Thursday, 20 October 2016

THURSDAY, 20 OCTOBER 2016

THURSDAY, 20 OCTOBER 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, 1 November, the Government will look to complete the third readings of the eight bills that have been split from the Health Practitioners (Replacement of Statutory References to Medical Practitioners) Bill, and a number of other bills on the Order Paper.

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): I thank the Leader of the House for that, and I am sure that he would want to join me in congratulating his shadow Leader of the House on the birth of his first child, Charlie Douglas Hipkins, another feisty redhead in the Upper Hutt, born yesterday. We wish Chris and Jade all the very best.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Economic Diversification—Technology and Manufacturing Sectors

1. BRETT HUDSON (National) to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on the diversification of the New Zealand economy?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Associate Minister of Finance) on behalf of the Minister of Finance: The Minister has seen a number of reports, including as recently as last night, when the Technology Investment Network (TIN) report was launched by the Minister of Science and Innovation. The report shows that New Zealand’s leading 200 high-tech companies have now reached combined annual revenues of $9.4 billion, up 12 percent or nearly $1 billion in just 1 year. The report shows revenue growth across all regions of the country. The member will be interested to see Wellington leading the regional revenue growth, with Wellington companies increasing their turnover by 15.3 percent, while Auckland contributed the greatest proportion of revenue overall with $5.4 billion. This report is another positive indicator of the health of the tech sector, a tribute to the companies and their staff involved, and it also shows the value of the work that Government agencies are doing through the Business Growth Agenda to help grow those companies.

Brett Hudson: What role does research and development play in the growth of the tech sector?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Research and development plays a very large role in making our companies more innovative. R & D across the TIN200 companies grew by a record 16 percent in the last year, and they are now spending $827 million of their turnover on research and development. It is a real investment in the future of these companies and will help lift the overall investment levels of New Zealand companies in research and development. This shows true in this year’s TIN100 report, which tells an impressive story of exporting success in the tech sector, with the 200 companies’ collective export revenues up 13.5 percent from last year to nearly $7 billion.

Brett Hudson: How is this growth translated into jobs?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Job growth among the TIN200 companies has increased by nearly 8 percent in the last year alone, with nearly 3,000 new high-value jobs created. These 200 companies between them now employ almost 40,000 people. The major areas of employment growth were in digital media, healthcare, and financial services businesses. One of the biggest employers in the tech sector remains the high-tech manufacturing sector, which accounts for more than half of the TIN workforce.

David Seymour: How and when will the Government clarify regulation around fees for peer-to-peer lenders so that that part of the financial technology industry may resume growth?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I can update the member that I know the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs is working on this exact matter, possibly as we speak.

Brett Hudson: What other reports has he received on the strength of the manufacturing sector?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Last week Business New Zealand announced the September performance of manufacturing index, which is the indicator of manufacturing performance—the PMI survey. It reported a reading of 57.7, with values above 50 indicating that the manufacturing sector is generally expanding. This is the highest reading since October 2014 and indicates that the manufacturing sector has now been in expansion for 47 of the last 48 months. New Zealand’s PMI is the strongest across the seven countries in which it is measured, including Australia, Japan, China, the UK, and the US.

Grant Robertson: Can the Minister confirm that since his Government came into office, housing debt has grown from $161 billion to $223 billion, an increase of 39 percent, and, at the same time, business lending has increased from $82 billion to $92 billion—only a 12 percent increase; and is that the kind of balanced economy he is after?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Actually, businesses have been immensely profitable in New Zealand over the last 7 years, so perhaps they have not had to finance it so much from debt. But in terms of the member’s concern for household debt, I would like to refer him to the monthly economic indicators—

Grant Robertson: Housing.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: —yes, housing debt, thank you—for Treasury in September, where it makes some comments about household debt: “The accumulation of debt has to date not been the result of sustained dissaving; Debt servicing rates are well within historical ranges and may fall further; Net wealth and … net financial wealth has been increasing; Housing debt to asset ratios have fallen.”

Grant Robertson: No they haven’t. No they haven’t. That’s not true.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: So it is not all bad news, Mr Robertson. That is according to Treasury—that is according to Treasury, Mr Robertson.

Housing Market—Value of Housing Stock

2. GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) to the Minister of Finance: Has he read the latest Reserve Bank M10 Housing release, and if so can he confirm that it indicates that the value of New Zealand’s housing stock as at the end of June this year was valued at $959 billion or 381 percent of nominal GDP?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Associate Minister of Finance) on behalf of the Minister of Finance: To answer the first part of the member’s question: yes, and I would point out that the M10 series also indicates that investment in residential housing has achieved its highest recorded value in the 26-year history of the M10 series at $4 billion and has nearly doubled since 2011. It shows that house prices almost doubled in the 9 years to 2008 and that house price growth has moderated somewhat since then. I would also refer the member to the Reserve Bank’s M5 series, which shows the New Zealand economy growing around 3.5 percent in real terms in the year to June, having climbed out of a recession that started when that member was a staff member in the previous Labour Government. To answer the member’s second question: yes.

Grant Robertson: Can he confirm that the figure of 381 percent of nominal GDP dwarfs the peak of 210 percent of nominal GDP that the US housing market had in 2007, just before that market crashed?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: No, I cannot, although I do understand that the member is sourcing his analysis from a newsletter. But the simple point is that asset values in housing are high around the world at the moment, so, in terms of New Zealand, we are not that unusual, and the reason for that is because of the very low interest rates that are being experienced across the world. The member can pretend that that is not the reason for it, but that is a very significant part of it.

Grant Robertson: Can he further confirm that each month last year the value of the housing stock inflated by $18 billion, nearly outstripping the total increase for GDP in that period?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: To the extent that those two things are comparable, then, yes, I can confirm that that is probably the case. But, again, the member needs to look at the reasons why and also look at the serviceability of that, and I refer him back to Treasury’s September monthly indicators report for some comments on the serviceability of that debt. Also, in terms of why it is happening, I would point out to him that around the world we are experiencing record low interest rates, so people are able to service higher mortgages than they were, perhaps, when we had rampant inflation back in 2008.

Grant Robertson: Would he describe New Zealand’s housing stock as (a) overvalued; (b) ballooning and unsustainable; (c) a risk to our economic stability; or (d) his usual response: “Meh.”?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I think the Minister of Finance has found that leaving the hyperbole to Mr Robertson is normally the best way of dealing with things. In terms of current house prices, they are higher than usual. They reflect the strength of the New Zealand economy, they reflect the comparative strength relative to other parts of the world, and they reflect the very, very low levels of interest rates. Yes, the need to boost supply—the Government is boosting supply, and that is having a big impact over the next period—

Richard Prosser: How many houses are you building?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Thousands and thousands and thousands.

Grant Robertson: Does he take any responsibility for allowing the New Zealand housing market to get so out of control on his watch through his Government’s failure to crack down on speculators and failure to support the building of an adequate supply of affordable housing, or is it all just someone else’s fault?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I think we have just had a window into the mind of Grant Robertson, who, once again, believes that finance Ministers should control every part of every market in the world. The reality is, Mr Robertson, you are whistling in the wind if you think you can control world interest rates. We can take steps to improve the supply of housing, and that is exactly what we are doing, but in terms of low interest rates, Mr Robertson is whistling in the wind.

Grant Robertson: Is it not time for his Government to support an economy built on improving productivity through more research and development, higher skills, and innovation, rather than relying on the sandcastle that he has built on growing debt and speculation in housing?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The member was obviously not listening to question No. 1. I point out to him that in question No. 1, New Zealand’s high-tech sector has just posted a $1 billion increase in turnover in the last year, that it is investing more and more in research and development, and that its exports are approaching $7 billion. The member needs to go and find some talking points based in fact.

Māori Development, Minister—Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act Review

3. JAN LOGIE (Green) to the Minister for Māori Development: Does he stand by all the Government’s policies that relate to the Māori Development portfolio?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Social Development) on behalf of the Minister for Māori Development: Yes.

Jan Logie: Does he support the Government proposal to amend the provision of the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act that requires that “wherever possible, the relationship between a child or young person and his or her family, whanau, hapu, iwi, and family group should be maintained and strengthened:”?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: The Minister is actively working with his ministerial colleagues to ensure that any new legislation or proposed reforms take account of, and have due regard for, the rights of whānau, hapū, and iwi, and will be widely consulted on with iwi, hapū, and whānau.

Jan Logie: Does he think that the best outcome for Māori children is to, wherever possible, remain in the care of their whānau, hapū, or iwi?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: The Minister and his officials provided a range of advice, including the need to protect whakapapa, and uphold Treaty rights of whānau, hapū, and iwi to be authorised to care for their own mokopuna. Given that 60 percent of children in care are Māori, he agrees with Dame Tariana Turia that there are thousands of safe Māori whānau who could and do care for our mokopuna who are in need of care and protection.

Jan Logie: How could any change to this hard-fought provision be consistent with the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which recognises “the right of indigenous families and communities to retain shared responsibility for the upbringing, training, education and well-being of their children,”?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: The Minister is an absolute advocate for the rights of Māori children and young people to be treated as Māori, and he is working with his colleagues to ensure that both whakapapa and Treaty rights are protected and maintained.

Jan Logie: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That was a general response; it was not a response to the question about—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! On this occasion, the Minister Anne Tolley is answering on behalf of the Minister. I will ask the member to re-ask that question.

Jan Logie: How could any change to this hard-fought provision be consistent with the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which recognises “the right of indigenous families and communities to retain shared responsibility for the upbringing, training, education and well-being of their children,”?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: As I said earlier, the Minister is actively working with ministerial colleagues to ensure that any new legislation or proposed reforms take account of, and have due regard for, the rights of whānau, hapū, and iwi.

Jan Logie: Is he concerned with the proposal, in light of the latest UN Convention on The Rights of the Child report, which raised serious concerns about the “Enduring inadequate cultural capability of the State care system.”?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Yes.

Jan Logie: Does he agree with Moana Jackson, who at the Hands Off Our Tamariki hui I attended in Ōtaki last week said, in response to these reforms, “[I am] filled with sadness and despair that Māori people are again under attack on an issue at the heart of whakapapa and who we are.”; if not, why not?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: One cannot answer that question in specificity. What I can say, on behalf of the Minister, is that he is absolutely committed to upholding the Treaty of Waitangi in this and other areas in his portfolio.

Childhood Obesity—Childhood Obesity Plan, Progress

4. MELISSA LEE (National) to the Minister of Health: What steps has the Government taken to reduce childhood obesity since the launch of the Childhood Obesity Plan one year ago?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): Tackling the issue of obesity is a key priority for the Government. This week marks 1 year since the launch of the Childhood Obesity Plan. This plan consists of 22 initiatives across the Government, the private sector, communities, schools, and families aimed at increasing physical activity and making healthy food choices. At the core of the plan, we have implemented a new health target for 95 percent of obese children identified in the B4 School Check programme to be offered further medical advice and guidance. We have also had 219 low-decile schools sign up to the Health Promoting Schools programme, 34 schools are piloting Sport New Zealand’s Play.sport initiative, and over 2,000 products now carry the Health Star Rating.

Melissa Lee: What role does the food industry play in supporting the Childhood Obesity Plan?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: The plan also signalled our intention to work with industry in addressing the issue of childhood obesity. Today at a food sector forum, industry participants are signing up to a pledge that will see consideration given to reformulation, advertising, and labelling changes. Just this afternoon, as part of the Government’s plan, the Advertising Standards Authority has announced new restrictions on advertising to children. The Children’s Code for Advertising Food will now include 14- to 18-year-olds, and will prohibit advertising of occasional food and beverages in any media or setting where over 25 percent of the expected audience are children.

Deputy Prime Minister—Meetings with Hong Kong Pro-democracy Figures

5. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Deputy Prime Minister: What justification or excuse does he have to cancel a meeting scheduled with two prominent Hong Kong pro-democracy figures this week?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) on behalf of the Deputy Prime Minister: Ministers, from time to time, after considering advice, will decide not to progress previously scheduled meetings.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: On the question of justification or excuse, if two prominent pro-democracy figures, Anson Chan and Martin Lee, were of considerable importance to US Vice-President Joe Biden and Australian Foreign Minister Julie Bishop to meet with and discuss support for democracy in Hong Kong, why were National Ministers not prepared to meet with them?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I have no responsibility for the diaries of other Foreign Ministers.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well, that’s a slack answer.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! And the member is perfectly entitled to that opinion, but he does not need to share it with the House.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Given that New Zealand was the first foreign country to sign a bilateral free-trade agreement with Hong Kong, in March 2010, which was, he said, a priority for his Government, would he agree that his cancellation and the refusal of National Ministers to meet with them is an insult to our close economic relationship with Hong Kong?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: No.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is it not a fact that he has bowed down to Beijing officials and cancelled his meeting with prominent pro-democracy figures from Hong Kong because wealthy Chinese business interests are lining the National Party coffers? [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is a very marginal question. I will leave it for Mr Brownlee to handle.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: No, there was no communication between the Deputy Prime Minister’s office or any Chinese official prior to the cancellation of the meeting.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is it not a fact that he and his party have allowed the Chinese to flood into New Zealand with record migration, buy huge amounts of land and homes from offshore, buy a majority share in the biggest meat industry company in this country—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is a responsibility for the question to be answered, but it needs to be heard first, so I will require considerably less interjection from my colleagues to the right.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: —I will continue on—buy a majority share in our largest meat exporting company, and control, in 3 years, the infant formula business in this country? Is this not just another case of an insult, where they kowtow to Beijing—

Hon Steven Joyce: The end of the world!

Rt Hon Winston Peters: —where the principal culprit is, of course, the know-nothing Steven Joyce?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: New Zealand does not kowtow to any other country at all.

