Thursday, 25 August 2016
Volume 716
Sitting date: 25 August 2016
THURSDAY, 25 AUGUST 2016
THURSDAY, 25 AUGUST 2016
Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.
Prayers.
Business Statement
Business Statement
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): When the House resumes on Tuesday, 7 September the Government will look to complete the second readings of the Māori Purposes Bill, the Building (Pools) Amendment Bill, and the Statutes Amendment Bill, the first reading of the Enhancing Identity Verification and Border Processes Legislation Bill, and a number of other bills on the Order Paper. Next week is an adjournment when select committees may meet to progress their business.
Points of Order
Leave to Include in Statutes Amendment Bill—Companies (Annual Report Notice Requirements) Amendment Bill
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. In the interests of cooperation across the House, I seek leave for the Companies (Annual Report Notice Requirements) Amendment Bill to be included in the Statutes Amendment Bill currently before the House.
Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Leave to Progress Through All Stages Without Debate—Companies (Annual Report Notice Requirements) Amendment Bill
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave for the Companies (Annual Report Notice Requirements) Amendment Bill to progress through all stages without debate after oral questions today.
Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is objection.
DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It might assist the member who has just resumed his seat, Grant Robertson, to know that I have Supplementary Order Paper 207 to the Statutes Amendment Bill containing that member’s bill ready to go already.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is not a point of order.
Tabling of Documents—Petition to Not Allow Retail Trading on Easter Sunday
Su’a WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave of the House to table a petition to protect Easter Sunday, signed by members of the Pacific sector community in Auckland, asking that we respectfully request that National MPs are given a free vote on the issue of Easter Sunday trading.
Mr SPEAKER: There is a way in which petitions are presented to this Parliament, and on this occasion there have been no petitions for me to announce. If the member—[Interruption] Order! I am just speaking, if I may. If there is a petition to be presented there is a very standardised way for that to happen, and then it will get due recognition in this Parliament.
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. In respect of the petition that my colleague Su’a William Sio has sought leave to table, it is, I understand, addressed to members of the National Party rather than to the House of Representatives. Therefore, it is not—[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! This is a point of order. [Interruption] Order! Mr Brownlee.
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Therefore, it is not a petition that would be tabled through the normal procedures for tabling a petition to the House of Representatives. My colleague seeks leave to table it for the information of the House, not to table it as a petition to the House of Representatives.
Mr SPEAKER: I will hear from the Hon Gerry Brownlee.
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): This is one of those interesting situations where a procedure of Parliament is being used for the purpose of political grandstanding. [Interruption] Well, I mean, it is a fact. I feel that I need to tell Mr Sio that he can print that off, can put it in a number of envelopes with members’ names on them, and can put a “D” in the top corner with a circle around it, and it will make its way to the members. Or—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I have heard enough. [Interruption] Order! Members seek leave to table papers as a means of informing members. On this occasion, I said I would not put the leave, and I think the member has had a significant opportunity in the exchange of points of order for members now to be well informed of the content. We will move on.
Oral Questions
Questions to Ministers
Economy—Reports and Impact on Families
1. BRETT HUDSON (National) to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on the New Zealand economy and how does this compare to the international economy?
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Last week the Moody’s rating agency released its Global Macro Outlook for 2016-17. It is forecasting growth in the G20 advanced economies to remain stable at low levels, averaging 1.6 percent this year and 1.9 percent in 2017. In contrast, the Reserve Bank is forecasting the New Zealand economy to grow at more than double the G20 rate—at 3.4 percent for the year to March, and the same in the following year. So at a time when many major economies are treading water, the New Zealand economy is continuing with moderate, consistent growth.
Brett Hudson: What other international reports has he received about the New Zealand economic outlook?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: As part of a range of international reports issued recently, the credit-rating agency Fitch Ratings affirmed New Zealand’s AA rating, highlighting New Zealand’s strong macroeconomic policy framework, prudent fiscal management, and sound business environment, which is rated among the best globally by the World Bank. It also, along with other credit rating agencies, pointed out New Zealand’s exposure to international markets through higher levels of international debt, but, on their measures, New Zealand’s position on debt owed to overseas lenders is improving.
Brett Hudson: What reports has he seen on recent developments in the domestic economy, particularly for our export industries?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: Despite the downturn in dairy prices over the last 2 to 3 years, the New Zealand economy has continued to grow, and total exports have lifted. Tourism, beef, timber, wine, and international education have flourished, while the dairy sector had its resilience tested. Although there is ongoing volatility in international dairy prices, we welcome the lift in milk prices by just under 30 percent over the last month. It has led to a lift in forecast farm-gate prices, with Fonterra announcing a lift in the farm-gate milk price by 50c, to $4.75 a kilogram. That will be good news for farmers struggling through a cold, wet spring, but there is some way to go before most of them will be able to break even.
Brett Hudson: What does a growing economy mean for New Zealand families and households?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: It is a bit different for different members of the households. But, for instance, now that the construction industry has over 10,000 apprentices, it means that younger members of households can expect to see the best opportunity in a generation to get trades qualifications. That is just a part of the 105,000 extra jobs created last year, and the more than 250,000 jobs that have been created over the past 3 years.
Health Services—Havelock North Drinking-water Contamination, Childhood Obesity, and Dunedin Hospital
2. Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Minister of Health: What recent reports has he received, if any, on the failures of the health system?
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): I have received a range of reports, mostly positive. Although there is always more to do, in general, health services have improved across the board.
Hon Annette King: Will he front up to public meetings to be held in Havelock North next week, when people are to discuss the failure of their drinking water, which put their health at risk, or does he stand by his statement that “We don’t have these terrible water-borne epidemics in New Zealand.”, made when he opposed legislation to improve drinking-water standards?
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Of course, as usual, Mrs King does not give the full context to that quote. It was made back in 2007—a long time ago—and, actually, at the time, those comments were absolutely correct. So you should stop misleading people about what I have said—
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: But she is.
Mr SPEAKER: Well, just—the last part will not help the order of the House. The question has been answered.
Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Not referring to the last comments, which you said were not appropriate, but I would seek leave to table the Minister’s Hansard, so he can actually see what he said—
Mr SPEAKER: No. No. No. [Interruption] Order! No, the member is now trifling with me. Hansards are easily available to all members if they think it valuable to go back and do such research. [Interruption] Order! I have a point of order.
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I would like to finish answering the question—
Mr SPEAKER: I will allow the Minister to finish answering the question.
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: In terms of what has happened in Havelock North, obviously the Government has announced the terms of reference for an inquiry, and we are in the throes of putting that together—as was announced at the Prime Minister’s press conference on Monday.
Hon Annette King: Will he now admit yet another failure in health, because some district health boards (DHBs) are refusing to sign his ill-conceived Compass Group hospital food deal, which means, according to the contract, DHBs like the Southern District Health Board are now going to have to pay more for their food than they do currently?
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: No, look—that is not correct. The DHBs are taking a whole-of-system approach, and in the end we have got to look at what is best for the health system across the board. So I have not had any reports of people refusing to sign those contracts. Sorry, I wait to be enlightened. [Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! Just stand and ask for a supplementary question and we will move on.
Hon Annette King: Why after years of National denying there is an obesity crisis in New Zealand, calling measures to address it “nanny State”, has he put in place a childhood obesity plan that the New Zealand Medical Journal labels as “unlikely to solve the obesity crisis … based on a dated paradigm”, and which shows “that the Government values corporate profit over public good.”?
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Well, do not forget Labour’s answer to that was to ban all meals with sugar in them. The reason we have put the plan in place is that it is the right thing to do. And I just remind the member that we are one of the very few countries that has an obesity target as one of its headline health targets. We have got an evidence-based 22-point plan to address the issue. I think Mrs King would be better being actually constructive, because if she has got any sensible ideas, rather than just making up rubbish, she should put them on the table. [Interruption]
Dr David Clark: In light of the downgrade of training accreditation at Dunedin Hospital and out-of-date facilities, on what date does he expect the physical rebuild of the hospital to begin?
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I reckon the member should be constructive, rather than talking down his local hospital. There is a very well defined Treasury and Ministry of Health process to take those papers through Cabinet. We have to make sure, actually, that we get the hospital properly developed. We have to make sure that we have got the services in there that are needed, rather than just—as Mr Clark wants to do—fire from the hip and announce a date. Actually, there are complex problems in Dunedin, and we are making good progress.
Pay Equity—Government Response
3. JAN LOGIE (Green) to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: Why has the Government not yet announced its response to the Joint Working Group on Pay Equity Principles’ recommendations, given he has been considering them since May 2016?
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): It is important that the process for addressing pay equity claims is clear and workable for all parties. The Government acknowledges that this is a significant issue, and, although a lot of progress is already being made, including by the excellent efforts of the joint working group, it is important that we get the process right. Accordingly, the Government, in partnership with a range of interested parties, is still considering the recommendations of the joint working group. We expect to have a response in the not too distant future.
Jan Logie: Given the working group comprised unions, business, and Government, when will the Government announce its response to its work?
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: In the not too distant future.
Jan Logie: When can Kristine Bartlett and the 50,000 care and support workers in New Zealand expect to be paid fairly for their important and skilled work?
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: When the process for considering the equity claim that they have is complete. The joint working group principles are a way of providing a sound framework and process for doing that, but, actually, they are still in a court process, and I should not comment any further on that.
Jan Logie: How has the Government found time to focus on things like Steven Joyce’s space rockets law and Simon Bridges’ pizza delivery drones when it does not seem to have made time to think about fair pay for women?
Mr SPEAKER: In so far as there is ministerial responsibility, the Hon Michael Woodhouse.
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: In respect of the last part of that question, quite the opposite. This Government—the Government that actually passed the Equal Pay Act 43 years ago—will also fashion a world-leading framework for the consideration of pay equity. But it is complex. The joint working group made excellent progress, but there were still questions left unanswered. We are going to make sure we get that right. I would rather get it right than get it early.
Jan Logie: How is it that the Government managed to take away carers’ rights in a single day under urgency, like it did last term, but these negotiations to pay women fairly have already taken nearly a year?
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: The member is not clear about the first part of that question; therefore, I cannot answer it. [Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! Does the member have a further supplementary question?
Jan Logie: Supplementary question, Mr Speaker.
Mr SPEAKER: Then ask it.
Jan Logie: Does the Minister realise that the under-paying and under-valuing of traditional women’s work, like caring, is a major contributor to the imbalance of men’s and women’s economic positions, as seen in this chart, which shows that the average wage of Pasifika women is just 67 percent that of Pākehā men?
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Absolutely yes, and as one who, in a previous life, employed many of those caring women, I think I have a significant deal of empathy for the situation they face. That is why we are seeking a remedy. But I should add that the pay equity question is just one part of a broader programme of ensuring equal pay for women. I know that the Minister for Women is working incredibly hard on the many other things that we can do to ensure that women enter professions in equal numbers to men, are not penalised when they take time out of the workforce, and have access to directorships, and we are seeing significant progress in that regard.
Health Services—First Specialist Assessments and Elective Surgery
4. BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country) to the Minister of Health: Can he confirm that 551,000 patients received a First Specialist Assessment last year, and that this is more than one in 10 New Zealanders?
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): Yes, and this is an extra 10,000 patients compared with last year. Overall, there has been an increase of 119,000 first specialist appointments per year, or 28 percent more than the 432,000 that were carried out in 2008-09. The only answer to increasing demand is to do more, and this Government is.
Barbara Kuriger: What reports has he had on an increase in patients receiving elective surgery?
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: The rise in first specialist appointments has been accompanied by an increase in the number of people receiving the elective surgery that they need. The number of patients receiving elective surgery increased from 118,000 in 2007-08 to 172,000 in 2015-16. That is nearly 54,000 more surgeries per year than 8 years ago, a 45 percent increase.
Hon Annette King: How many patients did not get referred for a first specialist assessment because, as GPs have said: “It’s a waste of time—they won’t be seen.”?
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: We are collecting data on first specialist assessments. All we know for sure is that in the last quarter of 2015, 87 percent of people referred from GPs to the hospital got a hospital appointment. Another 8 percent were sent away because they were sent to the wrong clinic or there was wrong information. It was only 5 percent who did not actually meet the threshold. That figure will change a bit over time, but the point is that this is the first Government to collect the data on access to hospital appointments, and that creates a picture that will enable us to do more. As I have said in the primary answer, we are doing more and more appointments all the time.
Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question asked how many patients did not—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! No, no, no. The Minister, I think, did not have the exact number, I accept that, but he went through and gave a fairly detailed explanation and ended up with a percentage of patients that he acknowledged may not have got their first specialist assessment. I think that question was very definitely addressed.
Hon Annette King: Will he now stop claiming that only 5 percent of patients are refused a first specialist assessment and sent back to their GP, which he said only a few weeks ago in this House, in light of the Ministry of Health stating that it may climb between 10 and 15 percent?
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Once again, the member is making stuff up. I have always said that that 5 percent would probably settle out at 10 to 15 percent. I said that in my opening statement when we first reported these results, so Annette King should just stop making stuff up. It is not good.
Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is where we get frustration, because I can quote from a question in the House and I could table his press release, which has 10 to 15 percent, as the ministry said. He claimed in this House it was only 5 percent.
Mr SPEAKER: I accept and can sense the frustration from the member, but, equally, I find it very frustrating that when I was listening to the answer to try to ascertain what the Minister was not saying, I could not hear the answer because of the level of interjection coming from the member’s colleagues.
Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Those interjections happen when the Minister is allowed to say that Annette King is making stuff up. It is that that causes the disorder.
Mr SPEAKER: The member is this time partially right, because the interjections certainly got louder with the last comment by the Minister, but the interjections started well before the Minister ended up with his final comments. [Interruption] Order! I am now going to ask for some cooperation from my left-hand side. If I continue to get interjection that is incessant, I will be asking a member to leave the Chamber.
Lincoln University—Financial Position and Sustainability
5. TRACEY MARTIN (NZ First) to the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment: What reports has he seen on the financial sustainability of Lincoln University?
Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Acting Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment): I have seen a number of reports. Because of its small size, Lincoln University has struggled to be financially sustainable since before 2007, well before the Christchurch earthquakes. The Government, through the Tertiary Education Commission, is working to help Lincoln University to return to profitability. Having increased agricultural funding rates by over 50 percent across the last three Budgets, Government funding for Lincoln University has increased 65.3 percent since 2008, compared with a 24.2 percent increase for the university sector overall.
Tracey Martin: Is he aware of reports that the new vice-chancellor for Lincoln University last week told staff that “We have 1 year to get to a surplus, or we are dead.”?
Hon LOUISE UPSTON: As I mentioned in my primary answer, there are some challenges for Lincoln University in returning to profitability, which the Tertiary Education Commission is supporting it with. In terms of options available and decisions to be made, they are decisions for Lincoln University.
Tracey Martin: What actions are his offices taking to pursue the previous vice-chancellor Andy West’s mismanagement, and the dodgy awarding of taxpayer-funded contracts to his mates, such as Roger Pikia?
Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That question makes a very serious allegation and should not stand.
Mr SPEAKER: The first part—[Interruption] Order! I heard the first part of the question, and there was absolutely no problem with that. I did not hear the second part because, again, of noise coming from the member’s own colleague. I will invite the member to ask the question again. If it is in order, we will proceed. If the member adds something that is out of order and makes an allegation, she risks losing the opportunity for that question.
Tracey Martin: What actions are his offices taking to pursue the previous vice-chancellor Andy West’s mismanagement, and the dodgy awarding of taxpayer-funded contracts to Andy West’s mates, such as Roger Pikia?
Mr SPEAKER: The question is in order.
Hon LOUISE UPSTON: Decisions for Lincoln University are matters for the university to consider, and those relate to anything to do with the vice-chancellor.
Tracey Martin: Is he concerned that Lincoln University may be so financially damaged by these recent vice-chancellor decisions that the 2017 Future Footprint is also now under threat?
Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I simply refer the member to my answer to the primary question, which talked about the levels of funding and support over and above other universities that this Government has made. [Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! Mr Mark, this will be the last time I ask you to cease interjections, certainly in that tone as well.
Economic Growth—Household Incomes and Impact of Rising Housing Costs
6. GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) to the Minister of Finance: Are working people getting a fair share of economic growth when real median household incomes increased by 1 percent between 2008 and 2015?
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): It was always going to raise questions about that calculation when real wages have risen by around 12 percent over that time. It appears that the member’s calculation is probably wrong. Following the right procedure gives a 2.8 percent real increase on that measure according to that Statistics New Zealand database. However, when you use a more complete and realistic definition of household income, officials advise that median—
Grant Robertson: Oh, a more complete one!
Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member should listen. Median household incomes rose by 9 percent in real terms between 2010 and 2015. The member’s calculation simply is not credible in light of the fact that real wages rose 12 percent, and a comprehensive definition of household income rose by 9 percent in real terms.
Grant Robertson: Is it correct that the New Zealand Income Survey shows that, in contrast to the 1 percent growth in real median household incomes under his watch, there was a 27 percent increase from 1999 to 2008; or, using his calculation, that would have been the difference between a 2.8 percent increase and a 25 percent increase?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: We have not looked in detail at those figures. I would simply reiterate what I can tell him today, and that is that his calculation of 1 percent simply misrepresents what has actually happened. Under a comprehensive definition of household income, the median household income rose by 9 percent in real terms between 2010 and 2015.
