be considered a form of begging, because it is not a good?

My second question is: what then would constitute as a good? I then would potentially interpret asking for someone’s vote as a good.

💬 Hon Dr Duncan Webb: You don’t beg, Lawrence.

No, I don’t, but I have seen political parties hold up election signs. It means requesting or demanding of goods through other conducts—i.e., holding a sign. Would that be now considered begging? I’m going to start with those two questions for the time being, and then we’ll work through our way on some of the definitions.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Mr Chair. I appreciate the call. Begging—well, this is a big subject, and there are a lot of different things to mention here, because, of course, we had begging as it was originally drafted in the bill, as the Minister introduced it, come through, and then we heard his colleague the Attorney-General say that “The proposed treatment of begging as a stand-alone ground for issuing move-on order appears to be inconsistent with the right to freedom of expression in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.” That is a pretty statement that the Minister’s bill was inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act in respect of freedom of expression. I’ve said it before, but it was a very clear and very strong statement by the Minister’s colleague, the Attorney-General, Chris Bishop, to say that the original begging provision did not meet the standard where it would be required to be consistent with freedom of expression under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. I wanted to ask the Minister if he wanted to comment on that, because I think that’s a big factor in this change from begging in this bill. That’s the first thing that I wanted to mention.

The other thing—just for the context of the House—we had a situation where we had a significant amount of submissions on begging. The select committee really came to the party on begging where we had a change to “unreasonable begging” and a definitional change that means that it wouldn’t simply be begging out of desperation and poverty—which I have to say is the reason that most people would be in the situation of needing to be beg—but begging that would interfere with people’s lives. The kind of example that people bring up is maybe you’re going to the ATM, and someone’s kind of pestering you, and they know that you’ve obviously got money in your hand because you’ve just been to the ATM—maybe that would be considered unreasonable begging, or “Give me your money or else.”, or something like that—threatening. So there had to be another element of it.

Then we had the situation—you can see it publicly released in the select committee report where the Minister’s party, the National Party, was outvoted in select committee to include this change. The Minister must have—I assume it was a caucus decision—decided, despite his own colleague’s statement that the begging provision was contrary to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, to make, in select committee, no change at all to that. To have a provision which is inconsistent and not justified, because we know that our New Zealand Bill of Rights Act provisions allow justification in a free and democratic society—not justified a statement, and his party’s position was that no change should be made. I commend the other parties in the House that enabled us to get that change through. It is now in the bill, as it is stated here. We had Tākuta Ferris, and we had ACT, we had the Greens, and we had Labour, but, actually, New Zealand First voted against it, I do believe. Was that correct, Lawrence? Yeah. You might want to change your mind though. There’s still time. There’s still time for New Zealand First to be on the right side of history there, David Wilson. That’s quite a shocking situation—not something that you usually expect to see—and so I want the Minister to be able to comment on that.

Of course, a really important thing that we have to remember that we’ll talk about, I think, actually in clause 5, which is the next clause, will be the Minister’s amendment. I won’t touch on that now—we’ll leave that to clause 5, but the history of begging, as it is defined here and as it is stated in this bill has only been changed as a result of a significant amount of work from the select committee.

I probably don’t have enough time, but I have a few questions around what would be included in “begging”. In clause 4, new section 2(1)(a)(ii), we have a description of “holding a sign” that would be included, but I wondered if a cup or asking for a bus fare, that kind of thing, would be included in the definition of “begging”.

Committee of the whole House

Just in answer to the question earlier from the member from the Greens, who was talking about whether asking for a vote was a good, obviously new paragraph (b), which refers to excluding requests for, well, donations and charitable things, says that it is not included. It does not capture any exchange of goods or services—that’s not begging; that is an exchange of goods and purposes. The definition of “begging”, I think, is very clearly outlined in the section.

The other member, Camilla Belich, referred to the changes that were made during the select committee process, which I’m very happy to address when we’re talking about clause 5 and the change with the inclusion of “unreasonable begging” in my Amendment Paper, which deals with that.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. Now, I want to first check with the Minister—yes, I do note that new paragraph (b)(ii) does mention specifically around donation. What I asked before was around asking for a vote—like, say, asking for a party vote or electoral candidate vote. The level of specificity of some of the examples we’re looking at here is important, and I just want to check with the Minister—Minister, you mentioned that “goods” is here, but does “goods” imply both goods and services, because services is not implied here?