David Shearer: Given that the delegation asked for meetings with other National Government MPs, was any instruction given to National Government MPs not to meet with the Hong Kong delegation? [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is absolutely no ministerial responsibility for that.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Rather than leaving that out-of-order question hanging, I would appreciate the opportunity, on behalf of the Deputy Prime Minister, to simply say “No.”

Mr SPEAKER: That is not a point of order. [Interruption] Order! I have ruled the question out of order because there is no ministerial responsibility, and that is the end of the matter.

Roading—Waikato Expressway, Motu Bridge Replacement, and Queenstown Eastern Access Road

6. TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) to the Minister of Transport: What roading projects is the Government delivering to support and increase economic growth in Waikato?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Transport): It was my pleasure to, last week, turn the sod on the seventh and final section of the Government’s $2.1 billion Waikato Expressway. The $115 million Longswamp section involves widening and upgrading State Highway 1 between Hampton Downs and the Rangiriri interchange to four lanes, as well as improving local road connections. This marks a major milestone for the Waikato Expressway with all the remaining sections now under construction. When the 102-kilometre expressway is completed in 2020 it will reduce congestion and unlock economic potential by providing stronger and safer links between the business and primary production centres of Auckland, Waikato, and the Bay of Plenty.

Todd Muller: What roading projects is the Government delivering to support and increase economic growth in the East Coast?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Recently the local member for East Coast, the Hon Anne Tolley, and I turned the first sod to mark the start of the Motu Bridge replacement project near Gisborne. The road between Gisborne and Ōpōtiki is relied on heavily for the movement of freight, tourism, and for locals between the East Coast and the Bay of Plenty. This new two-lane bridge will strengthen the East Coast primary link with the Bay of Plenty, and boost economic growth and productivity by providing a safer road that is more reliable and provides more predictable travel times between the two regions.

Todd Barclay: What roading projects is the Government delivering to support an increased economic growth in Otago?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Oh, as the member well knows, visitor numbers in the Queenstown area are booming and new developments associated with a strong economy are putting increasing pressure on the local transport system. That is why I was pleased to announce recently that funding has been approved between the Government and Queenstown Lakes District Council for the construction of Queenstown’s $22 million eastern access road. The road will be a critical link in Queenstown’s transport network and relieve congestion through the Frankton Flats area. Of course, the Government is also replacing the Kawarau Falls Bridge, improving the roundabout at the busy junction of State Highway 6 and 6A, and working on plans to add a lane in each direction to the road linking the roundabout with the new Kawarau Falls Bridge. Can I just acknowledge the local member’s strong advocacy regarding transport.

Health Services—Funding Levels and Treatment Injuries

7. Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Minister of Health: Is he confident that health professionals have the resources required to provide quality health outcomes for New Zealanders?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): Yes. Those health professionals include an extra 6,000 doctors and nurses since 2008, those resources include an extra $2.2 billion over 4 years announced in Budget 2016, and those outcomes include an extra 119,000 specialist appointments and 53,000 extra operations per year compared with figures for 2008. Of course, there will always be a debate about what the right level of resourcing is. Otherwise, there would not be anything for Mrs King to do in Parliament. However, I am—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order!

Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That is not necessary, is it?

Mr SPEAKER: No, it certainly is not necessary. It is an answer that does not help the order of the House, but in itself—[Interruption] Order! In itself it is not unparliamentary. There are no rules I can deal with. I will deal with it in another way.

Sue Moroney: Why have claims for patients being injured while receiving healthcare increased by 96 percent between 2008 and 2016?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Of course, the member would know that that is a question for the Minister for ACC, but, actually, it is not totally clear what the drivers of those increased claims are. There could be a range of factors at play. It could be increased claiming behaviour, it could be the increasing medico-legal climate regarding litigation, it could also be due to the increasing volumes of people being treated through our hospitals, it could be the growth in population, and, of course, it could be the fact that we can do more and more complex procedures for patients. All of them could be possible contributions to what you are talking about there.

Sue Moroney: Is it possible that his underfunding of health services by $1.7 billion is the real reason that treatment injury costs have risen by 230 percent since 2008?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: No, it is not possible, because what she is claiming actually is not the case. The member knows that $1.7 billion has not been cut from the budget. In actual fact, the budget has gone up by $4 billion. So to make out that it is otherwise—you are dealing with your own imaginary world with regard to the financing of health.

Sue Moroney: Is there a link, then, between more than 1,000 resident doctors reporting being so fatigued they were worried that clinical mistakes had been made and this massive increase in treatment injuries under his watch?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: No more so than there is a link between the record majorities that members enjoy in every seat that Sue Moroney stands for.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! That does not even attempt to address the question. Would the Minister now address the question.

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Well, I said no. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The matter is—[Interruption] Order! The public of New Zealand will judge the Minister’s answer for themselves.

Sue Moroney: Is he concerned, then, that due to the increased number of mistakes being made in the overstretched, poorly resourced health services, the ACC board believes the cost of treatment injuries will overtake the cost of work injuries as being the most costly by the year 2023, if his regime is not stopped?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Look, I point out that I am not the Minister for ACC, but I disagree with the essential assertion that she is making.

Students with Special Needs—Seclusion Rooms

8. CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) to the Minister of Education: How many schools in Aotearoa, including State schools and special schools, have seclusion rooms?

Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): The ministry has advised me that of the 64 special schools, eight have seclusion rooms. Given the two complaints I was made aware of—one of which was Miramar Central School, and the other of which is the subject of a police complaint—I directed the ministry to urgently survey all schools to establish whether any other schools have such rooms. That process is not yet complete. I have made it clear that seclusion is an unacceptable practice, and a working group from the sector has been developing guidelines on better restraint and behaviour management practices, which are shortly to be published.

Catherine Delahunty: Given that the Minister has known about the usage of a seclusion room at Miramar Central School since 28 July, why was the room still being used up to 20 September?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: When the ministry advised me that a complaint had been made, it also advised me that it had commissioned an independent review to gather the facts about the situation in order that action could be taken.

Catherine Delahunty: I seek leave to table an answer to a written question that shows that the Minister—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! All written questions are published already for members.

Catherine Delahunty: From last night?

Mr SPEAKER: They are all available for members. I have only got to go—sorry, I just need to check. It is not one that was issued to the member and it is within the 3-day period, is it?

Catherine Delahunty: Yes, it is.

Mr SPEAKER: Oh, then I do apologise. On that basis, I will put the leave. It may be informative to members. Leave is sought to table the answer to a written question that has not yet been published to all members. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is none. It can be tabled.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Catherine Delahunty: Given that she has described seclusion rooms as “intolerable”, why has the ministry been working on unenforceable guidelines for at least the last 18 months?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: The sector wanted to take the approach of how does it improve the professional practice of schools, given that it has been working to eliminate the confusion between time out for restraint and seclusion, and because boards are required under National Administration Guideline 5 to provide a safe physical and emotional environment for students. It was expected that these guidelines would assist boards to carry out the responsibility they already have.

Catherine Delahunty: Supplementary—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! We need to be able to hear the question.

Catherine Delahunty: Does the Minister believe it is lawful under health and safety laws to have a locked room in school buildings with no means of escape during an emergency?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: It is not a matter of belief; it is a matter of fact. It is unacceptable. There are cases, in regard to laws, amongst our 2,500 schools, where they have fallen foul of them. This is absolutely an instance of it. It is unacceptable.

Catherine Delahunty: It’s not lawful either.

Hon Hekia Parata: I said it wasn’t lawful, Catherine.

Catherine Delahunty: Why don’t you do something?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! If the member has further questions she rises to her feet, she calls for a supplementary question, and I will give her the opportunity, but she does not need to engage in a conversation. Does the member have a further—

Catherine Delahunty: I have a further supplementary question.

Mr SPEAKER: Then we will hear it.

Catherine Delahunty: Will the Minister immediately decommission all seclusion rooms in all schools in Aoteoroa, as requested by the Children’s Commissioner?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: The point I have been making is that that is already the case. However, this school and the other schools that have them have fallen foul of existing requirements. Now we are focusing on how to help them understand what their responsibilities are, and how to ensure that where there are children who do have extreme behaviour—who may hurt themselves, other children, or other adults—there is appropriate behaviour management in those circumstances. And seclusion rooms are not part of those options.

Growing Up in New Zealand Study—Funding

9. CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston) to the Associate Minister for Social Development: How much money has the Government invested in the Growing Up in New Zealand study, broken down by development costs and annual running costs?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Social Development) on behalf of the Associate Minister for Social Development: Since the start of the data collection in 2007-08 until 2015-16, the total cost of the Growing Up in New Zealand (GUINZ) study has been $40.19 million. Of this total, $39.36 million was towards contract payments to the University of Auckland, which included running costs. The remaining $830,000 was towards contract management and reviews and was incurred by the social policy evaluation and research unit. The development costs incurred by the Ministry of Social Development prior to 2007-08 were approximately $1.5 million. This takes the total cost to date to approximately $41.92 million.

Carmel Sepuloni: Can she confirm that funding for the Growing Up in New Zealand study contract has been cut by two-thirds, meaning approximately 5,000 children and their families will be dumped from this study by the Government; if not, how will the 5,000 children unfunded by the Government be retained in the study?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: This Government wanted a contract for service, with data being placed in the Statistics New Zealand data lab to complement the very sophisticated data that this Government is developing to inform its social investment decisions. However, this was not able to be achieved, and the Government has now agreed to fund the University of Auckland to undertake the 8-year data collection wave of the Growing Up in New Zealand study with a sample of about 2,000 children. It is larger than the similar and internationally highly regarded New Zealand studies. This confirms funding through to 2018-19. Statistical experts were consulted by both parties to finalise a sampling approach that enables the research and analysis that is needed to answer the critical questions. The study will continue to support quality research and analysis, whilst being more sustainable in the long term.

Carmel Sepuloni: How does she reconcile cutting the funding of the largest and most comprehensive longitudinal study undertaken in New Zealand by two-thirds when the Children’s Commissioner has commented that “Such robust, longitudinal New Zealand data is essential for informed policy-making.”?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: We agree. The contract funding the Growing Up in New Zealand study has been reshaped to futureproof the study and allow it to become more sustainable over the life of the study. The Government would like to see the study run until the children are 21 years old, as originally intended, as long as it continues to be of value by providing useful and accessible data. This Government is committed to funding social science research to inform decision making, and, in fact, there has been a significant increase in research funding in recent years.

Carmel Sepuloni: Given that the Growing Up in New Zealand study is the only New Zealand study that includes statistically valid samples of Māori and Pacific children, how can she justify reducing the funding by two-thirds, and what are the implications of this cut for an increasingly diverse New Zealand?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: As I said, statistical experts were consulted by both parties to finalise a sampling approach that maintains that diverse group of New Zealanders and that enables the research and analysis that is needed to answer the critical questions.

Carmel Sepuloni: Has she been advised of the ethical issues in respect of the children and their families who consented to being part of this study, but now may not be included for the full 21 years?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: The most ethical issue here is about getting the data that has been collected used. All families have contributed valuable information to the study, and we now have a wealth of data that can be accessed for research to inform social sector decision-making about New Zealand’s recent babies and their development and the place of mothers, families, community, and social services in that.

Carmel Sepuloni: Does the Government realise that in order to address some of the serious issues we are facing as a nation, evidence is going to be crucial for informing policy, or would it prefer as little evidence as possible so it does not have to address child poverty, the impact of housing instability, inequalities in education, or the health issues impacting our children?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I reject all those assertions. As I have said in the House, the Government has agreed to fund the University of Auckland to undertake the 8-year data collection wave of the GUINZ study, with a sample of about 2,000 children, and funding is confirmed through to 2018-19. However, this study has always been considered to be working towards self-funding. It was never set up with the expectation that the Government would continue to fund it. We have confirmed funding through until 2018-19, by which stage it should have confirmed other funding to allow it to continue.

Local Government—Appointees to Kaipara District Council and Environment Canterbury

10. JOANNE HAYES (National) to the Associate Minister of Local Government: What recent announcements has the Government made around supporting local democracy?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Associate Minister of Local Government): It is important to support local councils after interventions have been in place and ensure that the gains achieved by commissioners are maintained. Last week we announced a Crown observer for the Kaipara District Council, to support the new council in its duties. This complements the Crown manager appointed in July, who will deal with historical legal actions. Additionally, on Tuesday, along with Minister Smith, I announced the appointment of six members to Environment Canterbury. This ensures continuity and the retention of specialist skills needed to complete water plans for the region.

Joanne Hayes: How will the Crown manager and Crown observer appointed to Kaipara District Council support the newly elected council?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: The newly elected members will be able to focus on the future rather than being distracted by historical issues. The Crown manager will solely focus on the historical legal issues. The Crown observer will ensure that the newly elected members are well supported and successful in their new roles. These appointments provide the Kaipara community with a fresh start.

Joanne Hayes: How will having six Government appointees on Environment Canterbury support local democracy?

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: It is no secret that 6 years ago Environment Canterbury was not in good health. Over the past 6 years Environment Canterbury’s organisational performance—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am now at the stage where I cannot hear the answer. The member has a seat in a very unfortunate neighbourhood, in that she is very close to me, so her interjections interrupt my ability to judge whether the question has been answered. Would the Minister please answer the question again.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON: It is no secret that 6 years ago Environment Canterbury was not in good health. Over the past 6 years organisational performance by Environment Canterbury, its relationship with stakeholders, and management of fresh water have significantly improved. Having six appointed councillors for the coming term provides stability and complements the seven elected members. All of the councillors will be equal, whether they have been elected or appointed. We want to ensure that the new Environment Canterbury achieves success, and we have set the council up to continue to deliver for the community. I have the greatest confidence that they will make the most of this opportunity. The council has a big job ahead of it.