Grant Robertson: Did 44 percent of New Zealanders get no pay rise at all last year?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: Probably, because that is what normally happens. It is pretty standard that somewhere between 45 to 50 percent of the workforce gets a pay increase in any given year, and that can be simply because, as with many public servants, their pay round comes up only every second or third year.
Grant Robertson: Is lifting real median household incomes by a higher percentage than 2.8 percent, or even 1 percent, a priority for his Government?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: Lifting income certainly is a priority, and by any reasonable measure, incomes have increased. As I said earlier to the member, his 1 percent figure, wherever he got it from, simply is not credible when it is put alongside the measures using comprehensive household income, which, even using the median, has risen by 9 percent in real terms between 2010 and 2015. In any case, this Parliament has chosen the ordinary after-tax weekly wage as the benchmark for national superannuation, and that has gone up by something like 25 percent in the last 7 or 8 years.
Grant Robertson: Does he think that with some of the highest increases in housing costs in the world in the last year that that is actually contributing to working people feeling that they are working harder than ever but that they are not getting a decent share in prosperity?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: I think that rising housing costs, as a proportion of household income, is a significant issue. That is why this Government has devoted 5 or 6 years to undoing the damage of 30 years of misguided planning, which has had the effect that the member has said. That is why the Auckland Unitary Plan is such a big step forward, because, for the first time in 30 years, our biggest city has decided to allow growth at a level that, in the future, may be affordable.
Grant Robertson: Is he really saying to working New Zealanders who have got only a small share of the growth in the economy that after 8 years the best he can do is blame somebody else for planning decisions, instead of the fact that he has done very little to lift household incomes and control the housing crisis?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: No, what we are saying to them is that this Government, at least, has gone to the trouble of understanding what it is that is putting pressure on household budgets. Those households have benefited on the one hand from low interest rates across the board, which is to some extent a global phenomenon and to some extent to do with New Zealand policy, but, at the same time, the capital value of houses has gone up faster than it should have. That is why we have gone to all the trouble of trying to change the planning system that has restricted the supply of houses, driven up the price of them, and, therefore, put pressure on low and middle income households. Actually, I think the Labour Party knows that that is correct.
Question No. 4 to Minister
RICHARD PROSSER (NZ First): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would like to draw your attention to Speaker’s ruling 47/4 with regard to the interchange between Minister Coleman and Annette King, which Mr Parker drew your attention to, and your ruling on that, alluding to the fact that that sort of interchange would lead to disorder in the House. I actually believe it goes further than that. Speaker’s ruling 47/4 says that a member “must not accuse another member of making a statement that member knew to be incorrect.”, and for the Minister to say that Mrs King was making stuff up, I believe, is covered by this ruling. It is akin to saying that the member lied, and I wonder whether you might give some consideration to the possibility of asking the Minister to withdraw that comment and apologise for it.
Mr SPEAKER: The member is talking about Speaker’s ruling 47/4. The member is right: if any Minister, in responding, went so far as Mr Prosser says could have happened and had suggested a member is lying, that is completely out of order and would be dealt with severely. Quite often Ministers, in answering questions, say that they disagree with the member who has asked a question. That would happen very, very frequently. It is not helpful to the order of the House when any Minister says that another member is making it up, and I accept that point. [Interruption] Order! I do not need assistance from the Hon Annette King, although she is very keen to give it. I will look carefully at the Hansard at the end of the day.
Schools, Canterbury—Infrastructure Investment
MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): My question is to the Minister of Education and asks—[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! Mr Faafoi, Mr Doocey has as much opportunity to ask a question as anybody else.
7. MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri) to the Minister of Education: What recent announcements has the Government made about investment in education infrastructure in Christchurch? [Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! Can I just ask—I know the member Dr Megan Woods sits very close, and so every interjection I do hear. Could she please desist, with less interjection, as I call the Hon Hekia Parata.
Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Since June of this year, Minister Kaye and I have announced over $67 million in projects to build new schools and classrooms in Christchurch. This spending is part of the $276 million being invested in Canterbury’s school infrastructure as part of Budget 2016. The total investment package is made up of around $168 million towards the Christchurch schools rebuild programme, $100 million to build two new schools and deliver two relocated and rebuilt schools, around $8 million for new roll growth classrooms, and $6 million for a seismic strengthening fund for integrated schools. Additionally, yesterday the Hon Nikki Kaye announced revitalisation of the city’s CBD as the Government announced the site for the new $30 million Christchurch school Ao Tawhiti Unlimited Discovery, which will be a significant step towards the revitalisation of the CBD.
Matt Doocey: What investment in schooling infrastructure is under way in Kaiapoi?
Hon HEKIA PARATA: In the last week Minister Kaye and I announced the Government would invest a further $6.6 million in the redevelopment of Kaiapoi High School in North Canterbury, on top of the $15.5 million already announced for the project. Kaiapoi High School is one of 115 schools that are being remodelled, rebuilt, or repaired as part of the 10-year, billion-dollar Christchurch schools rebuild programme. This programme is now in its third year and is making excellent progress, with seven schools completed, 10 in construction, 21 in design, and nine in the planning stage. I am looking forward to visiting Kaiapoi North School tomorrow—with the fabulous local member of Parliament—where construction work is starting on its redevelopment.
Homelessness—Government Response and Cross-party Inquiry
8. PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū) to the Minister for Social Housing: Does she agree with the Prime Minister when he said, “We’ve actually got quite a strong plan for dealing with the homelessness issue, I don’t think we need a summit …”?
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Housing): Yes. We have an extensive work plan that is going on, particularly with emergency housing but also with that pipeline of social houses that are coming through. We are the first Government to actually fund emergency housing providers. That is already making a big difference, and, of course, we have got a lot more work that we are progressing as we go.
Phil Twyford: Is that plan the one that includes paying people to get out of town, flying squads that do not exist, block-booking motels, and hiring international consultants to propose things like putting the homeless in army barracks, tents, and warehouses?
Hon PAULA BENNETT: Predominantly, the plan is about us building more social houses, particularly in Auckland, where they are most needed. We can see that pipeline of build coming through. We can see more community housing providers getting involved and actually building more. We can see the support that is going on around emergency housing. It is an announcement that this Government has made about supporting the Housing First initiative, where we see that going to be rolled out within west Auckland, central Auckland, and South Auckland, which of course will make a huge difference as well.
Phil Twyford: Is it ambitious for New Zealand that after 8 years of her Government there are 16,000 people in paid work or study who are homeless?
Hon PAULA BENNETT: I simply do not agree that there are 16,000 people who are homeless. But what I would say is that you can see more work going on in this area than ever before and that we have New Zealanders who are living in a better quality of home because of the rebuild programme that is going on. In the member’s own electorate there is a massive rebuild programme that is really making a difference. [Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Hon Gerry Brownlee, I also need to now ask you to make substantially fewer interjections. You have been very vocal throughout question time, and it is not helpful to the order of this House.
Phil Twyford: Are we still on the cusp of something special when most homeless are families with children, according to the latest independent research from Otago University?
Hon PAULA BENNETT: That is simply not true, so it is simply not true, actually, for the numbers that are—
Hon Member: The research is wrong!
Hon PAULA BENNETT: Actually, the research is wrong, so let us get it absolutely right. If you break down the figures, there are simply not 41,000 people in a situation most New Zealanders would call homelessness or living rough. For example, the number of people living rough or in an impoverished dwelling was 1,413 in 2013, and it is now down slightly in 2016.
Phil Twyford: Why will she not admit that she is not coping and that her response to homelessness is farcical, and will she reconsider the invitation to join the Cross-Party Homelessness Inquiry so that she can find some lasting solutions to this crisis?
Mr SPEAKER: There are two supplementary questions there.
Hon PAULA BENNETT: While that member is getting emotive, I am getting on with action. Actually, there is more going on in this area than there ever has been before. We take the issues around housing some of our least fortunate very, very seriously. We can see progress happening, more money being spent, and more attention on this than ever before.
Marama Davidson: How could she claim, in response to my question on Tuesday, that the reason the Government did not join the Cross-Party Homelessness Inquiry is that “We did it over 10 months ago.”, when she said in answer to written questions from May this year that she had no research into the cost to the taxpayer of homelessness or any idea as to what the levels of homelessness actually are?
Hon PAULA BENNETT: Because they are completely different questions.
Marama Davidson: Will the Government join us at the remaining inquiry hearings, given the words from a father who was living homeless under her watch and who now volunteers at Te Puea Marae, who said: “What’s John Key going to do? He should be here, looking at the problem. You fellas are looking at the problem.”?
Hon PAULA BENNETT: I am sure that what Te Puea Marae has also been saying is that it got extensive support from this Government, with, actually, a number of officials who were on the ground there, every single day, to help those families as they came forward, and they are still working with them. So this Government is actually taking it seriously and is making a difference.
Tourism—Regional Growth and Infrastructure Investment
9. TODD BARCLAY (National—Clutha-Southland) to the Minister of Tourism: What announcements has the Government made on its commitment to supporting tourism in the regions?
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Associate Minister of Tourism) on behalf of the Minister of Tourism: The Government is committed to ensuring that regional tourism benefits from the fantastic growth that we are seeing in the sector. Last week it announced that it had ring-fenced half of its $8 million Tourism Growth Partnership fund exclusively for projects in the regions that will both help grow jobs and attract new visitors. It also announced that applications are now open for our $12 million Regional Mid-sized Tourism Facilities Grant Fund, which communities can apply for if they need funding help for infrastructure due to visitors.
Todd Barclay: How will the changes to the Tourism Growth Partnership help build tourism businesses in the regions?
Hon PAULA BENNETT: It is often harder for regional businesses to attract investment to get started. The changes we have made will give people in the regions more opportunity to turn a great idea into a business reality. Those who want to start a new regional tourism venture can apply to the fund. I really encourage them to go to the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) website, where there are more details on how that is structured and where they can get their application forms.
David Clendon: Does the Minister agree with Mr Warrick Low of Venture Southland that a border levy to pay for regional tourism infrastructure would not discourage people from coming to this country; or does he agree with Maggie Barry’s comment that a border levy would be a “big deterrent” to tourism?
Hon PAULA BENNETT: It will be really interesting to see the applications that we get for the Regional Mid-sized Tourism Facilities Grant Fund—and I think that is going to give us a real indication of what is happening locally. Some people think we will not get many, others say we are going to be well oversubscribed—so I think that is going to give us a really good indication. In response to the member’s absolute question, other countries have tourism levies as such. I do not think it has really affected their tourism numbers, but it is something that needs to be investigated from all avenues, and I think that is what is happening at the moment.
David Clendon: Does the Minister believe that $7 million a year is sufficient help for small regions struggling to pay for much-needed tourism infrastructure, or would the $20 million that the Green Party’s Taonga Levy would raise each year serve that need much better?
Hon PAULA BENNETT: As I said, we have now opened applications. It will be really interesting to see what comes in, and, as I say, we do not really know. We are hearing different stories about what the need will be. We have got a massive increase now, but the forecast of more visitors coming means that that will continue to have an effect not just on smaller towns that are struggling with their infrastructure but, equally, on our Department of Conservation estate, which I know is something that the members have raised as well. We will be interested in seeing that work that is coming through from the private sector, and will be looking at it with an open mind.
Fletcher Tabuteau: How will Franz Josef—which has only 400 permanent residents but 10 times that number of tourists on any given night—afford to replace its waste-water treatment plant costing $6.5 million, given it is one town of many contesting that $12 million fund?
Hon PAULA BENNETT: I am fully aware of the issues that are going on in Franz Josef, and there is actually work going on at the moment from a range of officials and a range of agencies looking at what can be done. They do have, I think, quite a unique challenge, not just with the size of their ratepayer base but, equally, with their location—where they are—and some of the effects that they are seeing. We will be talking to them and making sure that we can help with an outcome.
Todd Barclay: How do the changes outlined earlier in this question complement the Government’s wider regional economic development work?
Hon PAULA BENNETT: What is really important to Tourism New Zealand, and, equally, to this Government, is that we see the regions benefit from that increase in tourist numbers coming to New Zealand. We know that there is every opportunity for them to travel more extensively than just through the three hot spots of Auckland, Rotorua, and Queenstown. We have seen an increase in each region—as far as the number of visitors—and, more importantly, in the financial benefits and economic benefits that they are getting. We have completed regional growth studies through the work that has been going on in MBIE, and we really see this as complementing that.
Social Development, Minister—Statements
10. CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston) to the Minister for Social Development: Does she stand by all her statements?
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Social Development): Yes, in the context in which they were made.
Carmel Sepuloni: Does she stand by her statement that getting off a benefit and into employment or study “allows individuals and families to thrive”, when nearly 52 percent of homeless people are actually working or studying, according to a recent University of Auckland study?
Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Yes. This Government does believe that the best way out of poverty for people is to be independent, to be able to support their families, and, of course, to be in employment.
Carmel Sepuloni: Does she stand by her statement that her electorate is “pumping”, given the Bay of Plenty’s and Gisborne’s increase in homelessness, and does this not mean she has failed her own electorate, like she has failed New Zealand?
Hon ANNE TOLLEY: If you go back to the primary question and my answer, I think it behoves the member to actually be correct when she tries to quote me.
Carmel Sepuloni: I seek leave to table a speech by the Minister that she gave in the House where she refers to her electorate as “pumping”.
Mr SPEAKER: That speech will be available, I assume, to all members if they want it. There is no need to table it.
Carmel Sepuloni: Does she stand by her statement that “The greatest resource that this country has is its workforce, is its people.”; if so, what will she be doing to address the issue of Pacific people—a big part of our workforce—being 10 times more at risk of homelessness than any other New Zealander?
Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Yes, I do stand by that quote. That is an accurate quote. This Government is doing a tremendous amount, and I refer to my colleague who leads the Pacific plan. The education, qualifications, and performance of Pasifika pupils have risen considerably under this Government. The participation and employment of Pasifika people have risen considerably under this Government. We do not say that we have got all the issues nailed. There is still much work to do, but this is a Government that is aspirational for all people, and particularly Pacific people.
Carmel Sepuloni: How can she claim sole parents as her “biggest success” when sole parents and their children are six times more likely to be homeless than couples with children?
Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I have never claimed that sole parents were my success. It is their success in getting themselves educated and independent from the State and able to support themselves and their family. I think this House should be congratulating every single one of those sole parents who have managed to get off a benefit and into employment, and we should be backing them 100 percent.
Carmel Sepuloni: I seek leave to table an interview where the Minister is saying that the biggest success they have had is with sole parents.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I just need the source of this interview.
Carmel Sepuloni: Newshub.
Mr SPEAKER: No. That is available to all members if they want it.
Carmel Sepuloni: Is she concerned that her Government’s target of a reduction in beneficiaries has led to working families being no better off than when they were on a benefit?
Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I entirely refute that assertion. There is no doubt—and the research and the evidence is clear. That is why this Government works to support people off benefits and into employment—because it is better for them economically, it is better for their health, and it is better for their social connections. What is more, it is much better for their children.
Carmel Sepuloni: Supplementary question, Mr Speaker.
Mr SPEAKER: No, I understand that Labour has used its full allocation today.
Border Control—Combatting Child Sexual Abuse
11. MELISSA LEE (National) to the Minister of Customs: What updates has she received regarding the interception of child sexual abuse material at the border?
Hon NICKY WAGNER (Minister of Customs): In the past financial year the Customs Service prosecuted six individuals caught travelling with child sexual abuse material or sharing it through the internet. Forensic examination of their computers and phones located 537,636 images and videos. In one of the Customs Service’s largest cases by volume, one man was arrested after being caught online with over 400,000 images. This investigation was launched after a referral from the US authorities. The Customs Service is focused on targeting and prosecuting people who possess and share child sexual abuse material, to protect children in New Zealand and internationally.
Melissa Lee: How is the Customs Service working with Government departments and international agencies to fight child sex abuse crimes?
Hon NICKY WAGNER: The Customs Service and agencies collaborate through shared intelligence, both locally and internationally. A recent letter from Interpol has praised New Zealand as an example to the rest of the world on how online child exploitation is dealt with, especially the working relationships between the Department of Internal Affairs, the New Zealand Police, and the Customs Service. Behind every image and every video of a child, someone is suffering horrendous abuse. People who keep and share these publications make victims’ suffering even worse.
Health System—Funding
12. BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by his statement, “Budget 2016 will help New Zealanders continue to access the healthcare they need”?
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): Yes. Budget 2016 allocated an extra $2.2 billion to health over the next 4 years. As part of that, the Government is spending $124 million for Pharmac to provide more access to new medicines, $96 million to provide more elective surgery, and $39 million to start the roll-out of the bowel screening programme. There is also an extra $25 million for primary care in the Budget, and over time we have increased the number of doctors and nurses in the system by 6,000.
BARBARA STEWART: Does he believe New Zealanders are continuing to access the healthcare they need, when Waitematā District Health Board (DHB) bowel cancer sufferers have to wash and reuse catheters, even though the catheter packaging states they are for single use only, because the DHB is supplying only half the number needed for patients?
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Yes, and that sounds pretty operational to me.
Barbara Stewart: Does he think it appropriate that New Zealanders, predominantly elderly New Zealanders, are being asked to wash and reuse the catheters, resulting in multiple infections, so that DHBs can save just over $1 per day, and is this an example of the efficiency savings he is demanding of DHBs?
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Look, although it is operational, I find that pretty unlikely because that would be a source of infection, so that would not be correct clinical practice, and I would find it hard to believe that is really happening. So come and see me about it.