I think when we’re looking at goods we’re going to consider the idea of property ownership to a certain extent. Let’s say—for example, in terms of a service—that the sign isn’t to ask for something; the sign is to ask for service—“Could you please, on my behalf, do X, Y, and Z?” Is that something that is going to be allowed under this current definition? Or, for example, if you have a sign that isn’t asking, “Please give me some money for food.”; it’s asking, “Please put some money in that box over there, not to me but to a box.” And it just so happens that once the money is in that box, there is no ownership of that particular money or particular good, and anyone as a homeless person can go there and pick up the particular good or money or property that has no ownership attached to it. Would that be acceptable under this current definition?

Then I want to them move on to new paragraph (b)(i). It “does not include charitable or not-for-profit fundraising lawfully carried out by or on behalf of an organisation—(i) charitable or not-for-profit fundraising lawfully carried out by or on behalf of an organisation;” Let’s say, if I were the Auckland City Mission, as a charitable organisation, and I happen to have people who are part of my organisation who happen to be homeless and they are fundraising on behalf of the Auckland City Mission, despite the fact that they are homeless etc., would that now be considered not a form of begging, because they are lawfully carrying out a donation on behalf of a not-for-profit or charitable organisation?

Would that now be acceptable? I think it is important for us to be able to tease out some of those scenarios. Again, many may not see what we’re doing here, but what we’re doing here, potentially, if someone’s in a situation where they have been issued a move-on order or been fined, etc.—this does affect how we interpret it in the court or in the matter of law. I want to check with the Minister of Justice in terms of those couple of examples that I raised.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m just seeking a quick call just to ask a couple of quick questions around section 2, amended by clause 4. My question is: is there a potential thing we could insert in section 2(b) whereby if a person who owns a business or if a person whose shop, for example, the begging is happening outside of has consented to those activities, is it possible that that’s not considered to be begging? There could be situations—my colleagues Tamatha Paul and the Hon Julie Anne Genter have already talked about the coalition that they’ve assembled in their electorates whereby the small-business owners who’ve got that sign in front of them don’t consider the people who are outside to be begging. Are there situations whereby it’s possible that someone who is outside one’s shop and you actually don’t have a problem with that—is there potential that this law could still consider them to be begging in that situation?

I have a similar amendment around the tabled amendments from the Green Party last night at 9.30 that has a specific exemption clause and creates a new paragraph (iv) in the amended section 2(b) around religious organisations, for example, temples, mosques, and religious institutions where the people of that mosque, or the priest or imam or whatever the relevant religious authority on this issue, has consented to that activity taking place, and if that community has consented, it should not be considered and it should not then be penalised.

I do want to acknowledge the role that a lot of the submitters who are of particular religious faiths played in the submission process—organisations like Common Grace, I think St Matthew-in-the-City, and other of these organisations that have that have the Christian faith and have the ideas of social justice foremost in their mind. The Bible does call for us: do not turn away from those who want to borrow from you. That’s Matthew 5:42. In 1 Samuel 2:8 it also articulates that He—“He” being God—raises the poor from the dust and lifts the needy from the ash heap. He seats them with the princes and has them inherit a throne of honour. I do think it’s particularly important to acknowledge that.

That ties into my other amendment around clause 4 to insert paragraph (iv) in the amended section 2(1)(b), which is to have an amendment that if someone is begging in the tradition of asking for alms, in the context of being outside a public faith institution, that should not be considered begging.

My other question is: what happens if there is, for example, a conflict between section 2(a) and (b)? Someone potentially could be begging but also either requesting charitable or not-for-profit fund-raising or seeking donations or party donations. What happens if someone is begging but also conducting (b), does (b) cancel out them begging? What happens if there is a conflict between those two sections?