Partnership Schools—Funding Recovery Following Closures

11. TRACEY MARTIN (NZ First) to the Minister of Education: Does she stand by all her statements?

Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): Yes, in the context in which they were given.

Tracey Martin: Does she stand by her statement from 24 February 2015: “If a partnership school closes before the end of its contract, the Ministry would seek to recover any unused funding or available asset through a commercial negotiation process.”?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: Yes.

Tracey Martin: At what stage are the commercial negotiations for the return of the land and assets at Whangaruru that were purchased with 4.8 million taxpayer dollars to establish a now-failed partnership school?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: Proceeding.

Tracey Martin: Can she reassure the House that all subsequent partnership school sponsor trust contracts since the first tranche now include a clause that requires all assets purchased with taxpayers’ money to be returned to the Crown when, or if, a partnership school ceases to trade—for example, when a future New Zealand First - led Government closes such a school?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: Ha, ha! I was going to take that seriously for a minute. Um, I cannot confirm that.

Apprenticeships—Numbers and Youth Unemployment

12. JENNY SALESA (Labour—Manukau East) to the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment: Does he agree with the Prime Minster that a “huge number of young New Zealanders are in apprenticeships”; if so, can he confirm that there were more than 10,000 additional apprentices in 2008?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment): For the first part of the question, firstly, yes, I do agree with the Prime Minister. In relation to the second part, it is just not possible to directly compare figures in 2008 with figures in 2015, because as well as changes in data collection, back then tens of thousands of trainees were only nominally enrolled in the scheme. In fact, back then, there were nearly 100,000 industry trainees who were phantom trainees who achieved no credit and, in some cases, were even deceased. So in 2008 there were nominally 10,000 additional trainees, but back then the qualification achievement rate was only 34 percent, whereas in 2015 it was 57 percent—so more apprentices are actually being trained now than back then.

Jenny Salesa: Why is his Government using immigration as the easy route to solving skill shortages instead of training more than 70,000 young New Zealanders who are not in education, employment, or training?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well, the member is incorrect in that assertion because, actually, references to young people being immigrants actually refers primarily to students, of whom around 75 percent leave the country again, and people on working holiday schemes, who nearly all leave about a year after they arrive. I think the member is quoting the Salvation Army report, which makes two fundamental errors in not noticing those impacts. In relation to New Zealanders being trained, as I just pointed out to the member, New Zealanders are being trained far more effectively than they were back in 2008, with a 5-year qualification completion rate of apprenticeships at 57 percent now versus 34 percent back then—and back then it was appalling.

Jenny Salesa: Does he think his Government has failed when 45.2 percent of young New Zealanders in Manukau East are unemployed?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The member, I am sorry, misreads that data, because you cannot actually say that. You cannot use unemployment data for youth and expect it to be accurate, because most youth are in education, not in employment. That is why Governments from both sides of the House for the last nearly 20 years have used the term “neets”—young people not in education, employment, or training—because it addresses the people not in education, employment, or training.

Jenny Salesa: Does he agree with the conclusion of the Salvation Army report What Next? that the collapse in apprenticeship numbers points to poor planning on the part of the Government, and does he accept any responsibility for that?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I cannot count the number of ways in which I disagree with that poorly prepared Salvation Army report, which was, frankly, not something that you could consider research—which I think is a bit sad, actually. This Government has just shown, in the statistics that I have just read out to the member, that it is training more people through apprenticeships than ever before. Labour used to enrol people and forget to train them.

Jenny Salesa: Does he agree with Bill English and John Key that young Kiwis are “pretty damned hopeless”, and is that not the real reason why his Government is favouring immigration over doing more for young unemployed Kiwis looking for work?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The member’s assertion is disgraceful.

Points of Order

Tabling of Documents—Reports of 1080 Poison Exposure

RICHARD PROSSER (NZ First): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to table three documents. One is an incident report from the medical officer of health on the West Coast on an investigation into the exposure of two members of the public to 1080 during an aerial operation. It is dated September 2015. The second is a medical case review of one of those ladies, dated August 2015. The third is a statement to the New Zealand Police by another gentleman, who was also exposed to 1080 during an operation in Te Ānau. It is dated 16 October 2016.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table those three particular documents. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Urgent Debates Declined

Corrections, Department—Assaults on Prison Staff at Pāremoremo

Mr SPEAKER: I have received a letter from Mahesh Bindra seeking to debate under Standing Order 389 the assault on three Corrections staff at Pāremoremo prison. This is a particular case of recent occurrence for which there is ministerial responsibility. Assaults on prison staff are unacceptable, but the purpose of an urgent debate is to hold the Government to account for its actions. The member has not provided any authentication to show that the Government has announced a response to the assaults. There must be an element of urgency for the matter to take precedence over other business. I am not convinced that the matter raised by the member warrants the setting aside of the business of the House today. The application is, therefore, declined.

Appointments

Electoral Commission

Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister of Justice): I move, That, pursuant to section 4D of the Electoral Act 1993 and section 32 of the Crown Entities Act 2004, this House recommends Her Excellency the Governor-General appoint Kristy Pearl McDonald QC as deputy chairperson of the Electoral Commission and Alicia Wright as Chief Electoral Officer, each for a term of five years. The Electoral Commission plays a central role in New Zealand’s constitution and democracy. It ensures that parliamentary elections, by-elections, and referenda are held so that New Zealanders can effectively participate in their democracy, choosing their elected representatives and expressing their views on important issues. It manages the Māori electoral option, allowing those of Māori descent to choose which electoral roll they want to be on, and, overseas, the enrolment of electors for parliamentary and local elections. It also supports the Representation Commission in setting boundaries for general and Māori electorates after each census, and it provides advice and public education on electoral matters.

Given the significance of the commission, Parliament has decided that its three board members—the chair, the deputy chair, and the Chief Electoral Officer—are appointed by the Governor-General on the recommendation of the House of Representatives. Both the chair and the deputy chair serve in part-time roles, while the Chief Electoral Officer, who is also the board’s chief executive, works full-time. The people appointed to these important positions need to have strong experience in governance and knowledge of the public sector. They need good strategic planning skills and unquestionable personal integrity and independence. The Chief Electoral Officer, as the chief executive of the commission, also needs to be a strong manager of people and to hold expertise in financial and risk management. The appointee needs to have a sound understanding of the electoral process and a track record of demonstrating a clear commitment to neutrality and delivery in a complex political environment.

The term of the current Chief Electoral Officer, Robert Peden, expired in August 2015. Mr Peden kindly agreed to continue to serve as the Chief Electoral Officer while awaiting the outcome of the appointment process. Additionally, a new deputy chair needs to be appointed after Jane Hūria advised that she was also not available for reappointment and resigned with effect from 30 September this year. I particularly want to thank Mr Peden and Ms Hūria for their public service to the Electoral Commission and to New Zealand. Their dedication to the roles and to the Electoral Commission has been greatly appreciated. Their work was of a very high standard and was carried out with the utmost integrity.

The Electoral Commission is, undoubtedly, the cornerstone of ensuring our elections run smoothly and fairly. It is important that political parties across the spectrum are confident in the Electoral Commission’s neutrality. In the interest of ensuring that all parties were confident of this, I invited all political parties in Parliament to be part of a multipartisan appointment group, which undertook the selection of the new Chief Electoral Officer. I would like to thank all members of that group for their efforts in this process.

Alicia Wright is, I believe, an outstanding candidate for the role of Chief Electoral Officer. She has held senior leadership roles in central government for the past 13 years. She is currently Deputy Secretary Evaluation at the Ministry of Defence, and has previously served as General Manager, Centre for Social Research and Evaluation at the Ministry of Social Development. She has extensive policy, operations management, and central government experience, and is adept at working with volunteer networks and through online channels.

Likewise, Kristy McDonald is an outstanding candidate for the position of deputy chair. She is a Queen’s Counsel and has extensive experience both as a litigation lawyer and in numerous governance roles. She is a former chairperson of the Mental Health Review Tribunal and the Judicial Control Authority for racing, and was the inaugural chair of the Real Estate Agents Authority. She is currently a member of the Accident Compensation Corporation board and chair of Kiwifruit New Zealand. Ms McDonald has also been involved in a number of commissions of inquiry and ministerial inquiries, including the commission of inquiry into police conduct and the Pike River inquiry.

It is with great pleasure that I commend to the House Ms McDonald and Ms Wright for these two very important roles. They are both highly able New Zealanders and I am confident that they possess the range of skills and attributes that will ensure the Electoral Commission continues to administer our electoral system impartially, efficiently, and effectively.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): Labour supports this motion. We thank the Government for complying with the traditions that we have as to the appointments of these people, and Jacinda Ardern, on behalf of Labour, has been involved in those processes most closely. Can I add, to the thanks of the Minister of Justice, Labour’s thanks to the outgoing people in these two roles: Mr Peden and Ms Hūria.

Can I say, in respect of Ms Wright, who has been appointed as Chief Electoral Officer, that I think one of the most important challenges she faces is maintaining public confidence in our electoral system. I think it is a terrible shame what is happening in America at the moment, where one of the presidential candidates, Mr Trump, is trying—even in advance of what will, hopefully, be a loss on election day—to question the legitimacy of the electoral outcome and is undermining public confidence in it. In New Zealand, we do have great public confidence in our electoral processes, and that is deservedly so. In order to maintain that confidence, we have to do really well in making sure that as many people as possible are enrolled. People have a legal duty to enrol, but we have to facilitate that and make sure that we maintain the proportion of our population that are on the roll and make sure that people are entitled to exercise their right to vote.

At the last election, compared with the prior election, we had a drop of about 1 percent in the people who were estimated to be on the roll. In 2011, 93.7 percent of the population who were entitled to vote were on the roll; the estimate for the last election is that that was down to 92.6 percent. Maybe that is one of the reasons, according to the Justice and Electoral Committee, that of people who voted at the last election, there were about 40,675 invalid votes. That was split into two main groupings: over 10,000 were informal votes, and 29,800-odd—close to 30,000—were disallowed votes. The centrality of paying due attention to ensuring that our roll is robust and up to date is important, and it is becoming a harder task as more and more people—now, I think, more than 50 percent of all New Zealanders—live in rental accommodation. As the proportion of the population in rental accommodation increases there are more changes of addresses, and therefore it is a bigger task for the Electoral Commission to ensure that the roll is up to date.

I am sure that these people are up to the task. Alicia Wright, as we have been told, comes from Defence and has the background that is necessary to perform this important role. Kristy McDonald is known to many of us. I have had dealings with her over the years—actually, as far back as university, when she was ahead of me by a year at Otago University.

Kristy McDonald has had an outstanding career. In terms of the work that she has done on behalf of the Government, I can remember one particularly difficult inquiry that she ran for the Government into problems that there were around people who had been convicted of crimes but were on the police witness protection programme because of their cooperation with the Crown, and while on the police witness protection programme had committed traffic offences—some of them quite serious traffic offences—that had not been properly disclosed to the court and so they were treated as first offenders even though they had a prior record of criminality. I thought that Kristy McDonald handled herself very well in respect of that inquiry, and all of the other leading roles that she has had, as a prosecutor for the Crown, as defence counsel, and as the chair of various bodies, including disciplinary tribunals and commercial bodies. So I think she is very, very well qualified to be the deputy chairperson of the Electoral Commission. We are very lucky that she has agreed to serve in that role.

I am sure we will also be served well by Alicia—I am not sure how to pronounce that; I am sorry if I have got that wrong—Wright. I really just end by saying, again, that it is absolutely imperative for public confidence and democracy, which we all so believe in in this House, that we have good people to ensure that our elections and our election processes enable people to exercise their right of preference on the day.

JAN LOGIE (Green): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. I rise to offer the Green Party’s support for this motion for the appointments of Alicia Wright as the Chief Electoral Officer and Kristy McDonald QC as the new deputy chair of the Electoral Commission. It is particularly nice, I might say, to be able to stand in support of the appointment of two women to such important positions. It is nice to see that leadership being recognised.

Tracey Martin: On merit.

JAN LOGIE: On merit—exactly. It always is, usually, so much more of a struggle to have merit recognised, and it is great to see that breaking through. They are both supremely qualified women. We have absolute confidence in their ability to do the job and do it very well. It is, as has already been said, a very important job for us in this House. I hope, as well, that some people in the country at least understand how important it is for all of us.

It is quite a challenge ahead for both of them. We had about a million people who were eligible to vote who did not vote in the last general election—that was about a third of eligible voters who did not participate in our electoral system. That undermines our mandate in this House for every single one of us, and it means that a third of our population, roughly, is unrepresented in this House. I am very pleased to hear that these women are not just very well qualified but very passionate about the roles that they are taking on, because part of their roles is ensuring the integrity of the electoral system, and another part is providing advice, reports, and public education on electoral matters. It does seem to me that there is work—some very serious thinking—that we need to do in this country to be able to ensure better representation for those people, and give them confidence and a sense of purpose in voting.

It is with great pleasure, again, that I just offer our support and, also, thanks for the opportunity to provide feedback through this process, which our co-leader Metiria Turei did. So, again, the Green Party supports these nominations.

DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to congratulate Kristy Pearl McDonald, deputy chairperson of the Electoral Commission, and Alicia Wright, Chief Electoral Officer, on their appointments. We look forward to working with them, and the commission as a whole, constructively and cooperatively in the future, as we have in the past. New Zealand First will be pleased to vote in support.