Barbara Stewart: Does he think it appropriate that when constituents do complain directly to his office of this exact situation they receive one box of additional catheters, and then no changes are made to the long-term care for that constituent?
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Well, what I can say is that I am a local MP in the Waitematā DHB catchment area and we have had fantastic feedback about the performance of the Waitematā District Health Board over time—the services there have just got better and better. It is very well run by Lester Levy and Dale Bramley, and people are actually really happy with the service because they are getting more and more access to the quality healthcare they need all the time. So, look, if there is a problem with the catheters, come and see me.
Bills
Shop Trading Hours Amendment Bill
Third Reading
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): I move, That the Shop Trading Hours Amendment Bill be now read a third time. The question of whether to allow shop trading over the Easter period is a contentious one, considered by this House on numerous occasions. Those in support of shop trading emphasise economic opportunities and the freedom of shoppers to choose, while those against it focus on the need for shops to be closed to mark a day of significance and for workers to be able to spend time with their families. The Government wants to resolve this perennial issue and this bill provides a pragmatic solution, allowing communities to decide for themselves whether to enable shop trading on Easter Sunday and providing protections for those shop employees who choose not to work on Easter Sunday.
It is by no means the first attempt to resolve these things, and successive members’ bills have been unsuccessful. I want to acknowledge the Hon Todd McClay and Jacqui Dean for their advocacy on this issue on behalf of the communities they represent. Mr McClay’s bill, which was narrowly defeated in 2009, proposed that authority be given to territorial authorities to decide whether shops should open on Easter Sunday rather than have that dictated to them. I agreed with that sentiment then, as I do now. This bill is modelled on that goal.
New Zealand has 3½ restricted trading days: Good Friday, Easter Sunday, Christmas Day, and Anzac Day until 1 p.m. On those days shops are restricted from trading. Some exemptions exist for a few areas on Easter Sunday, like Taupō and Paihia, and there are some other places with very specific exemptions from the trading restrictions. Auckland’s Parnell Road is one, and even in my home city of Dunedin, only the Carnegie Centre in Moray Place can sell arts, crafts, and children’s toys, and only if there are performances on the mezzanine floor. That centre does no longer trade.
These exemptions are arbitrary, outdated, and do not reflect the interests of many New Zealanders who want to be able to undertake a range of activities over the Easter period, including being able to shop. Those involved in our retail and tourism sectors wish to be able to provide their goods and services over Easter, and tourists also come to expect this.
A large and growing number of events are scheduled over Easter, such as Warbirds over Wānaka International Air Show. This event draws large crowds from New Zealand and around the world. The inability to even have a choice about doing a bit of shopping around these events is outdated and out of line with the choices people want to be able to make.
However, it is worth pointing out that when this bill is passed, not a single retail outlet that is presently prevented by law from opening on Easter Sunday will be able to do so in the future. Whether they will be able to will depend on the choices the local communities themselves make—[Interruption] I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I will accept a number of interventions, but not that one from the member Ms Moroney.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: If the member has taken offence, Ms Moroney should withdraw and apologise. [Interruption] If the member wants to address the Chair, she should stand on her feet and do so.
Sue Moroney: Sorry. Could I ask him what he has taken offence to?
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I did not hear what the member said. Maybe the Minister can, as well as he can, repeat the—
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: The member knows the word she used and she knows it is unparliamentary. This is an offence against the House, but I take offence in any event.
Sue Moroney: Well, speaking to the point of order—
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, I am not going to entertain further debate on the matter. The Minister has taken offence. The member should be able to recall—because it was not that long ago—which intervention it was, and he has taken offence. He has expressed that. She should withdraw and apologise.
Sue Moroney: Can I just seek clarification? I want to know whether—
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, you cannot. You can stand, withdraw, and apologise for the remark that you made.
Sue Moroney: Well, was it unparliamentary or not?
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, stand, withdraw, and apologise, because that is what you are being told to do. That is the protocol of this House, and the member should have within her mind the last statement she made before the Minister took offence.
Hon Annette King: But what if she doesn’t think it’s unparliamentary?
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member Sue Moroney—and that member, Annette King—knows the protocols of this House and does not need them explained by me. Stand, withdraw, and apologise, or leave the Chamber.
Sue Moroney: I withdraw and apologise for using the phrase “gutless”.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is disorderly. She has used the language again. She can leave the Chamber. [Interruption] Order!
Sue Moroney withdrew from the Chamber.
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: As I was saying, when this bill is passed, not a single retail outlet that is presently prevented by law from opening on Easter Sunday will be able to do so. Whether it will be able to do so in the future will depend on the choices its local community will make, with a choice being made possible by the passage of this bill.
I want to thank the members of the Commerce Committee, well led by its chair, Melissa Lee, for their hard work, and also thanks to those who made thoughtful submissions on the bill. Some of those submissions were very strongly articulated on both sides of the debate. Those in favour of Easter trading were strongly of the view that the Government should simply drop any fetters on trading on this day and the other restricted trading days in all parts of the country. Some of those opposed to the change were in favour of removing the present exemptions in places like Queenstown and Taupō. The wisdom of Solomon is needed, and I do not profess that this is such an outcome; merely, it is pragmatic progress that, most of all, puts choice in the hands of the communities.
The bill provides that territorial authorities, in consultation with their communities, can determine whether to allow shop trading on Easter Sunday. The bill simply provides territorial authorities a yes or no to the opening of retail stores in an entire district, or in parts of it. Authorities deciding to allow for shop trading on Easter Sunday will be able to develop local policies for only this, and cannot impose any additional shop trading rules.
One of the concerns raised has been the impact of this change, if communities choose it, on employees of those businesses. I share that concern, which is why this bill also provides new protections for shop employees. It ensures that on Easter Sunday, all shop employees will have the right to refuse work—a right that is not available to shop employees on Easter Sunday under the current law. This includes employees who currently work in, for example, petrol stations and dairies, those working in shops that have current exemptions from trading restrictions, and, as well, those working in areas that adopt a local shop trading policy. These new protections will also apply to shop employees doing work in shops that cannot open for trade on Easter Sunday—work such as shelf stacking and stocktaking.
Shop employees do not have to provide a reason for refusing to work on Easter Sunday, and employers cannot compel employees to work. If a shop employee is compelled to work or disadvantaged for refusing to work, the employee can take a personal grievance against the employer in accordance with the Employment Relations Act 2000.
The bill sets out clear obligations for both employers and employees relating to how an employee’s agreement to work must be obtained. This agreement must be sought each year, and cannot be part of an employment agreement. Any such provision in an employment agreement will be unenforceable.
This bill is a pragmatic and balanced approach, providing choice to local communities on whether or not to allow shop trading on Easter Sunday, while giving appropriate protections to all shop employees who, for whatever reason, choose not to work on Easter Sunday. I commend it to the House.
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): The Prime Minister is fond of coming to this House and telling people to “get some guts”. I have a message to the National Government about this legislation: get some guts. The Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety is absolutely right when he says that this is a contentious issue, and I think National should get some guts and deal with this contentious issue itself, rather than pass the buck on to our territorial local authorities. This Government, which is so fond of saying to local government that it has to focus on its core responsibilities, that it has to stop increasing rates, and that it is always the local government’s fault for anything that the Government does not want to take responsibility for, is passing the buck on an issue that is fundamental to the role of the New Zealand Parliament.
This is a matter of industrial relations. We are the decision-making body that is responsible for industrial relations, not local government. Local government representatives turned up to the Commerce Committee in droves and said to the Government: “Make a decision about this.” Some of them said that they were in favour of it, some of them said that they were indifferent to it, but they all said: “Make this decision yourself. Do not pass this on to us. Do not pass this on to us, because it will force costs on us.” This legislation forces councils to make a decision about a contentious issue—one that divides communities—that this National Government does not have the guts to deal with itself.
The Government says that this is all about choice. Well, where is the choice for National MPs? Because the Minister is right when he says that this Parliament has considered multiple bills about this issue, and not one of them—not one of them—has passed first reading. Repeatedly, parliaments have rejected the idea of Easter trading. The reason parliaments have rejected Easter trading is that National MPs have voted against it, so where is the choice for National MPs on this issue? If it is all about choice—if we should be giving local councils and local communities more choice—well, let us just dissolve Parliament. Let us just dissolve Parliament and get local councils to do everything. That is the message that we have been hearing and, I am sure, we will hear from National MPs about this issue—that it is all about communities having their own choice. Well, let us all go home. Let us all just go home, spend some time with our families, and give up on Parliament, and we will just have local councils make all the decisions. That is the message that we are hearing from members opposite, because they have not been able to get some guts and deal with this issue themselves.
I am opposed to this legislation, but not on religious grounds. I know that many people are opposed to it on religious grounds, but I am opposed to it because I believe that we should set aside some days that are for families and communities to spend time together. We hear so often from members opposite about what is important about keeping families together, about what is important about building strong communities. Well, actually—
Hon Ruth Dyson: A family that shops together stays together.
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Ha, ha! Spending time together—being able to spend time together—is a really important part of building communities and building families. We as a nation should set aside some days when families and communities can spend time together. For historical reasons, we do that predominately on days that are Christian festivals. Personally, that is not terribly important to me. I know it is important to others, and, in fact, that is why National MPs have repeatedly voted against previous attempts to have Easter trading. If we were to have a debate about what other days we might have, what is the sensible number of days to set aside for families and communities, and what would be appropriate days to do that in New Zealand, that is a debate I would be prepared to engage with. But that is never the debate that the National Government initiates. The debate that the National Government initiates is on how we can reduce the number of days that are set aside for families and communities.
If we are doing this to Easter Sunday, well, why not Good Friday? Good Friday is just 2 days apart from Easter Sunday, and we are told that for tourism reasons it is absolutely, vitally important that shops can open on Easter Sunday, yet, for some reason, it is OK that they are going to be closed on Good Friday. Being closed on the Friday is not going to make or break these businesses, but, somehow, being open 2 days after that on the Sunday is absolutely fundamental. Businesses are going to go under if they do not have this opportunity, so why not? Why not extend this legislation to Good Friday? Why not extend it to Christmas Day? That is the logic. That is what the retailers who came to the select committee told us this bill should actually do, so where is the logic? Where is the logic?
The other thing that is illogical is that the Minister comes to this House and says: “What we’ve got at the moment is completely inconsistent across the country. We’ve got one set of rules in one town and a different set of rules in another town.” Well, this legislation is not going to fix that. This is not going to fix that. In my part of the country, you could have one set of rules in Palmerston North and, 15 minutes up the road, in Ian McKelvie’s electorate, you could have another set of rules in Feilding. That is completely inconsistent, and that is what is going to happen across the country. Different councils are going to make different decisions, and communities that are close together are going to have completely different sets of rules. That is madness. That is madness, and what is madness about it is that it is exactly the problem the Government claims this legislation is going to solve, but it does not. So the legislation is fundamentally flawed.
I want to know from members opposite why they are so opposed to the idea of people just pausing from commercial life, pausing from consumerism, taking a day out, and actually spending time with their families. What is so terrible about that idea?
Hon Michael Woodhouse: They have that choice.
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: That is what I want to know. What is so terrible about that idea? The Minister says that they will have that choice, because he has written into this legislation that employees will be able to refuse work on Easter Sunday. Well, let us just step back and have an honest assessment of that.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: He doesn’t think much of unions—that’s the honest assessment.
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Most of these employees are in pretty precarious employment situations. They do not have regular hours, they are often not working full time—in fact, more often than not, they are not working full time—and they are reliant on maintaining a good relationship with their manager so that they can get as many hours as possible. When they are in that situation, are they really going to turn down the requirement to work on Easter Sunday? Honestly, does the Minister think that?
The Minister’s cheap little jibe is that we must not have much faith in the unions if we think this is going to be a problem. Well, actually, very few of these people are in unions. I actually hope that this legislation encourages people to join the union, because they are going to need the union to stick up for them if they want to be able to refuse to work on Easter Sunday. But the truth is that through a variety of means, this National Government has eroded union rights, has made it harder for unions to recruit people, and has made it harder for unions to bargain for people, and, actually, union membership in the retail sector is remarkably low. These people are not represented by unions; they are on their own. They are completely on their own, and the Minister thinks that people in a precarious employment situation are going to feel confident to turn around to their manager and say: “No, I’m not going to work on Easter Sunday.”
We know what happens: slowly but surely, their hours get whittled down. We as a Parliament decided to address that issue with the zero-hour legislation. We got there in the end. We got there in the end. Well, why are we creating more opportunities for people in precarious employment to be exploited and forced to do things that take them away from their family and take them away from their community? It just shows how completely out of touch with reality for working people this National Government has become.
This legislation is shambolic. It is going to create inconsistencies across the country. It is going to force councils to do things that not only are expensive but will actually divide their communities as well. I will be very proud to go and cast my personal vote against this legislation. I say to the National MPs who have consistently voted against Easter trading in the past that it is time to get some guts. It is time to find your conscience. Come and join us over in the Noes lobby.
MELISSA LEE (National): It is a real pleasure to rise and take a call in the third and final reading of the Shop Trading Hours Amendment Bill. Before I talk about the substance of the bill, I just want to add a couple of points to those Mr Iain Lees-Galloway has made. He seems to say that this bill is going to create inconsistencies. I thought this bill was about improving the inconsistencies that already exist, like that on Easter Sunday there are some towns in New Zealand that can actually trade and there are some that cannot. We are giving the power back to the local communities to decide for themselves whether they want to or not. Just because that member decides to talk as if National is this big bad wolf that is actually preventing people from doing what they want to do on an Easter Sunday, just because that member talks as if it is a public holiday—it is actually not. That is a misconception that most people have. Easter Sunday is not a public holiday. It is a restricted day. Good Friday is a public holiday; Easter Monday is a public holiday. People can have time with their families, if they so choose. On Easter Sunday, like any other Sunday, people can spend time with their families, if they so choose.
This is about choices. This is about giving back the power to local communities—like Mr Iain Lees-Galloway’s former colleague Ms Steve Chadwick, who used to be a Labour MP, who actually supports this and who is now the Mayor of Rotorua. Rotorua cannot trade on Easter Sunday at the moment, whereas the neighbouring town of Taupō can. So Rotorua will be celebrating this, and I think it is wonderful that we are giving power back to local communities to decide for themselves whether they actually want to trade on Sunday.
I would like to commend the members of the Commerce Committee, who have worked really hard. It is a pity that we could not agree on some of the elements, and I am glad that the Minister has introduced Supplementary Order Paper 179 to give back the power to the employees—the workers—to actually say no if they do not want to work on Easter Sunday.
As I said during the Committee stage of the debate, we have to remember that not all New Zealanders are in fact Christians. Many come from different global backgrounds—a truth that, I am sure, sours some members opposite in this Chamber—and we have growing ethnic populations with diverse cultural and religious customs, and we as a country should celebrate the diversity. What we are saying on this side of the House is that we celebrate the diversity that exists in this country and we are giving back the power to the local communities to decide. The inconsistency that exists currently can be eliminated and fixed up by the local communities, if they so choose. We are giving the choices back to the community. I commend this bill to the House and congratulate the Minister on this wonderful work that he has produced.
POTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East): It is a bit hard to not make religious references, but in this case, I want to say hallelujah if this Government is actually going to give the power back to the local people. Hallelujah, because in Christchurch that is exactly what we want. We want the power given back to our local democracy so that we can decide for ourselves, as a local community, what needs to happen in the rebuild of our city. So hallelujah, please—we are waiting for the day when local democracy comes back to Canterbury and Christchurch.
This bill is abhorrent on many, many levels for many sections of the community. Let us start with women. Let us start with the power imbalance there is for women workers, who will be most impacted on by this because they are the ones who are working in retail who will not be able to make the choices that that member over there, Melissa Lee, says they will about whether they work or not. If you have been listening to the speeches that have been made today and the questions that came up in the House today, it is obvious that women are paid less and they will make the choice to actually stay and work on Easter Sunday because they need the money to feed their kids, to pay their rent, and to pay their power. So where is the balance of power there? Women will be impacted on because they are not able to have the choice, because they do not get paid enough. They are the ones who are going to be servicing the community that is going to get out shopping on this particular day. Let us face it: that impacts on their families and their kids.
We heard today in question time that there are something like 16,000 people who are homeless who are working or in training. Working people get paid so little in this country that they will look for every opportunity to earn extra money, and that includes working on Easter Sunday. So why do we not do something about improving the conditions for our women workers? Why do we not do that? Why do we not look at that, rather than creating another opportunity for retailers to profit from the misery of our families?
Let us look at our families. Let us face it: we are becoming more and more of a secular society. What happens on Easter Sunday? What happens on Easter Sunday?
Ria Bond: We spend time with our families.
POTO WILLIAMS: We spend time with our family. We put those Easter eggs out there in the garden for our children to find. We spend Easter Sunday with our children because we can, because we should. That is what this about. This is about spending time with our families. I tell you what, we should actually say: “Let’s do away with Christmas.” Whether you are religious or not, the sanctity of Christmas is about families and sharing time together with families, is it not? That is what I believe. So what are we doing to families if we are going to make it impossible for people to actually spend time with their families? They will not have a choice about whether they work or not, because there is this power imbalance between low-paid workers and their employers. There is this power imbalance.