Again, my questions were: what does happen if someone is consenting to someone being outside of their place? Is that still considered begging? Could the person still then be moved on even if the person who owns the business or the church or organisation in fact has no problem with them being there? Could there be exemptions for religious organisations, temples, mosques, etc., who do consent to these activities taking place? Is there a provision for the potential for the begging of alms in some religious traditions to be included in this?

My final question is: what happens if there is a potential clash between sections (a) and (b) when someone is begging and also carrying out one of these activities as listed in the amended section 2(1)(b)(i) or 2(1)(b)(ii) or even 2(1)(b)(iii), for example, because some homeless people are also buskers?

Committee of the whole House

Just responding to an earlier question around whether a vote is a good. My advice is that a vote is not a good. Now, it’s a good thing to vote for National, but that’s a separate thing!

In terms of the definition of “begging”, we’ve dealt with that at some length and I’d just remind people who are tuning in to this debate that we will, in the next clause, be talking about the words around begging, which we’re amending to say “begging that unreasonably interferes with the use or enjoyment of a public place”. This word “begging” that we’re defining in section 2 amended by clause 4, which we’re debating at the moment, is the word that’s part of a phrase in the next clause which provides a greater context. The police, of course, will determine, based on the circumstances whether a request or demand constitutes begging. Then they will issue a move-on order if they think that it does. The interpretation of the courts only gets involved, of course, if the person refuses to move on and it then draws upon the next phase of the legislation.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just have a few more questions on begging before we get into the changes that the Minister of Justice indicated that we would, which I am also keen to contribute to. We have to remember that the definition of “begging” is going into the Summary Offences Act. It’s not as if the Summary Offences (Move-on Orders) Amendment Bill will sit alone in the Summary Offences Act. The little sections that we are looking at now and that we’re scrutinising will be inserted into the Summary Offences Act. We will see the definition of “begging” quite separate to the move-on order provisions that do, as the Minister said, slightly change that definition in respect of move-on orders. But this definition will be in the Summary Offences Act, so I think it is wise that we scrutinise it thoroughly.

The question I have—they are just specific questions now. In the definition of “begging” in section 2(a)(ii), amended by clause 4, we have “other conduct”, so begging means “requesting or demanding a donation for money or food through (i) speech or (ii) other conduct”. My question is: is someone prostrating on the ground with their hands like this considered to be “other conduct”? They’re not really doing anything; they’re just being present with their hands out. Now, we might know what that means, that they might want money, but is that considered begging under this definition? Speech or other conduct kind of implies something active, so I wanted to know if that would be included.

I have another question in relation to new section 2(b)(iii) when we talk about lawful busking or engaging in lawful street performances. Now, this is kind of a new concept. We haven’t really touched on this so far in the definition of “begging”, but I wanted to know to what extent would a lawful street performance be considered to be excluded if it was acting in a way which required, in some active way, a contribution to watch the performance. You sometimes have that overseas where you have, maybe, people travelling, and they are doing a performance, and you might watch, or they might say, “Oh, come and take a photo.” or something, and then they’re like, “Oh, can you please pay for that.” Would that be included or excluded under that definition? We have lawful busking or engaging in street performances excluded under the begging definition, but we don’t really have much insight into what types of behaviour would be included there.

Another thing I wanted to ask was in relation to freedom camping. Now, we have freedom camping here because, of course, it’s important that we understand the impact of freedom campers in relation to rough sleepers, although that’s actually separate from begging. It might be that other colleagues have questions on freedom camping that they may want to raise as well. It is within clause 4, but we haven’t touched on it at all yet, and it’s important to know the policy rationale around freedom camping.

What is the purpose of including freedom camping? Is the policy intent—and I didn’t really get this from select committee; maybe another member did—to allow freedom camping or to restrict freedom camping with this? Is it something which is desired to be included or excluded within the definition of rough sleeping? We haven’t really touched on that at all. It may be that others focused on it more in select committee, but it’s a point that I wanted to ask because I don’t really understand the policy intent for the Government, and I’d like to know.