MARAMA FOX (Co-Leader—Māori Party): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. The Māori Party also wants to congratulate Alicia Wright and Kristy McDonald on their appointments: one as the Chief Electoral Officer, and the other—Kristy McDonald QC—as the deputy chairperson of the Electoral Commission. The process we undertook to find these appointees was a robust one, and across the House everybody was involved. They are most important positions and, as has been spoken about already, there are a number of issues that confront us to ensure that we can get everybody out to vote.

In the recent Budget the Māori Party was able to successfully bid for a small pool of funding so that we can look at increased participation in the electoral process. A number of people have talked about civics education being needed in schools because at the last election we had the smallest turnout in our history of young people aged 18 to 25, specifically for Māori—ever. If that continues on the predicted pathway, then we will have smaller and smaller participation for the next 50 years. So we must do something. We must do something now. The inquiry that was held through the Justice and Electoral Committee made a number of recommendations. That amendment is coming to the House now, and it will give some direction for the appointments, for these two new members of the Electoral Commission.

For Māori there are a number of issues that we find are significant. One is the entrenchment of Māori seats. You can remove a Māori seat in this House with a vote of 50 percent, but to remove a general seat there must be a vote of 75 percent of the House. That, in and of itself, is an unjust law. There is the issue of the huge Māori electorates where, if we rose the threshold from the current 5 percent to 10 percent, then we could have a better distribution geographically by iwi to fit, and secure people—so the South Island could be the South Island on its own, and not all the way into Wellington, and so on. So these issues we look forward to taking up and moving forward into the future. We as a party support these appointments.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Building (Pools) Amendment Bill

Third Reading

Debate resumed from 18 October.

JENNY SALESA (Labour—Manukau East): Thank you for this opportunity to speak on the Building (Pools) Amendment Bill. This legislation was designed to reduce the compliance burden currently imposed on pool owners and territorial authorities in relation to residential pools, while maintaining child safety. We are surrounded by water here in Aotearoa New Zealand. However, unfortunately, our rate of drowning is one of the highest in the developed world.

One of the things that we try to do as parents is teach our young children to be able to learn how to swim. For many of us in this House who are parents, we can afford swimming lessons, but many other parents, especially those who are from lower-income families, cannot afford swimming lessons. Many of their children attend schools that no longer have swimming pools at the schools. We now have NGOs that donate swimming togs because many of our kids do not even have swimming togs. It is no wonder, when parents cannot afford to pay for swimming lessons and when their children cannot learn how to swim at schools, that we have so many of our children in Aotearoa New Zealand who cannot swim.

It is crucial, I believe, that we, as members of this House, do as much as possible to protect our children from the dangers of drowning. When this bill had its first reading, we on this side of the House found it somewhat disappointing to see that the Government made some of its proposals to amend the relevant law focus largely on cost savings, rather than on the prevention of harm and injury for our kids.

At the first reading Labour actually supported this bill’s referral to a select committee in good faith, because when we read the regulatory impact statement, we were told that the bill would save more lives than the current pool fencing legislation. However, having read some of the submissions that were given to the Local Government and Environment Committee, we know now that, for instance, the Paediatric Society of New Zealand, which submitted, said that the only thing that would improve our record on pool drownings would be compliance—actual compliance with the pool fencing statute. Water Safety New Zealand supported the society in its submission. The vast majority of the 19 or so preschool children who, unfortunately, died in home pools in the last 10 years passed away because of non-compliant fencing, gates, or doors. The number of children suffering serious or permanent injury due to near-death drownings in non-compliant pools is, unfortunately, so much higher.

One of the biggest changes, however, that was made to this bill at the select committee was a recommendation—which the Labour Party had argued for strongly, and can I say that we really appreciate that this is actually now part of the current legislation—that councils be required to inspect on a 3-yearly cycle instead of on a 5-yearly cycle. We had pushed hard for this, and we are glad to see it supported in the current bill.

Our parliamentary process has been robust, and it has enabled the general public to have some impact on this current bill. For instance, changes made after the select committee stage include that the purpose of the bill is now more broad. It included the prevention of drowning before, but it now includes the prevention of injury. Second, it provides that information should be provided to buyers regarding spa pools and other small pools. Third, it also includes that information be provided to councils about spa pools. Last, it includes rules for distinguishing between 760-millimetre walls and locked lids.

However, one of the main reasons why we do not support the current bill is the fact that it is proposing that alarms are adequate, instead of having a door or a fence to ensure that our kids do not drown. The Fencing and Swimming Pools Act of 1987 was designed for the safety of our young children, and we believe that having a fence or physical door is the right way to go. Labour does not support this bill. Thank you very much.

SARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill): As the deputy chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee, I am very pleased to be taking this call in the third reading of the Building (Pools) Amendment Bill. Of course, this is a bill to maintain the protections to prevent drowning and injuries of young people when around swimming pools and the like.

Of course, this bill looks to repeal the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act and to simplify or codify the rules surrounding the fencing of pools into the Building Act. The reason for doing that is to make it more simple for people to understand the regulations and to make sure that they comply. I think that that is one element that is so pleasing about this bill. As the mother of two small children, I am well aware that you need to keep an eagle eye on children around water.

One of the good things that will come out of this bill is the regime in respect of inspections. Currently there is no regulation on inspections of fencing around swimming pools. Some councils are doing it relatively regularly; others are not doing it at all. This bill means that inspections will need to occur on a 3-yearly basis. Not only that, the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment will appoint independent inspectors to make sure that inspections occur.

That task will be delegated to local authorities, but independent, suitably qualified people such as tradespeople can be employed to undertake those inspections. That can occur as a matter of simple maintenance around the property. I think that is a good thing.

It is a good thing to make sure that people are educated about the regulations surrounding the fencing of swimming pools to make sure that they are compliant and to make sure that they are maintaining a safe environment to prevent young people from accessing pools, ultimately injuring themselves or, unfortunately, drowning. Along with that, there is a stepped framework for regulation, so if people are found not to be complying, the council can use warnings, infringement notices, or, ultimately, can go ahead and prosecute in the judiciary.

The other thing that I am quite pleased about is acknowledging that a locked cover in the use of a spa or a hot tub is adequate protection rather than fencing. That means that if people are going to buy a spa pool or a hot tub they can be educated about the requirements of fencing, through a retailer. Obviously, the simplest thing to do to keep young people out of hot tubs and spa pools when they are not being used is to use that lockable cover—and most people do that. Not a lot of councils know when a spa pool is being purchased by a property owner and therefore, with the retailers on the case, they can advise spa pool owners of what compliance is required.

So look, I think that this is a good balanced bill. Again, it looks to maintain the protections to prevent injury and drowning of young people in swimming pools. It also looks to codify and simplify regulations so that people who own swimming pools or spa pools understand what the regulations are and can comply. Thank you.

EUGENIE SAGE (Green): The Green Party opposes the Building (Pools) Amendment Bill. The Minister for Building and Housing in his speech at the start of the third reading claimed that the main deficiency in the law around swimming pools was compliance, and he claimed that this bill would fix that by the requirement to inspect every 3 years. That is more mythmaking by Nick Smith. It is not law changes that promote compliance, but resources that agencies put into actually undertaking the compliance, and then following up when they find that the law has not been complied with.

The fact that 30 of some 67 councils have no periodic inspections was probably down to limited resources that those councils had, rather than a defect in the law. It was spin by the Minister to disguise the fact that the bill is removing the clear focus that the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act, the existing Act, has and has had for the last 30 years on protecting children from drowning and near drowning. It was spin because we know that the motivation behind this bill, which repeals the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act, has been to save money and to reduce compliance costs for pool owners, rather than to reduce the risk of harm and injury to children when they are around swimming pools.

But I guess it is not surprising that we have that as the Government’s ambition because, of course, this is the Government that will not even have a target for reducing child poverty, which rejected the suggestions of the Children’s Commissioner about setting a target, and which seems to ignore the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals where there is a target to eliminate poverty in all its forms. So if we have a Government that is quite happy to have a target for getting rid of predators but not one for reducing child poverty, it is hardly surprising that in this bill the emphasis is on reducing compliance cost rather than protecting children from drowning.

The Minister also claimed that the bill was about ensuring that regulations around pool fencing were incorporated into the Building Act. But if you read the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act—the existing Act—you already have good linkages with the Building Act. Pool safety requirements were included in the new building code back in 1992, and there is a standard around this from 2006. So that justification fails as well. The best testament to the fact that the existing law—the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act—is working has been the major reduction in child drownings since the Act was passed in 1987. We had here in New Zealand a truly awful record—in terms of child drownings—during the 1970s and 1980s. As the number of home swimming pools increased, we had, in the worst year—1981—17 children drowning in home pools, and that, of course, led to the campaign that resulted in the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act. Now, as a result of that Act—30 years later—we have had the number of drownings for the under-fives dropping from an average of 10 a year to 3. If it is not broken, why meddle with it?

Many of the submitters—and they were highly respected submitters from paediatric health, Starship, Water Safety New Zealand, Plunket—highlighted the success of the existing law. As the trauma coordinator at Starship in Auckland said, it is one of the most effective child safety laws ever, so why tamper with it? The Auckland Regional Public Health Service suggested that the lives of over 200 children have been saved by the current law and at least as many children have avoided permanent serious brain injury from a near-drowning. So we in the Green Party are opposing this bill. Yes, there have been changes through select committee that have made some improvements—but they have also complicated the legislation as well.

The major concern that the Green Party has is that by repealing the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act and leaving it to the Building Act and the performance-based system under the Building Act—which, of course, led to leaky buildings—we have got much less certainty around what constitutes a fence and an adequate barrier around swimming pools to protect them from young children. Certainly there is a schedule in this bill, which sets out a standard for swimming pool fencing, and it does include some specific design details. But what it also allows in the bill is for pool owners to apply to local authorities for a waiver to set in place there, and for local authorities to grant those waivers—they can grant them if there are no significant risks to children.

We think that that provides far too much uncertainty, and far too much flexibility for councils to not have robust fencing around pools. It will lead to a lot of debate about what constitutes an adequate “barrier” between pool owners wanting to put in place fancy landscaping and the local council. So we are losing that clear focus that we have in the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act and the very clear prescription around how fences should be constructed, what height they should be, and the clearance between the ground and the fence that ensures that everyone is certain that children do not get access to pools.

One of the other reasons the Green Party is opposing the bill is because it uses the term “physical barrier” rather than “fence”, and that, again, creates more uncertainty and flexibility in terms of councils. We are really disappointed that in the Committee stage the Government rejected Jacinda Ardern’s Supplementary Order Paper 208 around alarming, which would have seen a strengthening of the bill, by making sure that there were much more robust provisions there; and that the Government rejected Metiria Turei’s Supplementary Order Paper 213, which drew on Australian research about the importance of four-sided fencing that isolates children from the pool; and that the bill potentially permits dwellings that have openings to poolside and does not require enough rigour around those doors that can open to a poolside. We should be following the Australian example and ensuring that we have four-sided fencing.

A lot of the organisations that made submissions were very compelling in advocating the benefits of the current law and the problems that this bill will create. We do not want to be in the position of saying “We told you so.” We do want the Government to look at this legislation very, very carefully. If there is a single increase in the drowning figures, the Act should come back to Parliament. This Parliament should not be in the business of passing legislation that harms people, and this bill, by repealing the current law, which has been such a success in protecting young children from drowning, is at very real risk of doing that. That is why the Green Party is opposing the bill.

DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): New Zealand First will continue to support this bill because we think it does put child safety first. It does that in a way that we believe is practical and sensible, to ensure that as far as is reasonably possible the child safety objective will be fulfilled. For example, the provision for effective physical barriers other than fences, which will now include, for example, cliffs, will continue to be acceptable. I have to disagree somewhat with what the last speaker, Eugenie Sage, said about that, because I believe that there are certainly good examples of perfectly adequate physical barriers other than fences that would serve just as well as a means of protecting children. Similarly, water bodies not used for swimming, such as garden ornamental pools, which were caught in many cases under the current law, will not now be caught under this bill. So we think this bill does make some fairly sensible changes and does not actually compromise the child safety objective at all.

The key changes that are made concerning child-resistant covers are also quite welcome. These were deemed to be inadequate as a means of restricting access to spa pools and hot tubs, in the current legislation, but, as we all know, the design of these pool covers, which we are now going to call small heated-pool covers, have improved and have improved a great deal in terms of providing a perfectly secure means of providing protection and safety for children, provided they are locked.

So the pools with covers that comply with the Building Act, as they will be required to do, will also not need to be fenced as well as have a safe and effective locked cover—that is quite sensible—nor will a building consent be required. The reality that we learnt is that 96 percent of such pools are not actually fenced now, so when they are not in use, and have effective covers, it is perfectly clear to us that there is no need for the bill to treat them in the same way as swimming pools. Those covers should be perfectly adequate, provided they are locked when not in use.

We in New Zealand First particularly like the fact that retailers and manufacturers are now going to be required to inform buyers in writing about their obligations under the Act when they buy pool products designed for swimming, wading, paddling, or bathing. We like it that they will be required to provide the purchaser with specified information as to how to maintain and keep the pool secure, so they will become not just a purchaser but also a minder of the pool that they have purchased. They are going to be required to accept responsibility in these ways for keeping the pool safe and keeping children away from any accident that might occur.

We think that is a good way to assist in the vital need to inform and educate pool owners. I cannot emphasise enough that if we are really serious about ensuring safety for children, as far as pools and the like are concerned, then you cannot do better than see that people who have those pools and operate them are well educated and realise what their responsibilities are.

We also approve of the new provision to make the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment responsible to enforce this, because we do not think it would be practicable at all to ask local councils to do so, but of course they will still have to enforce pool barrier requirements. I would have to say about that that I do think that councils need to lift their game somewhat in that area. Some are very, very good at carrying out those responsibilities, but it is quite clear to us that some could do a lot better. I hope that those who have not put the effort in that they should will now take another look at this and lift their game, as I have said.