What about Pacific people? What about Pacific people? They have very strong religious intent, and Easter Sunday is one of their most sacred days. They are going to feel compelled to work because of those pressures that I have discussed before. But I want to tell you one thing: we have got a Pacific caucus that is very supportive of ensuring that families—Pacific families—have adequate time off to do what feeds their soul, and that is to worship together as a community. It is very important to Pacific people to gather together, to worship together, as a community. This bill impacts on their ability to do that.
My fellow Cook Islands MP across the other side of the House said on one of his social media pages that he had not received one single complaint from the Cook Islands community about this bill. When I reposted that on my own social media page, what happened? What do you think happened? There was not one, there were not two; there were dozens and dozens and dozens of issues that came up where Pacific people—Cook Islands people, people from the Cook Islands community—said: “Hang on a minute. Hang on a minute. What are you suggesting—that one of the most sacred days in the Christian calendar actually becomes a day of trading?”. Was there not a story about Jesus and some traders at the temple? And what did Jesus do on that particular day?
Iain Lees-Galloway: He wasn’t a big fan of money traders.
POTO WILLIAMS: Jesus was not a big fan of money traders. Pacific people and Cook Islands people are highly religious. This is an anathema to them. This is a complete anathema to them.
So let us talk about the opportunities that we have as families to get together. Let us talk about it. Whether you are religious or not, Christmas is one of those days and Easter Sunday is one of those days. It is one of the most important days in the Christian calendar. It is one of the most important days in the Pacific community, when we gather together as Pacific people.
I spoke with another member of the National caucus who happens to be a Pacific Islander—considering there are only two of them, it must be the Hon Sam Lotu-Iiga. When we were in the Cook Islands together to celebrate Constitution Day—50 years of Cook Islands self-governance and free association with New Zealand—we discussed the opportunities there are for Christian people to celebrate together. We sat together at lunch and we discussed our both having grown up within the Pacific Islanders’ Congregational Church (PICC). As teenagers we had a connection with the Rev. Sio from Newton PICC, and we talked about that. There is no way that you can tell me that he is not feeling some distress at not being able to vote with the Labour Party and the Opposition parties to vote this bill down. You cannot tell me that.
I feel distress for my Pacific brothers in the National Government because they are not able to vote according to their own conscience and their own choice. There is no way you can tell me that they do not feel some distress about that, having had numerous conversations with the Hon Sam Lotu-Iiga and with Alfred Ngaro about the depth of their faith. I know the depth of their faith, and I know they are feeling distress. They may deny that they are getting pressure from the Pacific community, but I know from what I have seen that they are getting pressure from the Pacific community. So I ask them—I ask them—please examine the depth of your faith, examine your conscience, and vote with us. Cross the floor and vote with us. Do not deny that this is a problem for you in the Pacific communities, because, as I said, when Alfred Ngaro said he had not had one complaint about his stance on this particular bill, when I reposted that, there were dozens and dozens of people who came out of the Cook Islands community to say: “That is blatantly wrong. We know that Alfred Ngaro is a man of deep conviction to his faith, so it is blatantly wrong what they are saying.”
We have many days of commemoration that do not hold as much passion and faith as this particular day. One day for families, one day for Pacific people, one day for women—because this is what we deserve. I really hope that my Pacific brothers can examine their hearts and their conscience and do the right thing—not bloc vote with the National Government, but actually do what their conscience tells them, what their faith tells them, and what their God tells them to do, and vote No. Thank you.
BRETT HUDSON (National): I rise in support of this, the Shop Trading Hours Amendment Bill, in its third reading. It is with very great pride that I do, because this bill is all about choice, about providing choices and enabling people in the communities to exercise those choices. It begins with a very simple choice: do communities wish to permit trading on Easter Sunday? If they do not, the local body authority is under no obligation to move away from its default position. If they do, then, through the special consultative process, it will consult with its communities. Local people will have the right and the opportunity to express their will—their choice—to their local body representatives. If, on the basis of that consultation, they feel that there is a desire to permit trading on Easter Sunday within the region, within their authority area, then the businesses will have a choice: do they wish to open or do they not? They will not be forced to trade if they do not wish to, but they may be permitted to, if that is the will of those local communities, and then the employees have the choice. The employees have the choice of whether or not they wish to work on that day.
When the members of the Opposition say that it is a time to spend with families, that is a choice that those employees—each one of them—will be able to exercise. I will come back to that in a moment, because it speaks volumes. The interjections and the previous statements speak volumes for what the Opposition members actually think about labour laws and the ability for employment protection to work in the real world. They have no faith at all.
This bill is all about empowering people to make decisions in their local communities—decisions and authority that our local body authorities and their representatives have wanted for years. Parliament, back in the early 2000s, granted general competence. I do not think there has been a single local body authority that has asked for that to be withdrawn. I do not think there is a single local body or district councillor whom I have met who thinks that local communities should not have a say in what is done in the operations of their local communities, so it is with some regret, I think, that some authorities chose to kick this can back up the road towards Parliament to make a tough decision for them. If local body authorities want general competence, if they want the ability for a broad remit of authority—
Iain Lees-Galloway: Well, give them everything then. Let’s go home.
BRETT HUDSON: —then they have to realise that they have to take the tough decisions with the easy.
It is notable that Mr Iain Lees-Galloway has yet again displayed for the public of New Zealand the centralist, central government, almost Stalinist-like approach of the Labour Party—all controlled and directed from central government. We here are the party of choice, which is giving the power out to those local communities to decide for themselves.
But let us move on to employment protections, because the Labour Party has a history of claiming they are important and of introducing legislation to support workers, yet its members have said throughout these debates on this particular bill that they do not work—they do not work. It seems to me that they sometimes work—what the Labour members really think is that when it is their measure, employment protection works really, really well, but when it is something that this Government wants to do, it does not work. To use Mr Lees-Galloway’s analogy: because it does not work, we may as well scrap it. That is what Mr Lees-Galloway is saying, really—it does not work, so just get rid of it all. Well, I think he is wrong—I think he is wrong—and the employment protections that this bill will afford these employees will give them the choice to work or to not work, as they see fit.
So, ultimately, when we consider this, what is this bill really going to do? It is going to give local communities the ability to make their decisions: do you wish to permit trading on Easter Sunday or do you not; do you wish to work on that day or do you not? Really, I think that is the hallmark of good government. In this party, we have faith in New Zealanders to make the right decisions, we have faith in the decisions that people make, and we are supporting them through this bill, in their local communities, to make their own decisions. I commend this bill to the House.
DENISE ROCHE (Green): I want to address some of the issues that the previous speaker, Brett Hudson, has raised. Actually, I think that it was a remarkable speech, revealing an enormous amount about National’s ideology and where it is coming from—using the word “Stalinist”, for example. Very interesting.
This legislation is a dog’s breakfast, and we should boot it out. It is another example of this Government clawing back the few protections that ordinary working people have, and in this case it is about ensuring that the measly 3½ days per year that retail workers are guaranteed to have away from the job because the shops are closed—it will be reducing that to 2½ days, or, at least, it will not be. It will be kicking that decision to other people to make.
The only days that shops are required to be closed—and everybody has said this—are Easter Sunday, Good Friday, Christmas Day and Anzac Day, and that is it. Even these days of closure do not actually apply to all the shops. They apply just to the ones that no longer are exempted, and there have been hundreds and hundreds of exemptions across the country. What this bill wants to do is make that inconsistency—basically, ensure that it happens everywhere.
So what it does is it says it is OK to have a piecemeal approach to the rights of working people—those people who work in the retail sector. What it does is it gives territorial authorities—local councils—the ability to decide whether shops can be open or not, after they have consulted their communities. I think that is a hospital pass. You know, this Government says it is all about choice and, in fact, Minister Michael Woodhouse—because I wrote it down; I will quote him. He said “It puts choice in the hands of communities.”, but, actually, what it does is it pushes extra costs on to those communities. They have to undertake a special consultative process costing $80,000 to $100,000 before they can make a decision about it, and we heard from councils during the select committee process that actually do not want to be spending that money. They asked that this Government make a decision that was consistent across the country.
It is the Government’s job to make the law. Governments and Parliament should be making the call. That is how you get a consistent approach. But this Government is kicking it to local government—to local councils—so that it can avoid making the decisions itself. Why would that be?
Ria Bond: Pass the buck.
DENISE ROCHE: Why would it be passing the buck like that? Oh, maybe it has got something to do with the fact that the last 10 times bills like this have come to the House, members from that party have voted against it. This way, with this legislation, they can vote for it, and then they do not have to make the decision about whether shops are open on Easter Sunday. They can keep their hands clean and they can let a council make that decision. That is a poor performance from this Government. Contracting out the decision making—that is what it is doing.
In this country we have very few breaks from consumerism—3½ days is what we have got at the moment. We also have 3½ days when people who work in those shops are guaranteed family time, and I have seen research that was submitted during the select committee process from Unicef that showed that in New Zealand we have one of the lowest rates of family time in the world. The Minister and the members on that side are completely divorced from the reality of ordinary working people’s lives, because this is what happens. The “protections” that they are offering for retail workers who decline to work on Easter Sunday—and that is what it says in this legislation; that they can decline to work—mean nothing to ordinary working New Zealanders, because what happens in the retail environment is that you have a lot of women workers, you have a lot of workers who are working alongside their employers in isolated—
Ria Bond: Hairdressers.
DENISE ROCHE: Hairdressers, of course, as my colleague from New Zealand First knows very well. You have people who are working alongside their employers. You have people who are desperate for every hour they can get because they are not on a fixed roster. You have people who actually—with our labour market at the moment—feel lucky to have a job.
The employment relationship between the employer and the employee is not a balanced or equal relationship. So the “protections” in this bill are that retail workers could take a personal grievance—wow—or they could take legal action—wow! How on earth are they going to do that and maintain the relationship with the employer? Because by the time you have taken a personal grievance, the relationship is on the rocks, and it was never an equal relationship to start off with in the first place.
What worries me with this out-of-touch thinking from the Government, and from that side of the House, is that those members have no clear understanding of what it means to work in a shop. They have no understanding of what it means to be working every hour you can to make that money, and they have no idea what it means to try to say no to your boss—no idea. And, because they have no idea, they might easily think that by slipping a couple of paragraphs into this piece of legislation, it is protection. That is rot.
They have also suggested that the unions could take their part in preventing that kind of—
Iain Lees-Galloway: Exploitation.
DENISE ROCHE: —well, I did not want to say “exploitation” but, yes—the exploitation of these ordinary working New Zealanders. They suggested that the unions should have a role in enforcing this. Well, that is very well and good, and it happens—it does happen—with our retail workers in larger workplaces, where they are able to organise collectively. But this Government has done the ordinary working people of New Zealand no favours by making it harder and harder and harder for unions to organise and for members to actually be able to act collectively to ensure that they do have decent working conditions. Even our unions do not have the resources to go from small workplace to small workplace to check on every single worker on Easter Sunday to make sure that they are adequately protected.
It is a huge piece of naivety for this Government to bring this piece of legislation to this House and say that it is about choice. It is not about choice. It does not give ordinary working New Zealanders choice. Actually, the way this Government is forcing its members to vote—it is not about choice there, either. I would have thought, with this being a conscience vote, that members on that side of the House and even yourself, Mr Deputy Speaker—
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member will not bring—sit down when I am on my feet. The member will not bring the Speaker into this debate. You know the rules, and so does everybody else. If you want to make a political point, knock yourself out, but do not bring me into it.
DENISE ROCHE: I apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Good on you.
DENISE ROCHE: In full flight, I was saying that members on that side of the House should have the choice to be able to exercise their conscience adequately, not make a decision that gives the decision-making power to councils to decide whether or not shops should be open in some parts of the country on Easter Sunday. On that side of the House, members should be stepping up and doing their jobs. Anything less is not doing their jobs.
Every single one of the Green Party MPs will be opposing this bill.
RIA BOND (NZ First): I am proud to rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak to the third reading of the Shop Trading Hours Amendment Bill. That is because this bill is an absolute ticking time bomb for our territorial authorities, for local democracy to take effect, for our families, and for our employees and our employers, and I will speak to each one of these travesties throughout my call today.
Despite the fact that this bill has gone through all the passages that bills go through in this House, despite the fact that Local Government New Zealand and local councils did not want this Government to dump this complex, confusing, cost-adding exercise on to local councils, despite the fact that our families are being forced to spend less time together, and despite the fact of tinkering with employment rights and those unintended consequences on job seekers, this bill will now allow the statutory restrictions on shops opening on Easter Sunday to be removed by granting territorial authorities the power to create a local policy to permit all shops to open in all or some parts of the territorial districts on Easter Sunday.
New Zealand First believes that local government is the exerciser of democracy at the local level. This is a fundamental part of New Zealand’s governance structure, and what we have noticed is the scope and the nature of the changes to how councils handle this. Also, under this National-led Government, I would have thought it would consider a more appropriate approach to this—something like allowing our local councils to give our communities a choice as to whether shops open on Easter Sunday in their districts by holding a local referendum. They are now being forced to, through a policy mechanism. This would have, in fact, given our communities choices before local councils take on more financial burdens. We heard submitters voice the real impact and concern of the financial burden being unfair and unnecessary for them. Ratepayers, who are already struggling, and local councils, which do not want this financial burden, have been ignored.
New Zealand First has multiple issues with this bill. New Zealand First believes that this sets the tone of the legislation in its entirety and it does not take into satisfactory consideration the degree of citizen engagement with local body decision-making processes. This leads the general public and this side of the House to believe that this Government lacks the intestinal fortitude to actually apply common sense to this bill.
Let us touch on families. Families in New Zealand only get 3½ days per year to spend time together doing family things like holidays, special occasions, weddings, birthdays, and unveilings. This bill strips away the rights of families who choose to spend the Easter weekend together. Families understand that Easter Sunday is a restricted trading day, as it stands. However, it is surrounded by public holidays, which is why our families go away, to rejuvenate and to recharge. Families deserve to do that. This Government is refusing families their time together, when they can create rituals not based on shopping but on celebrating together, reconnecting, and making memories. Unlike members of this House, many families cannot afford to do that, as some members have become accustomed to being able to afford to do it.
This bill claims to recognise the significance of Easter Sunday and allows all shop workers the right to refuse to work on Easter Sunday, through the provision of their being able to initiate a personal grievance claim where an employer requests a shop worker to work on Easter Sunday or treats a shop worker adversely because he or she refused to work on that day. New Zealand First believes that the State must refrain from interference in the employer-employee relationship, instead leaving such matters to the Employment Relations Authority (ERA), the vested body in New Zealand with the expertise to solve employment relationship problems, and that, furthermore, by legislating for such provisions within this bill, it erodes the ERA whilst also utilising resources unnecessarily, thus wasting taxpayers’ money.
This bill also allows for an employee and an employer, as the Minister alluded to earlier, to renegotiate annually whether they will work on Easter Sunday. It also allows for 14 days’ notice for the employee to retract that promise to their employer.
As I have said, I do not know what background Minister Woodhouse comes from or where most of the Government members come from, but surely, surely, they can see that this bill will create difficulties within the workplace. Employees and employers are still forced to go through the personal grievance process, which is harrowing, devastating, and absolutely unnecessary. Through the Committee of the whole House process the Minister did not address the unintended consequences for job seekers, and that in itself is a travesty.
Let us talk about this bill being a conscience vote. Public scrutiny of this bill has been given a boost by famous New Zealanders commenting on the travesties inside this bill. I just want to point out to the members of this House that in 1977, when Labour proposed to vote on party lines on this very issue, National strongly objected in a parliamentary debate, saying these sorts of issues should be conscience issues. National was disappointed at the time that Labour wanted to exercise the party whip on an issue like this. However, the National caucus has agreed to treat the current bill as a Government measure rather than a conscience issue, meaning that those members have agreed to vote alongside the party line.
A bill like this bill, which we are again looking at today, has been through this House eight times with the same old proposals that we have seen year after year. They have been repackaged and re-presented in Parliament in this year’s bill. As the Hon Michael Woodhouse said at its introduction to Parliament, the present bill is modelled on Todd McClay’s 2009 member’s bill, which was defeated in a conscience vote. Conscience votes are a significant constitutional safeguard against forcing members of Parliament to vote along party lines on ethical issues that transcend party politics. Easter trading has long been treated as one of these issues, and this was recognised by the Speaker in the votes on both the first and second readings of this bill. That is because National members agreed to vote along party lines, despite a long history of conscious votes on this issue.
New Zealand First members have the intestinal fortitude and will continue to oppose this bill because this bill is a “Get Stuffed New Zealand Bill” from that Government.
SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): I just want to touch on two points that were raised. The first was a question—the member just seated, Ria Bond, asked where National members come from. I am not going to draw you any pictures, but it is pretty normal and natural. Second, there was a person earlier talking about lack of retail experience. I know many of my colleagues on this side have a lot of retail experience. For myself, it was working with my parents in their shoe shop, pumping gas at the petrol station, rolling ice creams, working in cinemas, and so forth.
What I want to say in my contribution today is, first and foremost, thank you to everyone who has submitted and been part of this process. Those of us on the Commerce Committee, myself included, sat and listened to a range of views, and I think it is important to note that there was a range of views—
Iain Lees-Galloway: Tell us what Caritas said.
SIMON O’CONNOR: —that were, understandably, really strongly held. Someone just asked about the view of Caritas. It is very clear what Caritas said. Representatives may even be here today. Caritas was opposing this bill, and, from its perspective, it is quite understandable why. But it has been a good process. I also received some feedback from constituents—not all that much—but again, they were quite split between those who see this as a special day and those who do not so much.