The other question I wanted to finally as is, because this definition of begging is going in the Summary Offences Act as a definition, there may be other Summary Offences Act provisions—other offences within the Summary Offences Act—that cover things that are done online. Now, obviously, with the move on orders, there is an implication that everything is done to be present; it’s not something that’s done online. But of course, in this day and age, probably the way that are most asked for money is not necessarily by someone that we see in the street. It might be emails from people; it could be text message; it could be Givealittles—that kind of thing. We know that charitable and not-for-profit fund-raising is excluded, but would that include every online request? Is there a risk at all, and could the Minister advise us if online begging would be included in this definition at all?

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): I call on Dan Rosewarne.

💬 DAN ROSEWARNE: Thank you, Madam Chair—

💬 Hon Paul Goldsmith: Oh, sorry—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Oh, I’m so sorry, Minister. I call on the Hon Paul Goldsmith.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you. In terms of the questions that were just ask around requesting donations online and so forth, I will point the member to clause 5 inserting new sections 8A to 8I, where it refers to conducting things in a public place. The purpose of the bill, of course, is to deal with situations in the town squares and CBDs and our town streets where we’re dealing with particular behaviours that are making people feel unsafe and creating an atmosphere of intimidation and dysfunction. Things going on online are dealt with in other legislation.

In terms of the question of whether a gesture rather than speech is “other conduct”—such as holding a hand out—yes, that would be included in “other conduct” when it comes to the definition of begging, is my advice.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. I won’t need to do lunges in the gym tomorrow; I’ve been doing plenty of sets tonight!

One of the things with clause 4 that I don’t believe has been covered yet is that we’ve inserted definitions for “begging”, “freedom camping”, and “move-on order”, and the Justice Committee also recommended that the definition of begging exclude “lawful busking”, “lawful street performances”, and charitable fund-raising, which has been covered. But what I do find interesting is that the bill goes to considerable lengths to define some concepts in some quite detailed terms. It defines begging, but it doesn’t actually define rough sleeping, and I found that quite interesting, because it’s not a commonly defined legal term—

💬 Camilla Belich: The Law Society asked for that.

—in New Zealand legislation, and that came up with the Law Society’s submission. Different people may actually understand it different. Is it a person sleeping in a sleeping bag, or a person sheltering overnight in a doorway, or is it a person just lying on a park bench during the day—or maybe even a person sleeping in a vehicle? That might be viewed differently depending on who’s actually applying the law.

This came up in the select committee—concerns around the lack of a definition and the potential for inconsistencies in how these new powers could be exercised. My question to the Minster for Justice is: why has the Government chosen to define begging, freedom camping, busking, street performance, and fund-raising activities but not actually define rough sleeping when rough-sleeping is one of the principal grounds upon which a move-on order may be issued? Thank you, Minister.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just while the Minister is getting some advice on that question—I think that’s a really good question—one of the things I do want to check is, under the Summary Offences Act, there is no definition for “lawful busking” or “lawful street performance”. What then makes it lawful? Is it lawful because they have applied for it? For example, we know that there are certain areas where there might be by-laws that you have to make an application to be able to busk. Or is lawful just simply defined as non-disruptive, in which case, how then do you define that? I do want to check with the Minister, what is considered lawful busking and lawful street performances?

I do have a question around the freedom camping. My colleague Camilla Belich is absolutely correct: the definition around what this is trying to capture, or potentially the exemption, I guess, for freedom campers, is quite vague. We get the idea that you are not considered—and we’ll discuss that a little bit more later on—or this is not applicable if you are a freedom camper, I believe. I think I remember seeing it in one of the—here we go; it’s in the next clause. But in terms of the definition here, I want to have a look at section 5 of the Freedom Camping Act. It’s not very clear on exactly who those people are. Partly, it’s living in a tent—we kind of get that—but, for example, living in your vehicle, but the vehicle has to be a certain distance from a Great Walk or a beach. I just find that part quite vague in terms of what that’s trying to capture.

Those are my two questions for the time being. One of them is what is lawful when it comes to busking and street performances, and exactly what is the policy intent? What is trying to be excluded when it comes to freedom camping. I think I will leave it to those questions for now, which is clause 4.