New section 67A, inserted by clause 6C, is also very welcome. It allows for waivers and modifications to pool barrier requirements where circumstances relating to a particular pool make it acceptable, and provided that there will be no danger to children. For those reasons, I would again have to disagree with the Greens’ position on that, because provided that that is the case, that the councils concerned ensure that there will not be any danger to children arising from a consent or modification, then I do not see why there should be a problem. I do not see that there would be any uncertainty or that such pools with such modifications should be any less safe than any other.

You do have to place some trust and some confidence in local councils and their officials to be able to carry out those kinds of responsibilities effectively and responsibly. We in New Zealand First think they can do that, provided, as I have already said, they do lift their game and take these responsibilities seriously. We think that they can and they will. We similarly approve of the new definition of “pool operator” in clause 5 so that it is perfectly clear who it is that has the responsibility.

Looking at standardisation—standardisation in terms of how the territorial authorities exercise their duties and responsibilities in respect of inspecting and certifying residential pools is of very high importance. This is actually the crux of the whole thing. So having consistent, standardised, regular compliance processes across the country is nothing less than just plain common sense, and that is what the bill does. It achieves this with a nationwide standard residential pool inspection cycle, requiring mandatory 3-year inspections. Currently, for example, under the current Act, an owner of two properties that may be in different districts may well have pools in these two locations with quite different requirements for compliance. That does not make very much sense, and it does not help in achieving the child safety objective. Consistency, as far as these things are concerned, does help that objective because it means less confusion and less uncertainty.

We think the bill goes some distance towards fixing that issue, and the additional cost for that new regime, which will be quite substantial, will be well worth the money if even one child is prevented from drowning as a result. So I do not agree that, really, the bill is aimed just at saving costs. I think it is aimed at improving safety, and we do see that most particularly in the standardisation provisions. The bill also introduces a graduated enforcement regime, with infringement notices as the preferred tool for compliance, and court prosecutions only for serious breaches. I think that is the way to go. We are not trying to make criminals out of people who perhaps need to do better, as far as these requirements are concerned; we just need to make sure that they understand their responsibilities and why they need to take the actions that are required of them.

Infringement notices will achieve that, but, of course, where somebody persistently does not do what they are required to do, then obviously you have to take the further step of a prosecution. But I think that is a good way to go, and in concert with the better provisions for education and notice to purchasers, that is a good way to make sure that people comply with the provisions in the Act.

So, overall, New Zealand First accepts that with all those changes that have been made, which we think are sensible, the bill will provide a balanced approach and one that will provide for safety for children and that will be better than the current legislation provides for, and it will do so in a practical, effective, and common-sense way. So for those reasons, as I have said, New Zealand First is actually quite happy to continue to support this bill. We think it is a bill that needs to be passed.

PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): E Te Mana Whakawā Tuarua, mauri ora. I find myself in the awkward and somewhat extraordinary position of agreeing, largely, with what Denis O’Rourke, the member who has just resumed his seat, has said.

Denis O’Rourke: Very sensible.

PAUL FOSTER-BELL: Ha! He is a member who is often, sadly, mistaken in this House, but on this particular occasion every point that he has made has been, I think, a very sound one and a good one. It is actually somewhat unfortunate that when we heard the speech from the Hon David Parker, who is an assiduous and hard-working member of this House, on the last occasion that we were dealing with this bill, he seemed to agree—as does Mr O’Rourke—with 90 percent of the content of the bill and, for some reason, has allowed the perfect to become the enemy of the very good, which I believe this bill is.

There are a number of very sensible and pragmatic measures that improve upon the current legislation. I do want to agree with what Eugenie Sage said. The current legislation—the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987—is a very good piece of law. It did save the lives of many, many children in New Zealand. This bill goes further and brings in some sensible measures to further enhance that. For instance, it deals with the lack of clarity around interior doors that open into courtyards in which there are fenced pools. Currently, there is a lack of clarity around whether those doors have to be self-closing and self-latching. They will now have to be self-latching or alarmed. We must make use of new technology that is available to us to ensure children’s lives are protected.

It also clarifies that an objective of this bill is to reduce serious injury. We know that brain damage that can ensue from drowning is a real problem. We have heard from submitters that approximately 200 children over the course of the last 30 years have been saved from serious brain injury from drowning because of the previous Act. We want to make sure that we make use of the technology and systems available to us in this modern world to continue that, going forward.

I also think it is very sensible that we have a standardised regime of inspection—3-yearly—given that some councils throughout New Zealand do not inspect at all. There will be a number of councils that do have to lift their game, but allowing it to be outsourced to suitably skilled tradespeople will, hopefully, enable this to be done in a cost-effective way and will create a system that is high in quality and gives consumers choice as well as protecting children’s lives. This is a good bill, and it must pass.

DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert): I think we have some agreement on the need for good legislation for swimming pool fencing and protection. We have heard of the statistics from both before and after the 1987 Fencing of Swimming Pools Act came through, when drownings basically dropped from 10 a year down to about three. It was a remarkable piece of legislation in terms of saving lives. We heard from submitters to the Local Government and Environment Committee that for every death that occurs, there are about nine children who are seriously injured by near-drowning, which can cause brain damage and all sorts of other damage—through both the considerable cost to the families but also, obviously, through a financial cost to the State as well.

This bill moved closer to where Labour wanted it to be and to where it felt it could support it, but it never quite got there. It was legislation that was originally looked at by Shane Jones when he was in Government. He was looking at it, though, in terms of how to enhance the safety of children around swimming pools at the same time as looking at compliance costs—but strictly in that order. First of all, he was looking at safety; secondly, he was looking at the reduction of compliance costs. What we had when Nick Smith took over this bill was the primary focus was very much on reducing compliance costs. What I think we have done here is weakened the strength of the 1987 legislation in terms of protecting child safety.

We wanted to see a number of changes in this bill, particularly those in the Supplementary Order Paper that Jacinda Ardern put up, which was Supplementary Order Paper 208. That called for the physical closing of doors between a house and a swimming pool, not just an alarm—an alarm where somebody has gone away somewhere, where there is music on loud, the alarm is faulty, or whatever, and the alarm is not heard—but a physical barrier to stop children from being able to get to a body of water where they might drown. That was, I believe, a very sensible, pragmatic, and lifesaving measure. I disagree with the previous speaker, Paul Foster-Bell, who talked about that being somehow modern technology and about how alarms are just as good. I do not believe that that is true. I do believe that a physical, self-latching door is very important for stopping young children from walking out into, say, a patio area and falling into a swimming pool. An alarm cannot achieve the same aim as that.

I think that for us, probably, one of the most overwhelmingly persuasive points was the range of highly considered and very reputable people who came before the select committee—people from Watersafe Auckland, the Auckland Regional Public Health Service, the Paediatrics Society of New Zealand, Starship Children’s Health—all people who have been working on the front line with child death through drowning or child injury through drowning. All of them said: “Please do not put this legislation through as it stands, because it will weaken what we have at the moment, and as a result of that we will have more drownings.” Unfortunately, the Government has not gone far enough in meeting those needs. It has gone some way, and I will say that we now have a better regulatory regime in place, which is that councils will be obliged to check pools and the fencing of pools every 3 years. It is very interesting to note that when councils looked at the ability of homeowners to comply with the regulations, only about one-third of the people they visited were compliant. It will definitely make a difference—ensuring that homeowners will, in fact, be doing that.

Mr Deputy Speaker, have I got only 5 minutes? Is it a split call?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: You are on a 5-minute call, so you have got about 3 seconds left.

DAVID SHEARER: 3 seconds. Ha, ha! For those reasons, we will not be supporting this bill. We appreciate that the bill has moved somewhat, but it is still not adequate as far as protecting the lives of children is concerned.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Jan Logie—a 5-minute call.

JAN LOGIE (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Greens are not supporting the Building (Pools) Amendment Bill. I think that this has been presented to the House by way of the Government saying that it is about striking a balance between reduced compliance costs for residential pool owners and territorial local authorities, and maintaining child safety. For the Government, those things are apparently in balance—of equal importance. We know that the legislation that is in place at the moment, I think, has been noted as the most successful child safety legislation ever passed in this country. So this legislation that we are amending, which has been so overwhelmingly successful in saving children’s lives, is now being undermined for the purpose of reducing compliance costs.

We have been told through the select committee process that there were 200 lives saved from fencing swimming pools and several thousand children were prevented from near-drowning as a result of the clear, strong rules that were contained in the 1987 legislation. But this Government looked at that legislation and thought: “Hmm! The costs are too high. We had better bring that to the House and balance that. Those 200 children’s lives that are being saved—well, the compliance costs are too high. Best we balance that.”

We heard, through the select committee process, from the Auckland Regional Public Health Service, we heard from Water Safety New Zealand, and we heard from the New Zealand Society of Paediatric Surgeons—all opposing these changes on the basis that they wanted to put the safety of children first. They saw this legislation as undermining the safety of those children. It was noted by the New Zealand Society of Paediatric Surgeons that the current law had reduced the drowning rate from around 10 children a year to only three, saving seven lives every single year since 2002. That Government has listened to that evidence, and it has said: “The lives of those children, or compliance costs?”. It is favouring compliance costs.

We heard from some of the families who had had children who had died through drowning. They told the select committee—they told this Government—“Don’t change the law. We lost a child through a drowning. We know what that means for a family. We do not want a single other family to have to suffer that unfairly and unjustly.” I can only assume that their reference to unfairness and injustice is in relation to a perception that this Government is choosing to balance child safety with compliance costs—that that, to them, is not fair for those families who may lose a child, through the lack of clarity and the loosening of this legislation, when they have come in front of us and told us clearly: “Don’t do this.”

The Children’s Commissioner came to the select committee and argued very strongly for changes to strengthen the existing law. But, again, we have a loosening of that law. Plunket came and said that it was seriously concerned about the impacts of this bill on children’s lives and on families’ lives.

For the Green Party, compliance costs and child safety do not balance out. For the Green Party, child safety comes first. We cannot support this legislation.

NUK KORAKO (National): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. He mihi atu ki a koutou katoa. As the final speaker on the Government side, I stand in support of this bill, the Building (Pools) Amendment Bill. I also would just like to summarise the major points of this bill.

There are a number of measures in this bill that explicitly strengthen pool safety. Retailers themselves will now be required to inform people who buy spas or portable pools of the pool safety rules, to help people understand how to use these pools legally and also safely. Councils will now be able to require inspection of swimming pools every 3 years. Also, talking about councils, they will have a more effective range of enforcement tools. Warning notices will be the preferred tool for compliance, with infringement notices and court prosecutions when warnings are ignored.

So that is the first part of the major changes around safety, but there are other measures in this bill that reduce the burden of compliance, where that can be sensibly done without impacting on safety. Spa pools and hot tubs with safety covers will no longer be required to be fenced, and this is just common sense. We know that children are not at risk from a tub that has a safety cover on it, and to require a fence as well is regulation for no purpose.

The other part is that we are simplifying the rules in this bill by making pool safety provisions part of the Building Act, and that is a major change. We are removing non-residential pools from these requirements, since they are already covered by health and safety regulations themselves. Also, the bill clarifies that garden pools and other water hazards, where the risk of drowning is much lower than in swimming pools, will not need to meet the swimming pool fencing requirements. Another part is that there is also recognition that barriers such as a cliff face or a high retaining wall would do the same job as a fence in terms of preventing unsupervised children from getting into the pool itself.

Finally, I just want to acknowledge the great work of the Local Government and Environment Committee. It is very much a committee like the Māori Affairs Committee. It is very pragmatic and principled ki ahau ki te tautoko o te pire, otirā, tēnei pire e mihi atu ki a koutou katoa, kia ora [towards me in support of the bill, but this one in particular, and so I acknowledge you all].

ADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour—Te Tai Hauāuru): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare, otirā, tēnā tātou katoa. It is a pleasure to take a call on the Building (Pools) Amendment Bill. We cannot be too complacent about water safety, and this bill is all about water safety. As a youngster, I grew up in the small town of Taihape, where not very many people had their own pools, and so we all had to go down to the river or to the local swimming pool.

Denis O’Rourke: That wasn’t fenced either.

ADRIAN RURAWHE: No, they were not fenced at all. The barriers were not that great to get into the local swimming pool, which the local kids did. I did not; I never did that, of course—jumped over the fence.

We cannot be too complacent about water safety. As has been pointed out by other speakers, we are bringing in new regulations around pool safety and water safety because too many New Zealanders drown and too many of our children drown. Interestingly, I was reading that the number of children who drown around Christmas-time is particularly bad, and so I just wanted to note that.

At the first reading, which I spoke on, Labour supported this bill to go to the Local Government and Environment Committee. We felt that there were some things in this bill that were very worthwhile. We felt that it could be better. Through the select committee stage, I noted, the select committee made some amendments that do, in fact, make the bill better. But at the second reading, Jacinda Ardern, on our side, indicated that we would put up a Supplementary Order Paper to make the bill even better than it is now. Unfortunately, that Supplementary Order Paper was not accepted.

I do not believe that this bill is as good as it could be, for the following reasons. It is really about the option for pool owners to have alarmed doors, rather than automatically closing doors. With an automatically closing door there is a direct action and intervention, in that when the door is opened there is a mechanical action or intervention that happens automatically. With an alarm, the action or intervention relies on human intervention. That is not automatic, because human intervention requires someone to hear the alarm and then respond to it. There is no guarantee that, when an alarm is set off because the door to the pool is open, someone is going to intervene, and that is very worrying for our party and for a number of members here tonight.