In fact, a number of businesses in my own electorate have approached me and said this is a good piece of legislation. As one business owner noted to me, Easter Sunday currently is not a public holiday; it is actually what we call a non-tradable day. The best way to imagine that is that businesses actually can call in staff to work on Easter Sunday. They can stack the shelves or clean the floors, but, fundamentally, what the business cannot do is open the doors to trade, so it is slightly incorrect to suggest that people are not already working on Easter Sunday.
Ultimately, I think this is about local democracy. We hear a lot in this Parliament at times about giving local councils and so forth a voice, and this is an opportunity here for local councils to speak and make decisions according to what their communities want in this space. I am quite comfortable with that.
In closing, I just wanted to make a couple of comments on the discussions we have had around conscious and conscience votes. First and foremost, all my votes are always conscious—I have never been known to not be conscious when making a vote. But, importantly, people are noting that this is a conscience vote. Strictly speaking, the Parliament has personal votes now. I think it is really important to note that, yes, all of us in National are casting a vote that is the same, and people are construing that quite wrongly—that, somehow, that is whipped or forced. No, that is actually 59 members of Parliament who have made a similar decision. But I want to point to something that I find—[Interruption] That is right, actually. I know, I have absolutely got to get the grammar right. That is right—59 National MPs have exercised their conscious conscience and decided to vote in a similar way.
But I think what I have found most fascinating—most fascinating—is that for all the vitriol and rhetoric from the other side about what we are doing as a bloc, I noticed in the second reading that not one Labour Party member voted against the whole group. All Labour Party members, as a group, voted against this bill in the second reading. All of New Zealand First voted against this in the second reading. All the Greens voted against this in the second reading. I find that a very strange irony—
Hon Member: Coincidence.
SIMON O’CONNOR: —a coincidence, as one of my colleagues here said—that somehow we are being attacked for all making a conscious conscience decision, yet all the other parties seem to be voting as a bloc. With that little gem, I end my contribution.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: A 5-minute call on behalf of the Green Party—Mojo Mathers.
MOJO MATHERS (Green): We have had a lot of points raised by both sides, and I was going to go over and summarise some of these points that have been made opposing the bill—in particular, about local democracy and how this bill will foist the decision making on to local councils. The trouble is that it is a very divisive issue, and when divisive issues are decided at a local level, it divides communities. It does not build strong communities. We should not be foisting this decision on to local communities in that way. It is divisive for a reason. It is divisive because it is a deeply personal issue for some of us, and it is for me.
I want to acknowledge the comment that was made by Ria Bond that memories are made on Easter Day. That is absolutely the case for me. Easter has always been, in my family, one of the most precious days of the year. I have many memories of Easter, both as a child, when I maybe did not understand the deeper significance behind Easter, and as an adult and a mother of three children, celebrating Easter with them. We had our own family rituals around Easter because we had the time to build these rituals, we had the community space to build these things, and we had time out from pressure to do other things, because in our family nobody was being forced to go and work on that day. We could have the time to do these rituals, to go to church, to come back, to have an Easter egg hunt, and to read the story of why this is important. That is why, on a personal level, I am deeply saddened by this bill.
There are only 3½ days of the year at present when shop trading is restricted. These days are precious, and sacrificing one more of these days on the altar of consumerism grieves me personally very deeply. Consumerism and the juggernaut of it are what is trashing the world and the environment. What will this lead to? Will we be debating here in a couple of years whether to liberalise shop trading on Christmas Day, on Anzac Day, or on Good Friday? These days are precious. They are part of the fabric of New Zealand society and culture. We should keep them that way. Removing these days is inherently anti-family. Many people have made that point, but it is worth repeating. It is anti-family. New Zealand workers already have the lowest rate of family time in the world and some of the longest working hours. Families are already under significant stress—juggling multiple jobs, getting up at the crack of dawn, rushing out, and coming back. It is wrong to be undermining that even more with this bill. I oppose it utterly and completely.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Carmel Sepuloni—5 minutes.
CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston): I just want to refer back to the member Simon O’Connor’s comments, when he said that the National MPs have not been whipped to vote in one particular way on this issue. I think that member needs to be conscious of that fact that they do not have a collective conscience on this issue, because there have been different voting patterns in the past.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: What about Labour?
CARMEL SEPULONI: Actually, previous National MPs who have spoken on this bill have made it known in this House that, in fact, they have been whipped on this particular issue to vote in favour of this bill, Mr Woodhouse. We have not been whipped, on this side of the House; we just happen to all agree on this side of the House. However, they have stated really clearly that they have been made to vote in one particular way.
If we reflect on the four other times in the past 10 years when similar bills have come to the House, we see that there are current National MPs who are being forced to vote in a way that does not reflect the way they have voted in the past. So who are those MPs? We have got Bill English, who, three times in the last 10 years, has voted against similar bills; Gerry Brownlee, who, two times in the last 10 years, has voted against similar bills; Nick Smith, two times against; Chester Borrows, two times against; Chris Finlayson, one time against; Alfred Ngaro, against; Tim Macindoe, against twice; and Sam Lotu-Iiga, against twice. And today, unfortunately, the National Government, even though it talks about choice, has taken the choice away from its MPs to exercise their conscience in respect of this issue. So I think that needs to be the place where we start—just a few facts to start this debate off.
Can I just reflect, for myself, on an experience I had yesterday talking to about a hundred Victoria University students about what it is like to be a politician and talking about the realities of being a parent and a politician. At the end of my speech we had questions and answers, and one of the questions that came from the floor was: “How do you have any time with your family and with your children? It must be so difficult being a politician and being able to spend time with them.” I said: “Yes, it is. But, actually, it has become increasingly difficult for all New Zealanders to have time with their families.” Unfortunately, it is not just us as politicians who struggle with that. It is our people who are out there working the grassroots jobs in the factories, sometimes in two or three jobs a week, who have no time with their families. The reality is we are a time-poor society, and here this National Government is promoting a bill that will take away one of the very few days when families get to spend that time together. I think that that is shameful.
When we look at the days that we do have dedicated to spending time with families, when there are a few days where our stores, our shops, cannot be open, all we currently have are Good Friday, Easter Sunday, Christmas Day, and the morning of Anzac Day.
Iain Lees-Galloway: How long will that last?
CARMEL SEPULONI: And how long will they last—all 3½ of those days? That is all we give to families. That is all they can be assured of with regard to time they can spend with their families, and now, today, we are about to pass a bill that will remove one of those days. As I have said before, that is shameful.
We keep hearing from the other side about choice. We heard Brett Hudson talk about the choice of councils, because the Government is passing the buck here. Knowing that it would not have the numbers to do it in the House, the Government is passing it on to councils to make the decision, so those members are saying it is going to be the choice of councils. Councils are saying they do not want that decision. The Government is saying it is about choice for businesses and it is saying it is about choice for employees. Well, actually, it will not be the choice of employees. How will an employee be able to go to their boss and say—particularly, think of the person who might be on a 90-day trial period. How can they go to their boss and say: “I’m sorry, I know you want me to work on Easter Sunday, but actually for religious reasons I am not going to do that.”? Will they make it past the 90 days if they say that to their boss?
Iain Lees-Galloway: Good question.
CARMEL SEPULONI: Good question—no, they will not. This bill does not protect vulnerable workers. This makes workers more vulnerable.
I think it is shameful that the Government has taken the right away from its members to vote on this very important matter. We will not be supporting this bill on this side of the House, not because we have been whipped to vote in one particular way, but because we do not agree with what the National Government is proposing here.
IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): It gives me pleasure to take a short call on the Shop Trading Hours Amendment Bill. Before we go any further, I take exception, really, to being told I have been made to do something—and I am quite sure my mother will back up that comment any time you want her to. I think the nonsense we have heard from the other side of the House today is unbelievable and not worth speaking about any further.
For me, this bill has nothing to do with consumerism, religion, or even my personal view. In terms of my electorate of Rangitīkei, there is a large part that this bill will probably never apply to and never be required for, but we do have a piece of our electorate in the north that relies very heavily on the visitor market. Easter is a time when that part of my electorate is very busy. So whether the Ruapehu District Council ever wishes to pick this up and run with it or not is the council’s and the community’s opportunity. But, in my view, it could well be that that part of my electorate will take advantage of this type of opportunity.
Hon Trevor Mallard: Everything that couldn’t be bought on a Saturday—what nonsense.
IAN McKELVIE: It has got nothing to do with what can be bought on Saturday and what can be bought on Sunday. The challenge that we have as a community is that we have groups of people who move around the world and around New Zealand in ever-increasing numbers. They are here one minute and there the next, and for communities, businesses, and local collective communities to take the opportunity to serve those tourists, to create an environment that will bring tourists back into that area, I think is hugely important. This bill gives those people that opportunity. We have heard virtually nothing about this opportunity today, and I think it is really important that we do give them this opportunity.
The other thing I have heard a lot of today is that councils will be put out by making this decision. They do not have to make this decision. The issue does not have to be brought before councils at all. The community will tell the council if the decision needs to be put before it, and the community, the collective submissions, and the consultation period that they all go through will decide whether or not that community takes up the opportunity to implement this bill.
I support this bill. I think it has got some value to some parts of New Zealand, and certainly will have some value to the northern part of my electorate, should it choose to implement it. I support the bill.
Su’a WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere): Earlier today I attempted to table a submission before this House. It was organised by the Pacific sector in the trade union movement in Auckland. In less than 3 weeks they collected about 6,000 signatures. That petition calls on this Government that it requires that National Government members be given a free vote on this particular issue, and, in particular, the Pacific communities are asking that le afioga ia Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga and Alfred Ngaro be allowed to vote with their conscience, because the community believes that if they were allowed to vote with their conscience they would vote against this particular bill. This is a petition that has been picked up by former All Blacks in Auckland afioga La’auli Michael Jones and afioga Aiolupotea Ofisa Tonu’u, and also by one of our very own boxing champions, who is here in the House, tofa ia To’aletai David Tua, who is also here with Fa’amoetauloa Jerome Mika.
I make mention of those individuals, and there are many others, including local board members of Ōtara, Māngere, Papatoetoe, and Ōtāhuhu, because this is a group of a new generation of Pacific people who support Easter Sunday. They see this country as their country. This is a generation who I refer to as the brown, beautiful, smart, talented, and with faith, who serve their communities, who serve their families, and upon whom have been bestowed matai titles by their families in recognition of their service to the community. They have said to me, and they have said to the many others who signed this petition, that Easter Sunday ought to be protected because it is a day on which working families throughout New Zealand are able to spend time with their families and are able to spend time with their communities.
I have observed how the members of the Government have responded when we have asked them about the conscience vote. I note that the Hon Bill English has admitted that, yes, he is against Easter trading, but none the less they have had a discussion and he follows what the rest of the group have said. I note that Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga has been silent on the issue, but I note also that Mr Alfred Ngaro has been wishy-washy in his response. On some occasions, he appears to be supportive of Easter trading, and on other occasions in the past he has voted in support that Easter Sunday ought to be protected.
That reminds me—my elders once said to me: “Here is how you recognise certain people.” This is a saying from Samoa: “O le … ia e pei o le gogo, fa’atoa afio mai lava e avatu lau i’a.”—be like the gogo—the gogo would be the man-of-war bird, a frigate bird—high up on the clouds; it only comes down to pick up its fish. “Ae aua e te pei o le lago, leaga o le lago e ku ku solo.”—but do not be like the fly, for the fly stands here, stands there, stands everywhere, and you do not know where that fly stands.
I am reminded of that because of the way that this Government has behaved around this particular bill. On some occasions you will hear the Government members argue that, yes, this is good for the workforce. On other occasions, they say it is good for business—which one is it? Because you cannot have both—you cannot have both. You cannot say that this is going to be good for business as well as good for the working-class communities, because that is not what the working-class communities are saying.
Out of the 6,000 who signed the petition, a significant number of them are from the trade union movement, who want to be able to rest on Easter Sunday. But our fear now, out of these—there have only been 3½ days that we rest on, when the workers are able to spend time with their families and communities: that is Easter Sunday, Good Friday, Christmas Day, and, of course, Anzac Day. All 3 days have significant meaning to a community of faith—faith communities. That is not just Auckland—I am only talking about the petition that came from Auckland; those who signed this in Auckland—but we have not even talked about the other people of faith communities throughout this country who do not believe that this is good for New Zealand. They say that this is a matter of well-being for the community.
I have heard the Minister say that this is an issue of freedom—freedom for shopkeepers, freedom for councils, and freedom for the workforce. He does not bother talking about giving freedom to the National MPs to vote on this issue, though. I would say that even though they are passing the buck and saying that it will be up to the councils whether they decide to pass this policy on Easter trading or not, the fact remains that this is the final reading of this bill. When that Government whips all of its MPs to pass this bill, it will allow for Easter trading throughout every city of this country—mark my words. It will then enable the opening up of shops on Good Friday, Christmas Day, and Anzac Day.
Todd Barclay: No, it won’t.
Su’a WILLIAM SIO: It will—it will. If those members can guarantee it, get up and say it is guaranteed that those shops will not open.
They argue that this bill will somehow fix the mishmash of opening hours that some parts of the country have. There are designated areas for tourism purposes where shopping is allowed, but if they give this to councils, some councils will open it up and other councils will not. But they are passing the buck, because it will be up to the communities whether they pressure their councils or not on whether the councils pass this policy or not. But the cost of the implementation of this bill is also borne by ratepayers throughout this country.
So any member of that Government who believes in the arguments that have been presented by Minister Woodhouse and by Key—and there is an article here that says “John Key playing loose with the facts on Easter Sunday trading law”, not telling the complete truth about these matters. Any member of Parliament who believes that this is not a conscience issue, who believes that because the Government is passing it to local government nothing will happen, and that Easter trading will not occur, is lying to themselves. Only a fool would accept that argument, and, worse, if they accept that argument—and this is the message that many in the Pacific community are looking at—it means that they are prepared to sell their values and principles. That is how Pacific peoples are seeing certain members of that Government because of the way that they will vote on this issue.
Mr David Tua has come here—he is not a political person, but this is an issue that is valuable to him—and he represents not just himself and his family but he belongs to a group of young brown New Zealanders who value Easter Sunday, who value Good Friday, who value Christmas Day, and who value Anzac Day. They believe that these days, as they are today when trading does not occur, are good for workers, good for families and good for communities.
I take on board what my colleague from the Green Party said earlier: it is an anti-family day, because what you are seeing is the imposition of workers being forced to work on these days on which they would normally rest and spend time with their families. What is the pattern here? What is the pattern that we are seeing here? More and more, the workforce is being asked to work longer and longer and longer hours for a mere pittance, while the select few who are buddies of this particular Government are able to make good money.
The most damning report on this Government that highlights this is the net worth report that was released by the statistics department last month, where we saw the net worth of a Pākehā family, on average, is $144,000; for Asian families, $33,000; for Māori families, $23,000; and for Pasifika families, $12,000—$12,000. That is a disgrace. That is a disgrace and is damning on this particular Government and these kinds of bills.
These kinds of bills, couched as freedom to the community, are really capturing that workforce, where a worker wanting not to work on Easter Sunday is going to be penalised—is going to be penalised by the employer, and will be penalised by others for not working on Easter Sunday. Unlike Michael Jones, who took the strong stance of not playing on Sunday but still earned money, many of the shop workers, if they say they do not work on Sundays—not only will they be penalised by their employers but they might not even have a job after that. That is the kind of country that this lot here is setting up, and it is disgraceful—disgraceful. I would hope that if they have any courage on that side—
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! The member’s time has expired.
JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany): I remember Su’a William Sio. We served together on the Manukau City Council. He was a relatively competent and hard-working member of that council. Just as members of city councils and district councils up and down the country adequately represent their communities and make decisions on issues that Parliament has delegated to them, every single month and week in New Zealand—just as Su’a William Sio was able to on the Manukau City Council—after this piece of legislation has been passed, members of city councils will be able to accurately represent their communities on a decision about whether their area should be able to have trading on Easter Sunday. That is what this is about. It is about allowing the choice for local areas where they wish to allow their shops in their district, or in a particular part of their district, to trade. It is about allowing them the choice to make that decision.
There have been a lot of inflammatory words said about this bill. It is, apparently, disgraceful. It is, apparently, abhorrent. It is, apparently, awful, and so many terrible things have been said about it. Carmel Sepuloni stood up in the House and said that “The Labour Party is not whipped. We just all happen to agree.” The Government members all happen to agree that this is a process issue that should be given to local authorities to decide about their local area. We all happen to agree as well. The only disgraceful and abhorrent behaviour I have seen in this House so far was members of the Labour Party, in a self-righteous, pious way, using religious affiliation and using ethnic identity to bully other members of Parliament. That is disgraceful, that is abhorrent, and I do not agree with it.
Iain Lees-Galloway: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I take offence at being called a bully, and I ask that the member withdraw and apologise.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): There has been quite a bit of licence in this debate and some comments have been made, and I have heard most of it. I know the member’s speech is coming to an end, so I will ask the member Jami-Lee Ross just to confine his comments to what the third reading of this bill is actually about.
Iain Lees-Galloway: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Earlier today a member was asked to leave the Chamber over the matter of a member taking offence at something that that member said. The comment was not unparliamentary, but it was determined by the Deputy Speaker that if offence was taken, the member should withdraw and apologise—
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): OK—the member will sit. If the member has taken offence, I will ask the member to withdraw.