Committee of the whole House

In response to those questions in terms of “lawful”: my advice is that it refers to busking and/or street performing that is included in council by-laws—so if it is included in those by-laws, then it is lawful.

In terms of the freedom-camping definition, all this is doing, in clause 4, is referring to the definition that’s in the existing Freedom Camping Act, so it is referring to an existing definition that is already in place.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Before I call on Camilla Belich, I do want to just say to our members that this particular clause is all about definitions, but a lot of what we’re talking about in terms of references will be covered in the next part. So as long as your contribution is all about the definitions, yes, go ahead, but the substantial part is the next one.

Committee of the whole House

Thank you, Madam Chair. This is just a very quick call just to ask the Minister a specific question. I don’t mind if he answers in subsequent clauses.

The only point that I don’t feel—maybe I didn’t convey it properly, but the point around the definition of begging and the other definitions is really that when they are passed, they will form part of the definitions in the Summary Offences Act. I wanted to know specifically, has the Minister had any advice on how they may interact with existing offences within the Summary Offences Act—these definitions specifically. Obviously, we can talk about how they apply to move-on orders.

I didn’t hear a reply to that, but I’m happy if the Minister of Justice’s advisers do have any specific advice, and hopefully the answer is that they’re not expected to interact too much with any other offences; but because they are quite specific in what they define, I just wanted to have some clarity on that, so just a quick question on that.

Committee of the whole House

Madam Chair, I can give a quick answer. My advice is that there are no other references in the Act to begging.

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 (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that Tamatha Paul’s amendment to clause 4 set out on Amendment Paper 794 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 53

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

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

Amendment not agreed to.

The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 55, Noes 67.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 4 inserting new definitions into section 2(1) is out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

The question is that Hon Dr Duncan Webb’s tabled amendment to clause 4 replacing the definition of begging be agreed to.

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

Ayes 53

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

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

Amendment not agreed to.

The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 55, Noes 67.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that Chlöe Swarbrick’s tabled amendment to clause 4 deleting “requesting or” from the new definition of begging be agreed to.

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

Ayes 53

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

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

Amendment not agreed to.

The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 51, Noes 67.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment to clause 4 deleting “food or other goods” from the new definition of begging be agreed to.

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

Ayes 53

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that Mike Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 4 inserting new subparagraph (iv) into paragraph (b) of the new definition of begging, relating to owner or lease holder consent, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 53

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment to clause 4 inserting new subparagraph (iv) into paragraph (b) of the new definition of begging, relating to begging at religious buildings, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 53

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

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

Amendment not agreed to

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment to clause 4 inserting new subparagraph (iv) into paragraph (b) of the new definition of begging, relating to begging in accordance with religious practice or belief, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 53

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 4 inserting new subparagraph (iv) into paragraph (b) of the new definition of begging, relating to begging with a sign, receptacle, or other item, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 53

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that Mike Davidson’s tabled amendment to clause 4 inserting new subparagraph (iv) into paragraph (b) of the new definition of begging, relating to requesting items to meet immediate basic needs, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 53

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that Francisco Hernandez’s tabled amendment to clause 4 inserting new subparagraph (iv) into paragraph (b) of the new definition of begging, relating to requesting assistance contacting various groups, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 53

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 4 inserting new subparagraph (iv) into paragraph (b) of the new definition of begging, relating to offering goods for sale or requesting donations, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 53

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that Scott Willis’ tabled amendment to clause 4 inserting new subparagraph (iv) into paragraph (b) of the new definition of begging, relating to responding to a person, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 53

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

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

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that Oriini Kaipara’s tabled amendment to clause 4 inserting a definition of rough sleeping into section 2(1) be agreed to.

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

Ayes 53

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Noes 67

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

Amendment not agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clause 4 be agreed to.

Ayes 67

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

Noes 53

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13; Te Pāti Māori 4; Ferris; Kapa-Kingi.

Clause 4 agreed to.

Committee of the whole House

Clause 5 New sections 8A to 8I and cross-heading inserted

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members, we come now to clause 5. Clause 5 covers new sections 8A to 81 and the cross-heading that has been inserted. The question is that clause 5 stand part.