I think the potential harm from not having an intervention or action taken every time an alarm goes off on a door is particularly worrying. I link it to some research in the United Kingdom over smoke alarms, because with smoke alarms you need a direct intervention as well—like get out of the place. The research took place in the UK and the problem was that smoke alarms installed in small homes and flats would obviously, because of the size of the flat, go off from the toast burning or cooking smoke that in larger homes would not set off the alarm. So the action that people living in those sorts of situations took was to turn the alarm off. That is also a problem with alarmed doors going out to swimming pools. This is because someone could intervene and turn the alarm off for a number of reasons—mainly because the alarms are annoying when they go off when you actually want to leave the door open. They are annoying just like a smoke alarm that goes off every time you have breakfast and have toast. So that is concerning—that is very concerning.

I support the statement by Eugenie Sage when she said that she did not want at some stage to be the one to say “I told you so.”—none of us want that. None of us want even a single child to drown because no one responded to the alarm, or one child to drown because someone was annoyed with the alarm and disconnected it. None of us want that. I would not even want to be the one to say “I told you so.” either, but nor do I want that on my conscience by voting for this.

So I say to the House that we will not be supporting this bill. We acknowledge the good things that the Local Government and Environment Committee has done to make this bill better, but, as I said before, it could be much better and I am very concerned about having alarmed doors rather than automatically self-closing doors as the preferred option. I think if we take into account the difference in the cost between having an automatically closing door and an alarm—and it was mentioned that we must support new technology, well, there must surely be an opportunity for new technology to come up with automatically closing doors that are closer in cost to merely putting an alarm on that door. So, as I said, we will not be supporting this bill, and I think members should think really carefully about those two options that I spoke about. Kia ora.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Building (Pools) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

Ayes 73

New Zealand National 59; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Noes 45

New Zealand Labour 29; Green Party 14; Māori Party 2.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Education Legislation Bill

Third Reading

Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): I move, That the Education Legislation Bill be now read a third time. This Government has great ambitions for the children of New Zealand. We have focused on continuously improving the education system: all the levers that contribute to supporting principals and teachers; boards made up of parents; and providing the best education possible for our young people. We want to make sure that they leave our education system connected, confident, lifelong learners who are able to both foot it here at home and to participate internationally, if they so choose. So it is important that legislation supports that ambition of ours. This bill in its third reading today is an example of how we are giving structure and force to that ambition. I would like to thank the individuals and organisations who took the time to make a submission on the bill, the Education and Science Committee for its attentive consideration, and the officials who worked on this bill.

There are a number of elements that are described in this bill and reflect the policy intent we have as a Government, which can be succinctly described as parents having choice; schools, early learning providers, and tertiary institutions having flexibility, such that the provision they offer suits the personalised and diverse needs of our young people; and that those young people are getting real results in real time. You can see that set of policy imperatives in the provisions within this bill.

For example, we are providing for principals to be in charge of more than one school at one time. We are not requiring that that occurs; we are simply providing an option. There are circumstances around the country where that option is necessary. Those circumstances are primarily rural and amongst smaller schools. Of the 2,500 schools we have across the country, about 40 percent have rolls of 100 to 150 or fewer. That means providing leadership—exemplary leadership—of teaching and of schools for our young people in every one of them. There have been times when that option has not been readily available, or it has not been as successful as we might have wished because the particular principal available may not have been, if you like, fit for purpose for that particular community. The provision in this bill is very much about how, where these circumstances arise, there will be an option at law for boards that agree to do so to appoint a principal to more than one school—and, clearly, where the principal herself or himself wishes to do that. Again, I want to reiterate, this bill it is not requiring that this occur, but that there be an option.

Another area that reflects this Government’s investment into quality of leadership in teaching is in our provision for a new trainee teacher category. It is providing for a mix of both academic training—which we have through our initial teacher education—and, where there is a period of employment for a trainee who has not yet finished their qualification, we want to make it lawful for them to be able to practice in a school. A really good example of that is the Teach First NZ programme that we are funding, where people with great qualifications who think they might like to be teachers—and we think that it would be great if they were—have the opportunity to blend both academic training and practical experience teaching in schools. We want to make that possible and this law does that. We have seen great success out of that practice; Tāmaki College, for instance, springs to mind.

Another example of the flexibility imperative that I mentioned earlier is that this bill provides for more flexible hours around schools. It is not about schools to be offering fewer hours of teaching, but it is saying that the two 2-hour blocks that schools are required to offer—which, by the way, does not mean it has to be a minimum, either—can be offered at different times to the conventional model of 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. With 21st century living all of us, as parents, and some of us as grandparents, have found greater diversity and flexibility in the way we learn, the way we work, and so forth. We want to make sure that our education legislation underpins flexibility of choice—where in a community, the board, having consulted with its parent community and anyone else affected, could look to change times. That may become more desirable as more and more of our schools and early childhood centres form the fabulous communities of learning and work together to make sure that that whole pathway is organised as efficiently and as effectively as the families in those communities would like. So we are providing for that.

Another example of flexibility of choice for parents and of opportunities for providers is that this bill provides for home-based early childhood education providers to also offer out-of-school care opportunities for young people. That means that parents with differently aged children—as all parents are who have more than two or three children who are not born at the same time—are able to find a carer who can provide for kids who are at an age before going to school, as well as for those kids who are already at school. Again, we are just providing for that. We have also anticipated that online learning—online access—is going to be a growing part of the reality of young people’s educational experience, and in this bill we are providing for the National Student Number to be used as one credible access online, rather than require multiple entries by the same person. We know that, in practice, this will be welcomed by students.

The other thing we are providing for in this bill is for tertiary education institutions to apply to become sponsors of partnership schools—kura hourua—and, in addition, there are provisions for their investment in related entities. We are very keen to see that we get the greatest utility out of all of the educational providers and institutions that we have available to us. What this does—again, it does not require tertiary education institutions to do either of these activities, but where that choice is made by them, then this law will support that to be the case.

There are also some administrative matters that we want to clean up, if you like, or make more administratively effective, and this bill provides for that. In particular, there is an outdated provision that we are improving that requires the Ministry of Education to make provision for financial reporting and support for schools. We are clarifying how that should actually occur by providing for it in this bill. Here it is, here: we want to make sure that “operational specifications relating to the provision of payroll services to school boards” that are unnecessary are removed; and, in addition, that the State Services Commissioner “can approve generic or specific terms and conditions of employment that are additional to, but not [contrary to], those that have been agreed to in a collective agreement” but that, out of time, may be necessary.

Finally, there are a multiplicity of provisions in other Acts. Not all things that relate to education are in the Education Act, and this bill updates outdated aspects of those statutes while ensuring the original intents of the Acts are honoured appropriately.

Those are the main provisions that are set out in this bill. I think that, having run through what the specific provisions are, all members of the House can see how they support our policy intent of providing choice to parents. Parents have the greatest interest in their children, as do grandparents in their grandchildren, and we want to ensure that the choices available for them are supported at law. Equally, we want to make sure that educational providers have as much flexibility to design services that meet the different and personal needs of those young people who are in their care as is possible. Finally, of course, the whole purpose of this updated legislation is to make sure that our young people are getting the best opportunities available to them, whether in their earliest learning years, whether at primary school, whether through the use of out-of-school care, or whether at secondary schools and going on into tertiary options. I think this bill admirably sets it all out, and I now commend the bill to the House.

JENNY SALESA (Labour—Manukau East): Thank you for this call on the Education Legislation Bill. We had so many teachers, professionals, parents, and a variety of organisations come to present to us at the Education and Science Committee, and I would like to thank them all for their submissions. The education legislation in Aotearoa should be simplified, modernised, and made less prescriptive. However, the bill that we are debating in the House today does not deliver on any of those things. This is a bill that the Labour Party does not support.

This legislation will allow a principal to run multiple schools—a “super-principal”, if you like. However, what is the role of a principal right now? They are the supervisor. They are the mentor for all their teaching staff and support staff. They are the curriculum leader, they provide overall leadership for the school, and they set the tone and the culture of the school. A principal does more than a full-time job looking after just one school.

This legislation will allow a principal to look after and manage more than just one school. However, what would we expect from a good principal when they are actually, for instance, the manager of up to four schools, and how would the relationship work between the principal and, say, the boards of trustees? Who would be the employer? Would it be one school board, would it be two, would it be three, or, for instance, if it is four, would it be all four school boards? These are questions that we asked at the select committee, and these are questions that were posed by submitters at the select committee.

We also asked the officials for their opinion on this, and it was not actually clear how the issues would be handled. Say, for instance, the working relationship with a “super-principal” was to break down—who would make the call to disestablish the role of that “super-principal”? Would it be one or would be all four school boards? Who would be the mediator overall, making sure that such a relationship would actually work moving forward? None of these things was answered to our satisfaction at the select committee.

I move now to the provisions about school opening hours. We in the Labour Party were open to discussing school opening hours, but we need to look practically at the implications of allowing schools to open at different times. Say, for instance, two working parents have three kids: one at preschool, one at primary school, and one at high school. What if all of these three schools were to change their opening hours by half an hour in the morning? What if the preschool opens half an hour earlier, the primary school opens half an hour later, and the high school changes its school time as well so that they are not well aligned? How would that affect the parents, especially if they are both working? It will have an impact on their jobs unless both parents work for themselves and are able to actually have control over their working hours. It would affect a lot of our parents.

When we posed this question to the officials at select committee, the answer that we were given was: “Oh, the communities at the local level will come up with the answer.” But what if the primary schools, the intermediate schools, and the high schools do not actually get together and make sure that their hours align? It will, as I say, affect working parents especially.

This legislation will also allow, as we heard from the honourable Minister, for a new category of teaching positions: a trainee teacher. The Hon Hekia Parata spoke about Teach First NZ, which allows for teachers to teach at high school, but this legislation allows for trainee teachers at all levels. Most of the submitters, when they came to the Education and Science Committee, did not agree with this particular proposal. Most of them were teachers, some were parents, and they said things like that they want their teachers to be qualified and registered. As a parent, I have got to agree. When I actually send my kids to school, my preference is for the teachers of my kids to be registered and fully qualified teachers.

I would like to acknowledge my colleague Chris Hipkins at this time, because it was he who actually went begging for our committee to be allowed a period of time for the public to make submissions on this new part of the bill to allow trainee teachers. Allowing trainee teachers to teach all of our students is a proposal that so many of us do not agree with. We would prefer, as I said earlier on, that our teachers are registered and 100 percent qualified. We think that one of the reasons why this proposal is being proposed at this time is, you know, the other legislation that is coming through that would allow bulk funding—global funding. This would actually then ensure that if teachers moved on, allowing trainee teachers would be a way for schools to, probably, manage the funds that they have. As we know, there is not that much funding going to education right now. The compulsory sector has a freeze in its operational funds.

I move now to the partnership school model. Allowing our tertiary institutions to sponsor partnership schools or charter schools is, in our opinion, an admission by the Government that the partnership school model has failed. When partnership schools and charter schools were introduced in this House, we were told that one of the things it would do is attract funding from private folks—capital funding would come in to help establish these partnership schools. When we do a fact check on this, we know that almost all of the charter schools that we have right now—almost all of them—do not have any funding from outside coming in. Most of them are 100 percent covered by public funding.

What we also know when we look at the Partnership Schools Authorisation Board is that it has expressed its disappointment at the calibre of applications it has had coming through to establish partnership schools. We think that allowing polytechnics to fund partnership schools is indeed an admission by this Government that the partnership school model has failed. We know that one of the schools—at Whangaruru—has failed; indeed, it has now closed. Millions of dollars have gone into that school, and we know that we may not even get any of that money coming back to us as taxpayers. Labour strongly opposes this bill. Thank you very much.

TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): I rise to say a few words this afternoon in the third reading of the Education Legislation Bill. Perhaps, if you would not mind, I can just start with an acknowledgment of the Minister Hekia Parata, who spoke to launch this discussion this afternoon, in light of her announcement yesterday. I think she will go down as one of the greatest Ministers of Education that we have had, and what is clear—and you saw it again this afternoon—is the absolute focus that she has on our children—

Scott Simpson: Passion.

TODD MULLER: —and their achievement and attainment through the education system. As Scott Simpson in front of me has said, it is a passion that you can see. It is a passion she has lived by and it is a passion that she has driven through the education sector. She has got a lot to be proud of. When this Government took over, Māori education achievement in National Certificate of Educational Achievement level 2 was at 44 percent. It is now well over 70 percent, and the national level is 83 percent. These are real results, and as a parent of three kids in the education system, I am delighted with the leadership that she has provided. And was it not great to see the near unanimity of acknowledgment of her contribution yesterday? It was not exclusive, of course. There were a couple of unions that did not have the grace to acknowledge her contribution, but, in my view, that actually talks more to their lack of reputation than it does to the Minister.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: To the bill.

TODD MULLER: This is a particularly strong piece of legislation, which we on this side of the House are very, very happy to support.

One of the interesting, I guess, components of the difference in philosophies that we have seen throughout the debate—we have heard it already this afternoon; we have heard it every single time this House has reflected on this piece of legislation—is this view from the Opposition that what we have embedded in this legislation is compulsion. It is not compulsion; it is choice. It is enabling communities of schools—in this case, boards of trustees—to have more flexibility in the way they manage their affairs. But that talks more to the political philosophy that underpins the other side, because those members see every example of innovation and reform through the lens of compulsion—through the lens of directing from the centre to the rest of the country how people live their lives and what they need to do; everything needs to be prescribed and every single variable noted, and it has to be driven from the centre—whereas this party’s philosophy is that you create a framework that enables choice, and that choice is delivered by boards of trustees and parents around the country for the benefit of their kids. It works, and we have got a clear record of it working over the last 8 years.