JAMI-LEE ROSS: I am happy to withdraw and apologise.
This bill is all about giving local authorities the choice to make a decision about their districts. The National members of Parliament have made a choice. They have made a choice to back a piece of legislation that allows a local area to make a decision about Easter trading. There are significant measures that have been put into the bill to protect employees. There has been a lot of thought given to the mechanisms by which a council can make its decision, and this is an opportunity for Parliament to say that for local areas, where there has been disenfranchised local areas in the past—where a neighbouring district has been able to trade and one has not—we are going to allow them to make the decision for themselves.
I utterly reject the awful tactics that have been used by the Labour Party, and we are proud of the decisions we are making today.
Su’a WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wish to seek leave of the House to table a petition to protect Easter Sunday, calling on the National Government to allow its MPs a free vote on this issue. Six thousand people have signed this petition.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): You were free to discuss the petition during the course of the speech that you made, and you did so. The petition has been declined in question time, and that is the end of the matter.
A personal vote was called for on the question, That the Shop Trading Hours Amendment Bill be now read a third time.
Ayes 62
| Adams (P) | Dowie | Kuriger (P) | Scott (P) |
| Bakshi (P) | Dunne (P) | Lee | Seymour (P) |
| Barclay | English (P) | Lotu-Iiga (P) | Simpson |
| Barry (P) | Finlayson (P) | Macindoe (P) | Smith N (P) |
| Bayly (P) | Flavell (P) | McClay (P) | Smith S (P) |
| Bennett D (P) | Foss (P) | McCully (P) | Tisch (P) |
| Bennett P (P) | Foster-Bell (P) | McKelvie | Tolley (P) |
| Bishop (P) | Goldsmith | Mitchell M (P) | Upston (P) |
| Borrows | Goodhew (P) | Muller (P) | Wagner (P) |
| Bridges | Guy (P) | Naylor (P) | Williamson |
| Brownlee (P) | Hayes | Ngaro (P) | Woodhouse |
| Carter (P) | Hudson (P) | O’Connor S (P) | Yang (P) |
| Coleman (P) | Joyce (P) | Parata (P) | Young (P) |
| Collins (P) | Kaye (P) | Parmar | |
| Dean (P) | Key (P) | Pugh (P) | Teller: |
| Doocey (P) | Korako | Reti (P) | Ross |
Noes 59
| Ardern (P) | Fox (P) | Mathers (P) | Sepuloni |
| Ball (P) | Genter (P) | Mitchell C | Shaw (P) |
| Bindra (P) | Goff (P) | Moroney (P) | Shearer (P) |
| Bond (P) | Graham (P) | Nash | Sio |
| Browning (P) | Hague (P) | O’Connor D | Stewart (P) |
| Clark (P) | Henare | O’Rourke | Tabuteau (P) |
| Clendon | Hipkins | Paraone (P) | Tirikatene (P) |
| Cosgrove (P) | Hughes (P) | Parker (P) | Turei (P) |
| Cunliffe (P) | King | Peters (P) | Twyford (P) |
| Curran | Little | Prosser (P) | Wall |
| Davidson (P) | Logie (P) | Robertson | Whaitiri |
| Davis | Mahuta (P) | Roche | Williams |
| Delahunty | Mallard | Rurawhe | Woods |
| Dyson | Mark (P) | Sage | Teller: |
| Faafoi | Martin (P) | Salesa (P) | Lees-Galloway |
Bill read a third time.
Bills
Canterbury Property Boundaries and Related Matters Bill
Third Reading
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister of Immigration) on behalf of the Minister for Land Information: I move, That the Canterbury Property Boundaries and Related Matters Bill be now read a third time. Although it might be relatively short, this is a very important bill. It provides much-needed certainty for surveyors and property owners affected by land movements caused by the Canterbury earthquakes. In addition, it ensures that Cantabrians have the confidence to go about rebuilding their homes while knowing their property rights are protected.
The scale of land movements that occurred in Canterbury following the 2010-11 earthquakes was extraordinary. Because of this, the common law in this area has been open to different interpretations, and surveyors and other interested parties have been uncertain about the correct legal location of some property boundaries. Early in the process of developing the bill, Minister Upston met with Christchurch MPs and recognised the importance of addressing this uncertainty without creating widespread concern among property owners in Christchurch. She appreciated their involvement and valued their input.
The uncertainty resulted in surveys taking longer to complete. In the worst-affected areas, where the movements have been greatest, surveyors have been reluctant to undertake surveys at all. All of this has meant higher costs for property owners and delays for Cantabrians, who simply want to rebuild their homes and move on with their lives. By addressing this uncertainty, the enactment of the bill will mark another step towards achieving this Government’s strong commitment to Christchurch’s recovery and regeneration.
The bill deals with three key aspects of this uncertainty. Firstly, it clarifies the law that relates to the location of legal property boundaries in Greater Christchurch following the 2010-11 earthquakes. It provides that legal boundaries of land in Greater Christchurch are “deemed to have moved or to move” with the movement of land caused by the earthquakes. After the commencement of this legislation, surveyors in Greater Christchurch can apply the new “boundaries moved” principle with confidence and certainty.
Secondly, the bill recognises the validity of all cadastral surveys and boundary determinations in Greater Christchurch that were approved by Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) in the interim period between 4 September 2010—the day the first earthquake struck Canterbury—and the commencement of this legislation. Since the 2010 and 2011 earthquakes, LINZ has approved surveys by licensed cadastral surveyors on either basis—that is, on the basis that the boundaries did or did not move—provided the surveys otherwise complied with the Cadastral Survey Act 2002. These interim surveys are valid, regardless of which basis was used, as long as the surveys were done in good faith and without negligence.
The bill also excludes liability related to a cadastral survey or boundary determination of land in Greater Christchurch that was done in the interim period on the basis that the boundaries did or did not move with the movement of land caused by the Canterbury earthquakes. But the bill does not exclude liability for negligence, bad faith, misconduct, or non-compliance with statutory obligations and professional standards that is unrelated to the boundary movement principle. The bill’s validation of interim surveys and exclusion of liability avoids unfairly penalising surveyors, property owners, and others who acted in good faith and relied on such surveys.
A small number of potential boundary conflicts might arise from validating surveys from the interim period that were done on the basis that the boundaries did not move. Existing contract resolution mechanisms, like those under the Land Transfer Act 1952, are available to resolve such conflicts. In addition, LINZ will work with surveyors and property owners to manage any such conflicts.
Finally, the bill provides for the Surveyor-General to issue guidelines for surveyors about rules and standards made under the Cadastral Survey Act 2002. New Canterbury-specific rules have been developed in consultation with the surveying profession, and will come into effect 2 months after the enactment of this bill. In addition, guidelines will be issued to further assist with boundary determinations in Greater Christchurch after the Canterbury earthquakes. More generally, this ability to issue guidelines will also help in future to achieve consistent interpretations of, and improved compliance with, the Cadastral Survey Act.
On Minister Upston’s behalf, I would like to thank again the members of the Local Government and Environment Committee and its chair, Scott Simpson, for their work and thorough consideration of the bill. The committee’s work has improved the clarity of several of the bill’s provisions. The committee has also addressed another issue of uncertainty about the further impact of land movement and boundaries resulting from this year’s Valentine’s Day earthquake and any earthquakes and aftershocks in the next few years. The bill’s definition of “Canterbury earthquakes” now includes not only the 14 February 2016 earthquake but also any earthquakes and aftershocks for a further 6 years after that earthquake. This futureproofs the legislation and provides greater certainty and clarity for surveyors and property owners in Christchurch.
I also want to thank those people and organisations who contributed to the development of the bill through various consultation processes and at the select committee stage. This includes not only the professional surveyors who gave so much of their time and expertise but also the New Zealand Law Society’s property division, the Insurance Council, the Mayor of Christchurch as well as Christchurch City Council members and officers, the mayors and officers from Selwyn and Waimakariri District Councils, and the Christchurch MPs, with whom the Minister had a number of briefings and whose input has been invaluable. I also want to take this opportunity to thank Minister Upston’s officials at Land Information New Zealand. Their hard work and commitment to this bill has been greatly appreciated.
This bill clarifies the law relating to local-level property boundaries in greater Christchurch following the Canterbury earthquakes. In doing so, it provides greater certainty to surveying and land titles. The overall impact of this bill is that property boundaries will continue to be located where property owners generally expect them to be, reducing the likelihood of future boundary conflicts and disputes that would have otherwise occurred. I commend this bill to the House.
Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): It is my pleasure to take a short call on this piece of legislation, which Labour is supporting. I think it is important that this bill does pass through this House and be enacted into law, because many people are relying on this being sorted so that they can get on with getting on with their lives, which Minister Woodhouse alluded to in his speech. I think that when we sit back in a few years’ time and look at the number of pieces of bespoke legislation that we have had to put in place to address what has happened in Canterbury since September 2010, the statute book itself is going to tell a story about the amount of change that has happened.
What we are talking about here is not an isolated incident. It is quite simple legislation: where the land has moved, we need to make sure that the legal boundaries of that land can move to be with it as well.
Hon Clayton Cosgrove: The earth has moved.
Dr MEGAN WOODS: That is right, Mr Cosgrove; the earth has moved. So what we have is that we have some material that does need to be put in place—and this applies to 11,000 properties in the Canterbury area, so this is no small undertaking, given the number of homeowners who will be impacted by this legislation and need to get this sorted. One of the things that the Minister who spoke talked about is that we need to get this legislation passed and put in the parcel of legislation that is required in order for people to get on with their lives. I commend Minister Upston for taking that approach, and I think she should have a wee chat with some of her Cabinet colleagues about the need to fasten processes so that people can get on with their lives in Canterbury in other parts of their lives, as well. So I would ask her to consider having that talk.
One of the changes that submitters did come to the Local Government and Environment Committee and ask for was that there be more robustness put around the disputes resolution clauses within this legislation, because there will still be instances where people do not agree in terms of where it is deemed a property boundary has moved to. That was not included. The select committee made a decision to not include that change. I think that is something that we need to watch very carefully to see whether that is something that we are going to have to change in terms of this legislation—whether we are going to have to put greater provision in there to deal with disputes. The last thing that we want to be doing is passing a piece of legislation that allows people to get their insurance claims settled but then ties them up in litigation around where their property actually is, which will mean that the very point that they want to get on with, rebuilding their homes and their lives, will be further delayed. So I am signalling that that could well be something that we are back in this House amending in the not too distant future.
The properties that were affected where the boundaries have moved the most are, by and large, as you would expect, in some of the most earthquake-impacted parts of the city. So I think it is, as this bill passes into law—and we are coming up to the sixth anniversary of the earthquake that started this sequence of events in Canterbury—worth acknowledging what people all throughout the city have been through, particularly in the parts of the city that have been most impacted by the earthquakes and the damage to property, and the inability of people to get on with their lives as a consequence of that.
I will also note that this legislation had to change, as the Minister noted, because of the Valentine’s Day earthquake of this year. It is a little bit horrifying, as a Cantabrian, to read a piece of legislation forecasting earthquakes going out to 2022. I hope that is not a provision of the legislation that we have to use, and that Valentine’s Day this year was the last of the major sequence that we will see. I just feel the need to touch wood about now. Labour is happy to support this bill. We are happy to support any measure that would let Cantabrians get on with their lives, and, in fact, we would like to see far more of them. Thank you.
SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): It is a pleasure to take a call in the third reading of the Canterbury Property Boundaries and Related Matters Bill. The Local Government and Environment Committee, I think, did good work, and I am pleased that both Minister Woodhouse, and Dr Megan Woods on behalf of the Labour Party, have acknowledged that good work, because this bill was part of a suite of legislation that the Local Government and Environment Committee has considered in relation to Christchurch and Canterbury earthquake - related matters over a long period of time now, since the earthquakes of 5 years ago.
This is a relatively small but really important piece of legislation, because it brings certainty in an area of our land law that has been very uncertain for the folk of Canterbury and Christchurch. I just want to quote from the president of the Institute of Surveyors, Mark Allan, who said in his submission that this bill: “promotes the option that causes the least disruption and the least concern for land owners.” That is, I think, a very important aspect—it sort of sends the tenor and the flavour of what this bill is about.
After the earthquakes 5 years ago, not only did the land move laterally and horizontally but also it moved vertically, and when the select committee had an opportunity to visit Canterbury and Christchurch as part of its consideration of this bill we were given an opportunity to tour parts of the red zone and see for ourselves exactly what it meant in terms of property movement. It has been a very long time since I studied land law, but my recollection of the basic principles of New Zealand land law is that, as a general rule, boundaries do not move with the land. This bill seeks to turn that around and actually make a common-sense, practical, prudent decision—that, as a result of the earthquakes, in this case, boundaries have moved. So we are turning that basic principle of land law around to be of particular relevance and interest to Canterbury and Christchurch. I think it is a very pragmatic piece of legislation.
What this bill does is provide certainty for landowners and people who have had so much disruption and concern in their lives in the years, days, weeks, and months since the earthquakes. This is a very simple piece of legislation that provides certainty not only for the landowners but also for the surveyors who have to do the professional work. There has been quite a lot of confusion amongst surveyors, some of whom have been reluctant to actually carry out the work because of concerns about professional rules around the general principle that boundaries do not move. But it has meant that up until now there has been quite a lot of cost involved for landowners who have had to go about having new surveys done. So this common-sense approach—this common-sense, small piece of legislation—actually helps people to get on with their lives. It helps them finish up and resolve insurance claims, and it helps the rebuild and regeneration of Christchurch and Canterbury to continue at pace, and what it means is that those delays have been removed.
There is one particular area that I want to focus on, and that is a matter that Dr Megan Woods also commented on. The select committee suggested that in order to futureproof this legislation—and, touch wood, we hope that it is not required or needed—this legislation should be relevant and go from 14 February 2016 through until 14 February 2022. Let us hope that we do not have to face or suffer any further dramatic land movements in Canterbury and Christchurch through until 2022 and that things settle. But I think it was prudent and practical for us as parliamentarians to actually futureproof the legislation, to extend it out to that period of time, and to give certainty should there be any further land movement in the years immediately ahead of us.
This is a very good bill. It is a practical bill. It is, in legislative terms, quite a small piece of legislation but it has an impact on a lot of people, and it will bring certainty and clarity to them. It is a good bill, and I commend it to the House.
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): Can I begin my contribution by agreeing with the member who has just resumed his seat, Scott Simpson, that even though this is a relatively small piece of legislation, it will have a huge impact on 11,000 property owners in Canterbury. So I am delighted that we will see the end of this bill tonight, I hope, and, I suspect, with unanimity from all parties in Parliament.
I want to acknowledge the way in which Minister Louise Upston worked to develop this legislation. In a rare moment of collaboration with all other parties, the Minister invited us to her office, where she gave us a comprehensive briefing, talked to us about the engagement that she wanted to have with residents in Canterbury prior to the bill being introduced, and listened to our contribution on that. As my colleague Dr Megan Woods did, I would highly recommend that other Ministers think about working with people outside their own little row on the front bench, because it does mean that the legislation is better once it comes to the House, and that is always a good thing.
The quality of submissions on this bill was very high, so I want to acknowledge the people who took a lot of trouble and put in a lot of effort to contribute to the thinking. I want to say that from the outside looking in—because I was not a member of the Local Government and Environment Committee—and from hearing the contributions of select committee members and reading their deliberation, it is my view that the select committee members did those submitters proud by the way they responded to them. They took them seriously, they debated properly, and they made some changes—not many changes, but some changes—as a result. So I want to commend the members of the select committee as well.
Scott Simpson, the chair of that committee, was right when he said that, generally, in New Zealand land law we have the position where the land moves but the boundaries do not. Because of the dramatic land movement in Canterbury, it was considered worthy of looking at whether that should remain the case, and, obviously, with this legislation we have decided that the law is going to change in quite a fundamental way, so that if the land moves, the boundaries move.
I hope that not too many people have already rebuilt their homes and are now living with part of their house on a neighbouring property. That will be the case, but I hope it is not for too many, and I am not sure what consideration the select committee gave to that. I suppose that is the frustration that I feel—that it is nearly September 2016, 6 years since the first quake, and here we are just now debating what is a pretty fundamental point for so many people. I know that in my electorate I have a large number of constituents who are actually waiting. Their building consent is on hold because they cannot get any certainty until this legislation is passed. So—and I have been letting them know about the progress of the bill—today will mean a big step forward for them. They will be able to get their building consents lodged with the city council—and, hopefully, approved quickly—and will be able to get on with their building.
So, with that, I want to conclude my contribution because I do want to see this bill progressed this evening so that those people can have a bit more certainty in their life and can retain some of the good aspects of homebuilding that they have had pending before them for so long. I commend the progress of this bill.
SARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill): It is a pleasure to rise in support of the Canterbury Property Boundaries and Related Matters Bill. As the past contributions have been clear and concise but succinct, I too will take a short call and not deny the good people of Canterbury the passing of this bill to provide a very practical solution to some very real issues.
First of all, I want to pay tribute again to the Cantabrians who have lived through the earthquakes of 2010 and 2011. I can remember those horrific scenes on the television. I am sure that for Cantabrians that is still very, very fresh in their minds, yet day in and day out they are dealing with the consequences of that earthquake, and that includes dealing with their property issues.
I too remember learning in law school that when the land moves, legal boundaries do not move, and one of the practical examples that was given is when you buy property with a river in it that meanders through your property. But, of course, the gentle, time-consuming meandering of a river on land is not the same as the devastation of an earthquake. For some of those Cantabrians dealing with the consequences of that earthquake, finding their property structures on their neighbour’s land is harrowing, not only psychologically but, of course, when dealing with the legal consequences of that moving forward.
This bill is a practical one. It changes the existing law to make sure that the legal boundary will move with the land in a common-sense way. I think, given the events of 2010 and 2011, that is a practical, pragmatic way forward. Given that this is a very common-sense bill, I see no reason in delaying it. I commend it to the House.
EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Tēnā koe. Similar to previous speakers, my contribution on the Canterbury Property Boundaries and Related Matters Bill will be short, but I would like to begin by extending our sympathies from the Green Party to the people in central Italy who had that awful 6.2 magnitude earthquake, resulting in a number of deaths. Rescuers have been working through the night, and the early hours of the morning now, trying to see whether there are any survivors in the rubble. We remember that profound sense of disorientation and dislocation in Canterbury on 4 September, when we were woken by that big earthquake in the early hours of the morning, so our thoughts are with the people in those mountainous hilltop towns and the distress that they are going through.
This bill is a good one. It deals with the issue that, in the worst-affected areas of Christchurch after the earthquakes, surveyors had quite considerable difficulty in locating the legal property boundaries because the measurements between where the survey pegs were and where the markers on the ground were no longer matched the official survey plans. It was difficult for them to determine where the actual legal boundaries lay. This bill is a sensible initiative to ensure that the law is that the boundaries move with the land. As others have said, it extends out to potential earthquakes in future, so it is futureproofing the legislation. It helps get rid of that uncertainty, and it ensures that for any surveys that have been undertaken in Canterbury in this interim period, the boundaries stay where the surveyors designated them, as long as those surveys were done in good faith and with no negligence. So it is providing certainty. Certainly, most surveys that have been done since the earthquakes have been consistent with the principle that the boundaries move with the land, but there are around 400 surveys that, I understand, were done using a different approach. Land Information New Zealand is identifying those and will be actively managing them.
As others have done, I would like to commend the Minister for Land Information for the very consultative approach that was taken with this legislation. Officials consulted also with CanCERN and with the city council, and there was an exposure draft that was produced, so a lot of the issues were resolved before the bill came before the House. We encourage other Ministers to do the same.
The Local Government and Environment Committee is debating legislation around local government changes. There was no consultation with the sector before that bill was introduced, so it takes considerable time for the submitters, for the select committee, and for Parliament to address what is, really, poorly drafted legislation.
This bill is an example, a shining example, of what happens when there is good consultation before legislation is introduced, so that the role of the select committee is to then only tweak it. So I commend this bill to the House, and encourage other Ministers to adopt a similar consultative approach prior to introducing legislation.
DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): I too am going to take only a short call on the third and last reading of this bill, the Canterbury Property Boundaries and Related Matters Bill, because all that needs to have been said on the bill, which is a very technical bill, has, in fact, already been said. In a nutshell, surveyors in Canterbury did need to have more flexibility to deal with boundary issues, as a result of the Canterbury earthquake sequence. Some boundaries moved; some did not. Obviously something had to be done about that. But they needed to do it in a way that did not compromise professional standards or create any uncertainty, and that has been done by providing that, indeed, where land has boundaries that have moved, then those boundaries will be recognised in that moved position.
The bill achieves all of those objectives in, I think, a very practical, sensible, and very clear way. That is very welcome. As others have said, it means that people in Canterbury know their position, know what will happen, it creates certainty, and people can get on with their lives. Where there are disputes—and I hope there will be very few of them—the bill provides for a robust dispute resolution process, which we in New Zealand First also welcome. That is all I need to say. New Zealand First will be very pleased to vote in favour of the bill at this final stage.
MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): It is a pleasure and an honour to rise in support of the Canterbury Property Boundaries and Related Matters Bill in its third reading. I think this bill is very important because it acknowledges how far we have come. Of course, quite often we call them the “Christchurch earthquakes”, but they are the Canterbury earthquakes. The town in my electorate of Kaiapoi was hard hit in the first earthquake. We are working through these very practical issues now, of how we move forward. Next week is a good acknowledgment of how much we have moved forward, with the opening of the new Farmers building in Rangiora. It is very much an anchor project of the recovery, and I know the whole “Waimak” is looking forward to that opening on 1 September.
What we are looking at here—it gives me a lot of comfort that what we are doing in Parliament is giving cross-party support to the people of Canterbury. I think we need to acknowledge that. It is a continuation of the cross-party support for the regeneration legislation, and it continues Parliament’s standing behind Canterbury. I want to acknowledge all parties in this House for standing up for the people of Canterbury.
The reason we have this bill is because the pegs were not lining up with the survey boundaries. We have heard that before, with surveys; they were measured as if the pegs had stayed in the land, but now they have moved. What we have found out is that we need to give people certainty and reliability, and I think that is what Land Information New Zealand is doing through this very good bill. We know it also extends the time out to 2022. We learnt a very valuable lesson in the Valentine’s Day earthquake about the risks that are still there for the people of Canterbury, so it futureproofs this legislation for ongoing seismic activity. Also, it does amend the Land Transfer Act to ensure and clarify that resolutions can be addressed through that vehicle. I would just like to finish by saying that this great bill gives certainty to the people of Canterbury. Thank you.
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour): I join with other members in support of this bill, and it shows what a quality process this has been in terms of consultation with community groups and stakeholders. As other colleagues have said, it has been a quality ministerial process where other legislators from other parliaments were brought into it, and the outcome is that we have a high-quality bill in front of us. As the previous speaker, Matt Doocey, said, this will provide certainty—a long time coming, but certainty for those victims of the earthquakes. As other speakers have said, what could be worse and more nightmarish than knowing that your property has somehow moved and that, as my colleague Ruth Dyson pointed out, you may well have built over somebody’s boundary?
It does highlight another point, if I can make it, and it is interesting that Mr Doocey rose to speak to this piece of legislation. This is an important—vitally important—piece of legislation for a large number of our citizens. We stand here tonight and we are taking short calls to rattle this through because we want to get it through. It has had a pretty efficient gestation period, and we want to get it through so that we can provide some measure of comfort and do what we should do as legislators by passing laws and rules that assist people.
I just, in all seriousness, contrast that with the amount of silliness and time-wasting that has occurred over a couple of members’ bills—you know, Nuk “The Bag Man” Korako, and the Bag Man’s apprentice, Matt Doocey, who just spoke. Yes, we can have a bit of fun and frivolity in this Parliament—that is part of the nature of being a legislator—but to waste hundreds of thousands of dollars and time on silly and stupid pieces of legislation when we have bills like this that are vitally important—[Interruption] I see the Assistant Speaker acknowledging the importance of it, the need to expedite those vitally important bills through the House—that is actually what we are here to do. We can have a laugh and a joke and a bit of a leg pull, that is true, but when you look at the seriousness of the duties that we are charged with as legislators, you have got to contrast this bill—good process, good ministerial process, quality outcome; a bill that will practically help thousands of people in a province that was almost destroyed—with a couple of jokers who are wasting parliamentary time and taxpayers’ money with silly, stupid pieces of legislation.
Matt Doocey: A bit like your speech now.
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: One of the jokers who has been pulled out of the pack and woken up is sitting down the back of the House now. I say to those two gentlemen: OK, comedy hour is over. Maybe they should think again.
There is, I think, under the Standing Orders the ability to withdraw legislation in some way, shape, or form, and maybe this bill is quite a good example—and I say this to the colleagues on the other side of the House, because they have acted very, very responsibly in relation to this bill—of what we are actually here to do. We are actually here to help people, to empower people, and to help those in the worst possible circumstances. This is a highly technical piece of legislation. It affects, fundamentally, people’s property rights, and this is what we should be here for, not acting like it is the comedy hour, as some actors in this House have conducted themselves over the last couple of weeks. I support the bill.
JOANNE HAYES (National): I too stand to take a short call on this most important bill, the Canterbury Property Boundaries and Related Matters Bill, because on the eastern side of Christchurch they had one of the biggest areas where homes were lost through the earthquake. I want to thank the Minister, the Hon Louise Upston, for the work that she has done on this bill, and the collegiality that was shown within the Committee to get this bill to this place. This bill does bring some comfort to the property owners of Christchurch, and I have no hesitation in commending it to the House. Thank you.
POTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. I too rise in support of this piece of legislation. There are just a couple of points I want to make. I know that we should ensure that this bill passes tonight, and I will be doing my utmost, but I do just want to make a couple of points about this particular bill. The process has to be commended. The ability to have input from Canterbury members from across all of the parties engaged in the discussion has been really useful, and, I think, has encouraged all of us to think that there are better ways to engage with your parliamentary colleagues from across the House when it comes to matters of such significance as dealing with the earthquakes in Canterbury. I would encourage other members, when other pieces of legislation are being developed around this, to use similar processes. The officials on this were very open to suggestions that were made by my colleagues on this particular piece of legislation, and I commend the Minister, the Hon Louise Upston, for that.
The submitters were primarily the council and that group of surveyors who were clear that there were some things that they needed to ensure went into this piece of legislation. Firstly, that those interim surveys that were conducted during those first few months and years after the earthquake could be validated under this piece of legislation. Secondly, they wanted to ensure that all of the variances that occurred with the movement of land—whether that be through lateral spread, whether that be through movement up and down, or whether that be through the impact of liquefaction—were all considered when the boundary legislation was redrawn. Thirdly, they wanted to ensure that there was a disputes process and a remediation process that was included in the legislation. All of these protections have been put in place. This is a good bill. It will go a long way towards giving comfort to property owners that their boundaries are valid and that the surveys are valid. I commend it to the House.
PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): E Te Mana Whakawā Tuarua, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou katoa e ngā mema o Te Whare. This bill, the Canterbury Property Boundaries and Related Matters Bill, is a good bill, introduced by my colleague the Hon Louise Upston, the Minister for Land Information. It is important that it is passed forthwith because, as we know, there have been a range of technical and geotechnical issues faced by the people of Canterbury that have seen some people lose metres off the boundaries of their land, whereas others have had the spreading out of the land that has grown the size of their property but severely damaged the ability to properly measure and register that land. So this is an important bill. It is a timely bill. The Local Government and Environment Committee, chaired by the able and learned Mr Simpson from Coromandel, did a very good job. We did work very cooperatively with members of the Opposition and in hearing submitters. This is a necessary piece of legislation, and I commend it to the House.
Bill read a third time.
Bills
Health Practitioners (Replacement of Statutory References to Medical Practitioners) Bill
Second Reading
Debate resumed from 23 August.
POTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East): It gives me pleasure to rise to take a call on the Health Practitioners (Replacement of Statutory References to Medical Practitioners) Bill. I was not on the Health Committee at the time that this bill was reported; however, I do have a little bit of industry knowledge, and I have been able to read through the report and recommendations of the select committee to the House.
What this bill, in effect, does is it redefines “health practitioners” from what we previously knew as “medical practitioners”, and it allows them to perform some statutory functions under legislation. The obvious example, which is quoted in the legislation, is about nurses and nurse practitioners. The legislation gives some clear definitions and it talks about their competencies. When we look at the way the health workforce has developed over the last 15 or 20 years or so, with technology and with advances in medicine, it has made it important for us to be able to review the practice of particular health professionals to ensure that they are able to do what they are able to do, and also to remove, particularly, GPs from some of the statutory functions that they have usually and normally carried out. There are a variety of responsibilities, particularly for nurse practitioners, that have been defined within this legislation.
What the bill also does is it gives us the opportunity to develop other health professionals. There are programmes to build other competencies into the work of health professionals. If I think back to my own experience in community mental health, it was not so long ago that we developed programmes to ensure that our mental health support workers and support staff actually have some recognised qualifications. It was not so long ago that many of our mental health support staff did not actually have qualifications, and there has been a real programme to ensure that those staff and other support workers are well trained, well experienced, and on a pathway to continuing education. That can only be good, in terms of professionalising our support staff.
As the bill was reported back from the select committee, one of the most significant parts of the legislation is the comprehensive definition of “nurse practitioner”. With an amendment in clause 42B to section 2(1) of the Medicines Act, the definition includes ensuring that a nurse practitioner holds a practising certificate, that they are registered by the Nursing Council of New Zealand under the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act 2003, and that they have the relevant scope of practice. So that is now within the legislation: a definition of “nurse practitioner”.
There has been a change in definition with regard to doctors’ surgeries now being called medical centres, which, I guess, are what most of us would go to when we are attending our GPs. There are recommended changes to the appropriate sections of the Land Transport Act to ensure that references that previously would have been to doctors’ surgeries are now to medical centres. There are also amendments to the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act, which will insert within it definitions of “health practitioner”, “primary health care provider”, and “nurse practitioner”.
It is a good bill. It has ensured that nurse practitioners are recognised for the work that they do, as well as other health practitioners. I commend the bill to the House.
BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): It is a pleasure to take a call on this bill. It is a great piece of legislation, and it is removing a whole lot of unnecessary barriers that we currently have. It is an omnibus bill, and it is surprising when you pass a piece of legislation like this how many other pieces of legislation it will affect. But it is really about making the best use of the skills we have in the health industry.
As we know, the way we deliver health is changing. We are going from a focus around those big hospitals, which are extremely important and where we need to send people when they have the most chronic cases of illness, to delivering more things in the community. A lot of our community health providers are very capable, well trained, and able to do some of the jobs that currently, legally, within these pieces of legislation, they are not able to do. So what it is going to mean is that people are going to have a greater level of access to services, and there will be more health professionals out there to do that.
Something that I have come across in my electorate—as you would imagine, it varies far and wide: we have the Hamilton hospital at one end and we have the New Plymouth hospital and a smaller hospital at Te Kūiti, but there is a whole wide range of areas around that rely on health professionals to give them their day-to-day needs. What I am finding is that as we have a shortage of rural doctors—and we know that—something in health that is very important for people, particularly older people, is to trust the person who is providing their care. So they rely quite heavily on the nurses and the people who are in the medical centres to provide that. When they go there they know there is someone they can trust, so even if we do get doctors coming in and out, and it is somebody they do not know, there is actually a set of health professionals there that can help them.
This is all part of the primary care focus. Having worked through some of this on the Health Committee, it is really interesting to me to see the actual bills that are affected by this bill. There are amendments around the Accident Compensation Act 2001: “any health practitioner providing treatment to the claimant”—so, again, it is often just wording, but it makes such a difference because all of these pieces of legislation have to fall in place. There is the Land Transport Act. As the previous speaker said, it is just asking people to go to the medical centre instead of the doctor’s surgery, which is something most of us do not call it any more. Amendments have been made to definitions around the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act, just changing the name of those people who are being dealt with.
I think there are two important issues here within this piece of legislation. They are that the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989 is being adjusted to place an equivalent duty on to health practitioners so that it is in line with the duty of medical practitioners to minimise distressed children and young persons when carrying out medical examinations. To be honest, when people go to a medical centre, it is often the nurse or the health practitioner who are the ones who actually calm the children down, because often they are quite scared, particularly if they are going to be having injections and things like that. The other one is the amendments to the Burial and Cremation Act, for the other stage of life. It is my pleasure this afternoon to commend this bill to the House.
KEVIN HAGUE (Green): It is a pleasure to rise to speak in this debate. It was such a long time ago that the Health Committee heard submissions on this bill that I had to refresh my mind on its content and on the submissions we received.
The way I like to begin second reading speeches is to thank the officials who assisted the select committee and thank the submitters on the bill. The submitters on this particular bill made a very positive contribution indeed. They mainly came from the professional groups that will be affected by the bill, and most of the submissions were of quite a technical nature. I think it is fair to say that, as reported back from the select committee, most of the professional groups that did submit on the bill will be pleased to see the changes being made. Perhaps the medical groups will be somewhat less pleased, as in general they prefer to see no change, but I am sure that, in time, they will come to understand that these changes have been positive for their practice as well.
The health budget is inevitably constrained. No matter how much of the tax take gets put into the health budget, there will always be extra needs that could have been met had there only been some more resourcing, so there is a deep imperative on the Government and on this House to ensure that the resources that we have available to the health sector are used as efficiently as they can be. This bill relates specifically to the resource that is the health professionals, but the same principle applies to the physical resources. Are we using operating theatres as efficiently as we could be? The answer is no, in fact—we could do better in that. Are we using the dollars as efficiently as we could be? We actually do not know, because the only part of the system that we actually do cost-benefit analysis on is the pharmaceutical side. If we had an extra dollar to put into health, we do not actually know whether it would be better to put that into pharmaceuticals or into other interventions. So, in those areas, we could do a lot better at improving the efficiency of our resource use in health.
But this bill, in relation to health professionals, certainly does result in better utilisation of the health professionals whom we have available. The legislation before us and the professional rules that apply to health professionals place limits on the scope of practice of health professions—and that is appropriately so—but those restrictions should be only those that are reasonably justifiable on clinical grounds. They should not go further than that, because if they go further than that—as the existing law does—what it means is that we will have health professionals whose time and skill we are using inefficiently. That means we will not be getting as much health gain from the skill of those health professionals as we could and should do.
We select committee members have had a robust series of discussions with submitters and amongst ourselves to test the changes that were proposed in the bill as introduced. We have made a number of changes that, on balance, we believe make the bill a better bill. Inevitably, there are judgment calls to be made, and I believe that the select committee has made those calls in the right place.