In particular, when we reflect on the very considered comments from Jenny Salesa, she talked and gave voice to those members’ concerns about the changes that are in this bill. Again, you see those differences coming into stark focus. When we talk about school opening hours creating opportunity, their view is that somehow that could result in communities not being aligned, and so therefore it is a problem, whereas we say that this is a choice that a community can sit and reflect on, and if it works for them—if it works for the parents; if it works for the schools and their children—then they should be enabled to consider it.

That, I think, points to the difference in philosophies that underpins our two sides, including the example of having principals lead more than one school. Yet again we have heard today this particular scenario around who exactly is going to the employer of the principal if he or she is across one or two schools.

There is a complete lack of imagination on the other side. Somehow, two boards of trustees cannot get together and cannot identify which of those two boards of trustees would be the best group to oversee the contract of the lead principal across the two schools—that cannot be imagined. Those members cannot imagine that you could develop a contract that could deal with the permutations around performance and what would happen if they needed to step away from that position. It happens in the real world every day, but that side cannot imagine that boards of trustees have the wit and the intelligence and the common sense to pull it together. Well, as I have said before, this party understands that you can back parents—that they have got the collective capabilities sitting on boards of trustees to imagine that and deliver it and get an outcome that is better for our kids.

That is why this party is so supportive of this legislation. It talks to the stark difference in philosophies around the future of education, and this side knows how to deliver it in partnership with parents. Thank you.

ADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour—Te Tai Hauāuru): Kia ora anō e Te Māngai o Te Whare. I was looking forward to speaking on the Education Legislation Bill. In particular, I want to start off with charter schools. I want to start there because charter schools have been an absolute failure for the education system in New Zealand, and I will point out to you exactly why.

Charter schools are based on a philosophy around the privatisation and commercialisation of our education system. It has no place in New Zealand, I believe. Here are some statistics: in 2014 it cost $7.345 million to educate—for 1 year—619 students. If we were to use that kind of funding for every State school in New Zealand, we would expect a lot more achievement than what the charter schools were achieving in 2014.

That model, which I am really worried about—I will go back to my favourite quote from the submissions to express my point around why I believe it is taking incremental steps towards privatisation, or allowing for the privatisation of our education system. The New Zealand Principals’ Federation said: “On the surface, they might be described as a collection of ill-conceived baseless changes which lack any intelligent rationale. They might otherwise be described as changes without openly expressed rationale yet intended to enable further expansion of certain policies and direction.” I absolutely agree with that, and I will make this point: not only have they been a failure—this bill allows charter schools to be operated by tertiary institutes. That is not core business for those tertiary organisations. Why would you allow a tertiary organisation to run a primary school or a secondary school as a charter school?

Another point I want to make is that charter schools are allowed to make a profit—make a profit, even though they are trusts—and we were told that they were going to be in partnership with organisations. Well, the organisations did not actually step up—not the organisations that were originally talked about when charter schools first came into law. But who has put up their hands? It is trusts, and others. But they are still able to operate on a surplus and use those funds the way that they want to.

We think that is unfair. It is unfair to all of the schools in my electorate—in every electorate—whose funding in this year’s Budget is, effectively, being reduced. I go back to my other point: if they were funded at the same level that charter schools are funded at, we would have a whole lot of very happy schools out there, but they are not. So that tells me there is a huge inequity in the way education is funded in New Zealand.

I want to talk about principals running multiple schools. Principals are the professional leaders of their schools, for their staff and for their school community. They are often the leaders within their communities as well. If they have the burden of having to run multiple schools, I wonder how they can effectively be not only the professional leaders of their schools but also have the valued relationships that every principal should have in their community.

For example, it is a requirement that they have a relationship with their Māori community—with iwi. If they are running three or four schools and they have got a number of iwi that they need to be consulting with, then I would say that that relationship is going to be watered down. In fact, I would go so far as to say that that relationship is going to end up—that the principal, in their management of those schools, will end up making generic decisions across all of the schools that they manage. That is not necessarily a good thing. It might be good for one or two schools, but you can almost guarantee that it will not be good for all of the schools. So I have got concerns about that.

I have got concerns about how parents have to manage looking after their children if they have children who are going to different schools—primary, intermediate, and secondary. That has been pointed out, and this House has still not had, I believe, an adequate answer on how that will be managed. I have heard, and I will acknowledge, the statements that members opposite have made that it is dependent upon consultation. Can I tell the House that consultation with members of my constituency is very difficult, and if you are having to run three schools and consult effectively with people enrolled on the Te Tai Hauāuru electorate, then I would say to you that the consultation by that one principal will have to involve a whole lot of doorknocking. We know from experience that the consultation that is run in schools and in other organisations is not always effective in reaching key stakeholders in those schools. I believe that because of that, decisions will be made by those who are engaged and not by those who are not engaged, and I have a concern about that.

The new teacher position, the trainee teachers—and I support the statements that my colleague Jenny Salesa has made about parents having options. We heard in the speeches from members opposite that it is all about parents having options. Well, really? Do you think parents will truly choose a trainee teacher over a registered, qualified teacher? I think that when trainee teachers are sent into schools, they ought to be closely monitored, as they are now. That is an acceptable programme of training within schools, and I acknowledge that. But self-charge with no overview and, perhaps, with a principal who has multiple schools that they are looking after—I am not sure about that. Actually, I am sure about that—it will not work.

Can I finish on the part of this bill—it is made up of a number of other parts that have been amended, and I want in particular to speak to the Ngārimu VC and 28th (Māori) Battalion Memorial Scholarships fund. That is a part of the bill that I do support. Unfortunately, because of all the other things that I do not agree with, we will not be voting for this bill, but I did want to acknowledge the Minister for the work on this particular part of the legislation, and to acknowledge the whānau of Te Moananui-a-Kiwa Ngārimu and the legacy that he and the 28th Māori Battalion have had in the education of young people in New Zealand by providing scholarships so that they can get a very good education. Nō reira e mihi ana a’au ki tōna whānau, tēnā tātou. [Therefore I pay a tribute to his family. Acknowledgments to us collectively.]

MELISSA LEE (National): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to take a brief call in support of the third reading of the Education Legislation Bill. I would like to just take a moment to acknowledge the Hon Hekia Parata, the Minister of Education, who announced her decision not to stand for re-election to this House next year. I have mentioned many times in this House that I have seen her passion for her portfolio and her passion for children. Raising the education outcomes for children was her motivation for her portfolio, and I would like to thank her for the work that she has done in her term as Minister. I think we have all seen the great advocate that she has been for education in this Parliament, and she will be missed by all of us—at least, from this side of the House—when she leaves.

On to the bill: this is an omnibus bill that amends several Acts to improve administrative and governance arrangements for educational entities and funding organisations across the education sector. This bill supports our vision of an education system that reflects modern New Zealand’s schooling needs and focuses on achievement for all students around the country. In the Education and Science Committee we had a number of discussions—quite robust, sometimes—on this bill, and I thank the committee secretariat for the sterling work that it always provides. I also thank the members, my colleagues who actually sit on the select committee. Often, when we do differ in our opinions, I think we have mutual respect for each other’s opinions, and we have worked very constructively on this bill.

The bill will now allow for boards of trustees to appoint students to trainee teacher positions, helping schools to employ people working towards their teaching qualifications with real field experience and hands-on work in the classroom, enhancing their own learning and training while supporting the needs of the school community. The bill also will allow boards to have more flexibility in meeting the needs of their school-zone community by streamlining the process that would be needed to vary a school’s opening hours if the variation is for operational reasons and on an occasional or short-term basis. Some schools, for example, have a high proportion of their pool of families working in one industry or have seasonal community needs, and varying hours would make it more effective for those communities to get their children to school and to be able to spend more time together as a family. It is something that I personally champion, and I think it is a good move for some schools to do.

Practical policies to support learning are needed, and this bill will support students around our nation getting the tools they require through better management of their learning environment and providing new options for the school community. Arcane, outdated rules and regulations have been holding many New Zealand students back and have impacted the ability of some schools to do their best at raising student achievement. Removing unnecessary legislation and administration and promoting innovative 21st century education are what we need to do for our schooling community. I would like to end by saying that I commend the honourable Minister for the work that she has done, and I commend this bill to the House.

CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. Kia ora anō e Te Whare Pāremata. I would also like to acknowledge the Minister of Education. I agree that she has been a passionate Minister. I think we have disagreed on virtually everything, but I am not disputing her passion, and I think that passion is really important in education. There is nothing worse than people who are not interested and do not care, but also sometimes passion can do a lot of damage as well. So I think she and I would both agree that we both care but we may not agree.

With regard to this bill, I just listened very carefully to the Minister’s third reading speech and I tried to understand it. It is curious, some of the language, such as that this bill is driven by “parents having choice”, which can be translated as meaning “people who already have choice will get more choices’; that there will be “flexibility”—see “people with choices having more choices”—and “personalised and diverse needs of our young people … in real time … fit for purpose”. I absolutely do not think that has any meaning whatsoever. I do not think that is what the bill is about, and I do not see the point of talking like that to the country, because people want the Minister and MPs to talk like human beings. So “real purpose”, “fit for time”, “personalised”—what? “Whole-of-pathway organised efficiency and effectiveness”?

I mean, sorry, but I think the public deserves some coherence around the education system, and this is not it. Perhaps she had to make the stuff up because this bill is actually a bit of a messy omnibus, which the Education and Science Committee—and I do respect the members on the select committee—had a big fight about, and I think Tracey Martin outlined that very clearly.

A couple of things that we disagreed on: one, there was no reason for some of these things. Officials could not answer questions about why some of these things were happening—where the demand was—because a lot of the stuff was just something the Government made up for other reasons. And then there was the embarrassing debacle over the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) around Teach First NZ, where the Opposition had to fight tooth and nail to make sure that affected parties like the Post Primary Teachers Association, which is heavily involved—not opposing Teach First, but heavily involved—actually got heard, rather than having this big SOP suddenly dumped on the select committee, with the Government pretending that it was nothing to do with the teachers’ organisations, which actually have to manage the relationships through Teach First.

So I do not think this is the crowning glory of the Minister’s career, or anyone’s career. It is a weird bill. It is probably not as bad as the next one in education is going to be, to be honest, but, apparently, it is a “whole-of-pathway organised efficiently and effectively”. I do not know who for. However, maybe all will be revealed.

I think it is really important to talk about the word “choices”—such a misused word by the Government. It is its main platform. It is like a “Hands off.”, “Trust the community.”, “Everything’s fine.”, “We’re on a level playing field.”, “All people have choices.” blah-blah-blah. But if you think about, for example, the flexible school hours—I have never forgotten meeting a parent who said that she had huge stress being a good parent to her children in school because she was working three jobs, and so was her husband. This was in Porirua. They loved that their kids were getting a good education and they had an excellent school, but they needed their school to be very predictable because they were already juggling these three jobs each and the constant interchange between them to actually even see each other and do the handover.

So mucking around with the structures of the lives of people who do not have the same choices as other people—it is absolutely fine if you are a couple of professionals working from home. I know people who are doing this. You are running a small business from home and managing your lives, and you can shoot down to the school at 2 o’clock or 3 o’clock. But it is absolutely not fine, when you are on a fine balance, to risk that being put out of balance. That is what people are concerned about, because those people are already struggling.

I do not want to make laws for people who already have multiple choices and privileges. I want to make laws for people who are vulnerable to the variabilities of the world and who need more support and need things to be predictable.

Also, the Government could not come up with a good reason—because, actually, lots of schools already have flexible opening hours. I do not know what the problem is. Schools where it has been proven—because actually I would have liked an education bill to be about learning, but none of them seem to be about learning. They are always about some kind of governance or ideological privatisation agenda. Actually, in some schools the older kids—because we know that older teenagers seem to like to sleep in and stay up late, the schools already have adjusted their school hours. That flexibility already exists. So, you know, do not come and tell us that we need this rubbish. It is not true. And no one could come up with a good reason for it.

The Teach First stuff—well, I always feel really sorry for qualified people who have come out of 3 years of serious training and then have a debt, and then someone comes along and does not have to do that. It does undervalue the importance of what people go through in terms of the serious learning about what education means. I guess that is what I mean by this bill—which is all about governance. It is about flexible hours, and having a principal at several schools—again, something dreamt up by somebody who sees it as an efficient pathway to organised effectiveness, or whatever. It does not seem to be connected with education.

Actually, we are here, on the Education and Science Committee and in this House, to talk about learning and what is best for kids, but they are not getting a look-in while we are so busy being flexible and full of choice and opportunity. Opportunity in education is nothing to do with the hours of the school or multiple-school principals. It is to do with relationships and the commitment to allowing the New Zealand Curriculum—which is owned to be an excellent curriculum—to be developed and communicated. It is the content that matters and it is the teachers’ understanding of what learning is that matters. It is not all this stuff. I am really disappointed that I cannot think of hardly any bill, except for the ghastly national standards debacle, that has had anything to do with the content of education in my entire 7½ years on the select committee, and this bill is another deep disappointment to my passionate soul. So I am sorry that we are going to vote against it, but we are.

I also want to talk about another rather unfortunate idea in the bill, which is that tertiary institutions should run charter schools. Again, opportunity is not about imagining that universities are the best capable of teaching in primary schools. So, like the Teach First thing, where the Government would not rule out primary, these charter schools could be primary charter schools run by the universities. Actually, that shows that the experiment is not working, because it is trying to inveigle the universities—and we did not really get a lot of enthusiasm from most of the universities about this—to come and put forward proposals that at least sound educationally credible, because some of the charter school applications have been a disaster, and one of the existing schools has fallen apart. Watch this space. But, actually, I think it is really important that a law about this acknowledges the importance of the difference between tertiary education and what happens at other levels.