I want to conclude by referring to my own experience as chief executive of the West Coast District Health Board, because I believe it illustrates the pressing need for this reform. I note that nursing organisations, for example, have been clamouring for urgent reform of precisely these rules in legislation, because we have nurses, in particular, unable to practise to the full extent of their skill and knowledge because of arbitrary and inappropriate rules in our legislation. So I am sure they will welcome this bill being taken to the next step.
In an area like the West Coast—pretty much as Barbara Kuriger has spoken about in relation to Taranaki and King Country—many, many people receive their primary healthcare from nurses, and those rural nurse specialists do an absolutely fantastic job. I well remember one of my visits to a rural nursing clinic to follow up on what actually happens on the day that the doctor comes to visit—because the nursing service is supported by a general practitioner who visits. Actually, that general practitioner’s time is principally spent signing forms to, essentially, certify as correct the practice that the nurses had already put into place. So all of the expertise and skill in providing healthcare for patients had been delivered by nurses, and the doctor, who presumably and certainly does have expertise and skill in areas that the nurse does not have, was unable to apply that expertise and skill because all of the doctor’s time had to be spent in needless form-filling required by our current law.
Actually moving beyond that arbitrary and inappropriate restriction on nursing practice will ensure that the nurse is able to provide a full service to the extent of the nurse’s capability, but also that we get to use the doctor’s time more appropriately—a better health gain all around, which surely ought to be the driving principle behind all of our work in relation to health. I commend the bill to the House.
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First): I rise to speak on behalf of New Zealand First on the Health Practitioners (Replacement of Statutory References to Medical Practitioners) Bill. New Zealand First supports this bill. We believe that this is a bill that is going to see some common-sense changes within the health sector. We know that the health practitioners already have the skills, so this bill is an opportunity to ensure that they can use those skills. We need these people to provide the best healthcare for all of us.
The training of health practitioners has advanced considerably, meaning that, as my colleague Kevin Hague said, they are more capable than ever before. I think that in this day and age we have to be quite realistic and say that we have to move with the times and accept some of the changes that are there. We know we have got an ageing GP workforce. We know that about 44 percent of them are going to retire, and that is a huge number, but we still want the same level of healthcare. I was delighted to read in the latest edition of the New Zealand Doctor news online that nurse prescribing got the thumbs up at the GP conference. I thought that was indeed a really good, big step forward.
I would also like to take the opportunity to acknowledge and thank the many hard-working nurses up and down this country. We know they do an absolutely incredible job despite often trying conditions, and we believe that this bill actually recognises their skills and expertise for caring for their patients. We know nurse practitioners have been providing services since 2001. They have got the training to enable them to carry out this role very competently, and no doubt they will be very pleased to see this bill at last progress through the House, because it has taken a long time.
There is one group of health practitioners that actually needs to be included in this bill, and that is the paramedics. We in this House, and New Zealand First in particular, have been calling for the registration of our paramedics. They are the men and women who are often first on the scene for medical emergencies right throughout the country. The skill required to be a paramedic is extremely high. They often have to make complex life or death decisions in a very short space of time, yet they remain unregistered. We believe that many New Zealanders would be shocked to learn of this. New Zealanders, too, are also at risk because at this point in time anyone can set up a paramedic service and Kiwis would not be the wiser. Currently there are four ambulance service providers, and it is quite concerning to read that the skills and qualifications can differ quite widely from one service to another.
We know that the paramedics do a remarkable job under very challenging circumstances, often on the side of the road. Their service is stretched. They answer about 450,000 patient call-outs each year with minimal resources. We believe that as paramedics remain unregistered, they are not receiving the same recognition of their skills as other professionals. We believe that this really does the paramedic service a very grave disservice.
I would like to acknowledge my fellow colleagues and members of the Health Committee, as we carefully reviewed the proposed bill and made some practical changes. We are also grateful to the organisations and the people who took time out to make a submission to the Health Committee, and we considered each submission carefully. We received only 28 submissions, and we received advice from the Ministry of Health. We acknowledged concerns about public safety from the community.
We believe that this bill is a really big step in the right direction. We hope that it is going to ease some of the pressure on our health workforce, which is one of its intended goals. However, it will not solve the issue of an underfunded health system. We are pleased to support this bill, and we look for a speedy passage of the bill through the House. Thank you.
SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): It is a real privilege to take a call in the second reading of this, the Health Practitioners (Replacement of Statutory References to Medical Practitioners) Bill. I know that is a bit of a mouthful, but this is a very good, practical piece of legislation that I think is quite long overdue.
The member Barbara Stewart, who has just resumed her seat, made mention of the 28 submitters on the bill. I think that, with almost no exception, we received very good information from those submitters. Over the years, modern medicine has changed dramatically. I am the son of a registered nurse; my mother practised nursing in the late 1950s. In those days, I recall her telling stories about how nothing happened without the approval of the doctor. The doctor was all-supreme, all-knowing, and all-important in terms of any patient interaction. What we have seen since those days is a change in the way that our medical professionals are trained, and the health practitioners whose roles we are seeking to extend in this piece of legislation are now quite different and more important in terms of providing wonderful service to patients up and down the countryside.
I represent a rural, provincial electorate, and it is in electorates like mine, in the Coromandel, where I think the greatest benefit of this legislation will come to pass. As community health is more and more focused on care in the community and keeping people in their homes, it is more important that our health professionals actually go out into those communities and into the homes. Those communities will be the ones that benefit most from this, because there is a greater role for providers. There are also a greater range of services, and this was made very clear to us by the submitters—that the range of services that health practitioners are required to attend to these days is much wider than it was even a few years ago. The advancement of technology and modern information means that we do need to change these roles. I think that this bill is a very effective piece of legislation. It is a piece of legislation, I think, whose time has come, and I commend it to the House.
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): I am delighted to speak in support of the second reading of the Health Practitioners (Replacement of Statutory References to Medical Practitioners) Bill. It does not win any awards for the snappiest name, but the name certainly describes the contents of the bill. I remember when the bill was introduced, the Minister said “Its time has come.”, and the Hon Annette King, quite rightly, said: “Actually, its time was years ago.” This is so overdue, as the member, Scott Simpson, who has just resumed his seat, has bravely pointed out to his—it is probably not a career-enhancing move you made there, but it was an honest opinion expressed: that this is well overdue.
We are supporting it because it certainly means now that a lot of the legislation that needs to change to recognise the increased qualifications, the competency, and the ability of other practitioners to perform tasks will keep up with the reality. So much of our legislation is outdated, and I know that other members who have spoken have referenced the fact that this is an omnibus bill simply because it alters so many other pieces of legislation and updates them. Not only is that a good thing—to recognise the valuable contribution that many members of our health system currently make, but they cannot do some things that they are competent and trained to do—but also it recognises the very real cost pressures that we have in our health system, and the workforce issues that we face, as well.
We know that the Government has underfunded our health system in the last 8 years by about $1.7 billion. That is a huge amount of money that the Government has not put into the health system, which it should have put in to keep up with the demographic pressures and the population pressures. We have got an ageing population, we have got huge cost pressures, we have got workforce issues, and instead of recognising that as a package of concerns that is reducing the ability of New Zealanders to get the healthcare that they need—that is the outcome of that—the Government has been short-funding it and tinkering with a lot of other measures that were necessary. But with this legislation it is actually doing the right thing.
We have got about 50,000 nurses in New Zealand registered with the Nursing Council of New Zealand. We have got a looming GP retirement, about—well, not quite half, but nearly 45 percent of current GPs have said that they intend to retire over the next decade. We cannot magically whip up a huge number more GPs to replace those ones who are retiring—that is not possible. A lot of GPs are leaving New Zealand because the health system is so restrictive. They are finding it more satisfying to go overseas. I know a lot of general practitioners decide not to remain operating in New Zealand, because of the costs that the current National Government has imposed, particularly on small businesses. It just layers more and more and more regulation and requirement, and from a National-led Government it is quite a surprise to many of those GPs—in fact, quite a shock.
Hon Simon Bridges: I know—that’s what we expect from you.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order!
Hon RUTH DYSON: But that is what is driving them to change their voting pattern as well, actually. Thank you, Mr Bridges, for your acknowledgment that this is exactly what you are hearing in your electorate, as well. I am glad that you have confirmed that.
With that short-funding of the health system and the number of GPs who have said that they are going to retire—that is a huge stress on our workforce. Something has to give, and that is the big piece of the puzzle that National is just refusing to acknowledge. There has been a lot of ridicule poured on backbench National Party members recently about the substance of their members’ bills. I want to just say that this Health Practitioners (Replacement of Statutory References to Medical Practitioners) Bill was actually the subject of a member’s bill that I drew up some time ago. It was never drawn. I have replaced it because I have changed portfolios and I always have member’s bills that are relevant to my portfolios. But I became very familiar with some of the stupidity of our existing legislation and how important it was to recognise that you do not actually need a doctor to sign a death certificate. You do not need a doctor to sign a medical certificate for Child, Youth and Family. There is a whole range of things that other people in the health system can do, but the legislation restricted them from doing it.
So this is moving the legislation in keeping with the changes that have been driven not only in terms of competency but also in terms of qualification. It was, I think, maybe 2002—it was some time ago—that nurse practitioners were introduced as a new profession. That is a higher level of qualification for nursing than we had ever had before, and now we have thousands of nurse practitioners who are able to do, within their competency, a great deal of things that previously only doctors could do. I remember when midwives were certified to be able to deliver babies. Previously, it had to be signed off by a doctor—a ridiculous situation, and, as Kevin Hague pointed out, it was often just the form-filling that the doctor did, whereas the actual work had been done by a nurse. But somebody had to sign it off according to the law, and, of course, who got the money for it? The person who signed off the form, which is pretty outrageous.
So this bill is making the health system more fit for purpose. It will give it greater sustainability because of the need to have more people practising where they currently are not, but also given the fact that so many of our doctors are retiring. It does need the Government to come to the party in the end and start funding our whole system in a way that recognises the health inflation costs, the demographic changes, and the population growth. There is $1.7 billion of underfunding in our current health system. That is not a way that our health system can thrive and grow. No wonder we have so many people who are not able to get their specialist assessments when they need them.
I have seen it in the media myself, as well as having constituents come to my office—people who are in a lot of pain who need surgery and who are not able to get a referral from their GP and then get in to see a specialist and get that surgery. I saw a case recently in the press where a woman had mortgaged her house in order to get a shoulder operation because she could not get that operation in the public system. In New Zealand in 2016 those sorts of occurrences are just a disgrace.
So I would be very happy if we could have not just a debate on this improvement—and improvement it is—but also a proper debate on how we can ensure that the health system in New Zealand is funded and supported to deliver the level of healthcare that New Zealanders need. I do not think that is asking for too much. We have had it in the past, and it is really only through the miserly behaviour of Bill English—shocking, because he was a former Minister of Health himself, actually—that we have seen not enough money going into the coffers.
In the end, a system will work despite what Governments do, because of the nature of the people. We are so lucky in New Zealand to have, right throughout our health system, amazingly dedicated, passionate people. They will keep our health system going, but there is only so much they can do without the support from central government that they are clearly not getting at the moment. They cannot work so many hours that they are exhausted.
I saw a survey recently where GPs were saying that they often worked longer hours than they should, and something like 10 percent of the GPs who were surveyed said that they had performed actions with their patients that could have done harm, and they had performed them in error because they were so tired. That is a terrible situation for patients who go to their doctor relying on them to be on top of their job, but the doctors have been working such long hours, and have been under such a lot of stress because of the regulatory environment developed for small businesses by the National Government, that they actually make errors. That is something that should be unacceptable in New Zealand. Having said all that, I think that this is a very good bill. I am pleased that it is making progress, at long last, through the health system. I look forward to the final stages of it soon.
JONO NAYLOR (National): I just want to take a short call on this Health Practitioners (Replacement of Statutory References to Medical Practitioners) Bill. I think a lot of the things that have been said about it this evening have already been covered, but I think it is really important for us to just sort of stop and note that at times things change in society and then legislation needs to catch up.
If we look at the changing nature of medical practice over recent years—whether it is, as a previous speaker has mentioned, the introduction of nurse practitioners, midwives being able to deliver babies, midwives getting prescribing rights for certain medications and the like, or nurse practitioners being able to prescribe medicines—there has been, I think, good progress made throughout the years within these professions to allow more suitably qualified people to be able to perform certain tasks that had previously been able to be done only by doctors. So it is important that our legislation now catches up to that. I think this is a good bill that, obviously, is going to make some changes to seven statutes to ensure that we make the best use of the resources we have available across the sector. I support this bill.
LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. It is my pleasure to speak on the Health Practitioners (Replacement of Statutory References to Medical Practitioners) Bill in this, its second reading, and to reiterate that Labour supports this piece of legislation.
I would like to just confirm what the stated objectives of this bill are. I am not a member of the Health Committee, but I previously have been. This piece of legislation, having sat on the committee during some of its deliberation, was really interesting. What it seeks to do is to allow health practitioners with the required competencies and knowledge to perform more statutory functions. What this means is that many health professional groups are now capable of performing tasks that were previously the sole domain of medical practitioners, which, essentially, means that nurses are now able to do what doctors used to do. Actually, that was the biggest discussion of the select committee. In fact, the Medical Association, if I put its case forward—that was its biggest issue with this bill. It thought that doctors were, I guess, skilled in certain areas, and it had some concern about transferring that responsibility to nurses. I think some of that discussion may play out in the Committee stage, but I wanted to highlight it because, based on this piece of legislation, the registration under the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act will then determine the scope of practice that all health practitioners have, which includes nurse practitioners.
The reason I bring it up is that at the heart of this piece of legislation it is trying to utilise all of the assets that we have in the health system to their full capacity. Now, for example, our nurse practitioners will be able to sign death certificates. In the past that was solely the responsibility of doctors. Some would say that that is a huge change, but what the committee said was that this is actually a practical change, because nurse practitioners do have the skills and they do have the competency, based on their registration, to be able to undertake that specific task.
Nurse practitioners also have the skills to take blood specimens from drunk drivers. Again, that was previously the responsibility solely of doctors. They will also, under this piece of legislation, be able to declare people unfit to drive. At the moment, it is only doctors and optometrists who are competent enough under current legislation to say whether people can or cannot drive. What this piece of legislation does is empower nurse practitioners to make that determination. They are also now able to sign sick leave certificates. Again, under current legislation only doctors can do that. They also now are empowered to prescribe controlled drugs. Again, that is a role that only doctors can perform. They will also, under this piece of legislation, be now empowered to issue a certificate to accompany an application for a mental health assessment. This, again, recognises the particular competencies and skills that nurse practitioners have.
It is interesting to note what we are doing in terms of empowering nurse practitioners, but it is also incredibly relevant if we look at our current health workforce. We have 50,000 nurses in Aotearoa New Zealand; my colleague Adrian Rurawhe has been trying to find out the number of nurse practitioners we have. To be a nurse practitioner, you actually have to undertake a Master’s degree in nursing. It takes an extra 2 years of academic study to qualify yourself to be upskilled—to be competent enough to do all these additional things that I have just read out, based on your qualification.
Within the context of 50,000 nurses, we have 14,333 GPs. I want to continue the discussion that my colleague Ruth Dyson started and, also, that my colleague the Hon Annette King stated in her contribution to the House, and that is that in the next 10 years, 44 percent of those GPs will be leaving. That is 6,306 doctors. So I think that the opportunity that we have to provide more opportunities for nurses to become nurse practitioners is a very good thing, because we are actually futureproofing our workforce to undertake a number of tasks that, historically, only doctors have been able to perform.
I think the reality, particularly for some of our young doctors, is that they have to work up to 16 hours a day. There have been issues in the media lately about that workload and, I guess, their inability to cope, so if we can fully utilise the skills across our health workforce, then, I think, that is a good thing for all of us. Currently there are 3.5 nurses to one doctor, so this piece of legislation makes sense from that perspective.
The other objectives of this bill, as stated in the bill commentary, are to “make it easier for the public to access statutory health services”, “allow the health workforce to use their knowledge and skills”, and to “facilitate innovative services and efficient practice.” In looking at the numbers, again, of nurses versus doctors, I think that in some of our rural communities having nurse-led practices in the future makes complete sense.
From the Labour side of the Chamber, we do support this piece of legislation. I think, just finally, my acknowledgment is really to the Nurse Practitioners New Zealand board. I saw some commentary in the media by Dr Michal Boyd, who was its chair in 2005. It has actually been fighting for the recognition of nurse practitioners for over 10 years now—for them to be empowered to use the skills that they have gained through the qualification of nurse practitioner to undertake many of the tasks that, historically, have only been the responsibility of doctors.
I want to acknowledge all the champions within the nurse practitioner field, who were fighting not only for the recognition of their particular qualification but also for women, because, as we know, the nursing profession is disproportionately a profession that women are engaged in. I think that the fight from the Nurse Practitioners New Zealand association has been beneficial not only for nurses as a profession but also for women, because I think that added responsibility will see, in the future, their ability to lead medical practices. I think that, again, we will see the value of that qualification rise, and, hopefully, the equitable remuneration of that particular skill set or career. I know that was not one of the objectives of the legislation, but from my perspective it is and it will be, and so I hope there are more nurses who put up their hand to do extra study to become nurse practitioners, because, based on the evidence that we have, we are going to need them.
Debate interrupted.
The House adjourned at 6 p.m.