I am sorry, but we in the Greens just do not have confidence that the universities—apart from the fact that we do not believe in having charter schools. It is a rather internationally failed and controversial model that is yet to show benefit to this country, let alone to the children—especially the children of Whangaruru. Who cares what happened to them? Where are they? Guess what! I asked, and it turns out many of them are back in the State system, which was so dreadful.

Actually, I am a critic of things that happen in the State system, but I do not think that charter schools run by universities is the answer. I think we should be strongly critical and strongly innovative, but guess what! The review of the innovation qualities of charter schools said that the only innovation of the first nine was in governance structures. That is the only innovation that it could find. Marching is not innovation. That is just prep for the army, because you are too scared to look these kids in the eye and say that they have got potential to be all kinds of things, not just the cannon fodder of this country’s nationhood.

So I am actually challenging what this Government is doing, particularly for the tertiary institutions. I just do not have faith. Honestly, I have heard submissions from some of the academic and convoluted people from the tertiary institutions when we talked about that in various bills, and I would not put a 5-year-old in a classroom with these people because they do not know how 5-year-olds learn. They know how to give lectures. That is not education for younger people. It is not even education for anybody, actually. Most lecturers are pretty disappointing. There are a few people—brilliant people—who can lecture, but there ain’t many out there. You know, we have all experienced that at university. You never forget the ones who can actually communicate memorably, but should they run a school? I do not think so. I do not think that is what professors and universities are best suited to doing. So we are really opposed to that.

We are really opposed to this bill. There are a couple of good things. We support the Ngārimu scholarships and the redefinition of “Pacific person”, because I think it is important to modernise. The rest of it—you know, it really is not where we are at. Thank you.

TRACEY MARTIN (NZ First): Kia ora, Mr Deputy Speaker. Just to pick up on the last part of Catherine Delahunty’s contribution, in fairness to the universities, not a single university came and submitted and said it wanted to open a charter school—not a single one. The only organisation that came to submit and say it would like to open a charter school was the Manukau Institute of Technology and Mr Stuart Middleton. So universities never asked this Government to open up the opportunity for them to open charter schools. I can only assume that the only organisation that did was the Manukau Institute of Technology and Stuart Middleton, and it is of interest how much influence he appears to have had—that we have it inside this legislation when nobody else wants to do it. That would be the first thing.

Can I pick up on the next thing: a couple of statements made by the Minister of Education. Just to be clear, New Zealand First will be opposing the bill. Just to be clear, let us just get that out there. I know it is “Shock, horror!” to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I thought I had better put it on the record, just in case there was any, any misunderstanding about where New Zealand First is going here. The Minister mentioned in her contribution that about 40 percent of the schools here in New Zealand have fewer than 100 to 150 students. She is right about that. For those very small schools that have 50 to 100 students, they have what are called teaching principals, and the schools between 50 to 100 are called U1 to U3 schools. This Government has recognised that it has actually had a great deal of difficulty finding principals to take on those positions in those schools, to the point where, previously, this Government has offered an extra $50,000 a year on top of the standard salary of a U1 to U3 principal to encourage principals to go out into U1 to U3 schools.

Those U1 to U3 schools—our most rural of schools—hold some of the most challenging of our behaviours because they are so isolated. What happens when you are a teaching principal in those schools is that you do not have the access to the resources inside the urban centres. But instead of actually coming up with a rural solution, as New Zealand First has inside its manifesto, where we would establish an early intervention staffing component for a full-time teaching equivalent for every year 1 to year 3 school so that we can support the students and the principals, who are the learning professional leaders of those schools, this Government has decided to take principals out of those schools—out of those schools.

I do not blame the Government members on the Education and Science Committee. The reality is, they are so ignorant about how education actually works that the bovine scatology that Minister Parata can feed them with is accepted by them and just swallowed, and then they stand in this House and try to justify what they do not understand. They accept this from a Minister. So this is the reality of what is happening regarding this piece of legislation, enabling a principal to manage more than one school. This is because the members of the Government believe that the principal is merely a CEO. They do not understand what a leading learning professional inside a school does.

I would have thought that Minister Bridges, having sat on the Education and Science Committee for a short period of time in the last parliamentary term and listened to some of the evidence that was provided, would stand up for the fact that principals are vitally important inside and on the ground in their schools. But, no, no, because there is this misunderstanding by the members on the Government benches that this is a CEO position, they are more than happy to go ahead with it. So, instead of supporting some of the most vulnerable, some of our most isolated, and some of our most rural with more resourcing, they are going to take away the learning leader of the school. That is the first reason why New Zealand First will oppose this bill.

The other thing that is very interesting—let us get to Teach First NZ. What it is now called is employment-based trainee teacher salaries. This is, quite clearly—and it has already been a pilot. The fact is that these are graduates. They have done a 3-year degree—it could be in whatever—they have done an 8-week block course over a Christmas period, and then they are in work training, basically. They are placed inside a classroom, and up to this point they have been incredibly well supported by the University of Auckland. There have been 20 inside the environment.

It is of incredible interest—Ms Delahunty and Ms Salesa referred to the interaction that took place at the Education and Science Committee when, after the first round of public consultation, suddenly a Supplementary Order Paper appeared, putting employment-based trainee teachers into this piece of legislation. There was a massive fight at the select committee. The relationship at the Education and Science Committee almost completely broke down because there was no intention from the Government to go to public consultation about this change. I then went and had a conversation with the Teach First NZ founder, actually, and I asked him why it had moved away from the arrangement that the Ministry of Education, Teach First NZ, and the Post Primary Teachers Association had come to. How Teach First NZ graduates were actually breaking the law was that it was schools that were breaking the law by the fact that they did not advertise the positions publicly for the jobs that they then placed those graduates in. He said to me: “It was news to us.”

It was news to us on the select committee. We found out only 3 days before that Supplementary Order Paper was placed on the table of the select committee. So I am going to suggest that the reason why, originally, this Government did not want any public consultation around that Supplementary Order Paper was that it did not want it to be made public through the submission process by the teachers’ unions, which have every right, like every other citizen in New Zealand, to participate and place their voice inside this legislation, if only the Government would every now and then actually listen to them—listen to the professionals, listen to the people who have trained and taken years of their lives to dedicate themselves to the education of children.

This Government continues to suggest that when the educational professionals do not agree with them, it is because they are self-serving. This is the sector that stayed in the classroom when this Government did not pay teachers because it stuffed up Novopay. These are the people who stayed on the job, making sure that children could still come to school and would still be educated, even though they were not paid because this Government stuffed it up. But, no, no, when they do not agree and when they stand up to speak against things that they know are going to disadvantage children, this Government suggests they are self-serving. So I would suggest that that was the reason why the select committee originally—the majority—did not want to reopen the submission period. It was very clear that a directive had been given, and it is only because of the hard work and the tenacity of the Opposition that that situation changed.

Let us be clear also that the reason given by Teach First NZ as to why these graduates do not just go on to do the 1-year teacher training that they could do to actually be a fully qualified and registered secondary school teacher is because of the student loan scheme. It is because, the gentleman said, it cost too much money and they needed to go and get a job. I would suggest to Teach First NZ, and anybody else out there, that they should vote New Zealand First at the next election so that our Up Front Investment Tertiary Policy can come into play, so that we would not need to then put apprentices inside our classrooms to teach our children. They would actually have fully funded teaching places so that we could put 100 percent qualified and registered teachers into our classrooms for children. That is a solution to a skill shortage. A little bit of workforce planning would not go amiss either—a little bit of workforce planning. That is a solution to our skill shortage; not putting an apprentice in front of our children. Now, under this bill, because the Government refused to support Supplementary Order Paper 214, these apprentices can be in front of 5-year-olds all the way through to 18-year-olds.

Stuart Smith: They’re getting better results, Tracey.

TRACEY MARTIN: Mr Smith, do not argue with me. You know you will not win.

In closing, there are so many things wrong with this piece of legislation—that is only two. Unfortunately, I do not have enough time to impart the rest of my wisdom upon Parliament. Mr Smith, I can see you later if you would like a one-on-one lesson about what actually happens in education. New Zealand First will oppose this bill.

SARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill): It is a pleasure to rise and take a very short call—unfortunately, a short call. I would relish longer, but the dutiful whip would give me the evil eye, so I am taking this short call.

I think that I should start, too, with accolades to our Minister of Education, Hekia Parata. She has been incredibly inspiring, she is passionate about education, and her leadership has been second to none. Her leadership is all about the evolution of education. It is an acknowledgment that education is advancing, that teaching methods are advancing, that teachers are innovative, and that through collaboration they can come up with better and better methods to teach our children and help them succeed.

This bill is no different, and the Government, of course, is behind it. Education has featured so strongly in all of our policies, to raise achievement. If you look at some of our statistics, 97 percent of children are engaged in early child education, 83.3 percent of 18-year-olds are achieving NCEA level 2 across New Zealand—up about 38,000 kids since 2008—and tertiary qualifications are spiking, with people moving on to get those higher skills to help them achieve what they want to achieve in life. This bill, the Education Legislation Bill, is no different. It is about advancing education and it is about giving schools the flexibility to teach in a modern world.

I want to pay tribute to the Lower Mataura Valley community of learning, and that is a collaboration of schools that are working together to cultivate a community of 21st century, confident, connected, and engaged learners.

I want to pick up on what Ms Delahunty raised in respect of choice—and this is important. I acknowledge that people in different communities have different challenges, but this is what this bill does. People in Porirua may have a unique set of challenges that they have to deal with, but so do these people in the Lower Mataura Valley. They are mainly farmers and they work various different hours, and so it may well be that, in respect of their children’s learning, they want to collaborate and bring about different hours to facilitate that. That should be their choice. If they want to collaborate and think independently—by God! My goodness, independent thinking—should we be cultivating that? Well, I say yes. If those communities want to get together and create a different system that works for them and their families, so be it. Therefore, because of that, I support this bill.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: A 5-minute call on behalf of the Green Party—Gareth Hughes.

GARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou, kia ora. It is quite interesting, really, listening to Catherine Delahunty and Tracey Martin’s contributions—the National members are slowly sinking in their seats, and not really providing a response at all. We got these limp excuses: “The whip told me not to speak for very long.” I have got a message for those members who have had an education from the contributions in this debate—they have been educated by the two previous female speakers we have heard—and that is that they may not think that many people are watching the parliamentary broadcast or sitting in the Chamber tonight watching this Education Legislation Bill pass through.

Maybe they think that people are not focusing on the legislative process of the House, but do you know what? When a parent, next year—an election year—goes to their school and asks “Where is the principal?”, and the secretary says “Well, they are managing the other school across the road.”, then they are going to start to take notice and wonder what this Government is doing to our education system, which is so important to New Zealanders. When they turn up to a school and find that it is being run by some tertiary education institute—some polytech from out of town—then they are going to ask their local National MP, or write to the National education Minister, whoever that is: “What are you doing to education, which is so important to me as a New Zealander?”. So although, maybe, not many people are watching now, they should be paying attention, because this is bad legislation. It is bad legislation that the Green Party will be opposing.

I rise to speak with two hats on, and the first one is that of a father who has got two kids in the State education system, who thinks that their teachers and principals do a wonderful job. They have got enough on their plate now running one school—focusing on the kids in the one school—let alone trying to manage multiple schools. As a father, I support the idea of flexible hours for schools. As someone who cares about urban transport, cleaning up our cities, and reducing congestion, I like the idea that we can have flexibility. But we have flexibility when it comes to school hours at the moment. As a parent, I do not want to turn up, as a result of this legislation—and I do not think that any other parent in this country does—and find that the hours of the school day have been radically changed. That is when people are going to pay attention to education, which is so important to New Zealanders.

The second hat, of course, is that of the tertiary education spokesperson for the Green Party. I want to see our tertiary education providers focus on providing high-quality, affordable, accessible tertiary education, not focusing on running charter schools for profit. We have enough pressures in that sector already—because of the reducing quantum of funding from the Government, because of all the other requirements we have seen—to be worrying about running charter schools for profit. We should be shutting down the charter schools that have been running for profit, not trying to get other entities involved. I stand by the Labour Party and the Green Party minority view on this legislation, in its second reading, which shows that this is in fact an admission of failure by the Government on its controversial charter schools project.

Just lastly, as someone who was once a student, the idea that this Government is removing the 2 months’ consultation requirement for the changing of fees is, I think, egregious. I think it is just another example of how this Government treats consultations with sham affection. We have seen so many consultations on so many different areas being treated with disrespect by Government Ministers, such as Jonathan Coleman, that we should not be producing, in Government legislation, the idea that students, the people who are actually paying the fees, should be consulted.

Once again we see bad legislation passing through a bad process, as we have heard from previous speakers. I believe that New Zealanders, even though they may not be listening to this debate, will be caring about the state of their education system. They will be asking questions of all those National members: why the school hours are radically changing; why the principal is off managing another school; why there is a tertiary education provider running some of our schools for profit. These are the things New Zealanders care about. These are the questions that will be asked. We will be able to say, on the Green Party benches, that we were proud to oppose the bill. We were proud to stand up for high-quality education at the primary and tertiary levels.

KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana): Can I begin my contribution by acknowledging two people. First is the Labour Party spokesperson on education, Chris Hipkins, who has recently become a father. I have not had a chance to speak in the House since I found out that news, so congratulations to him and also to his partner, Jade, on the arrival of Charlie.

Also, can I acknowledge the current Minister of Education, who yesterday announced her retirement from politics. She also happens to be a list member based in my electorate of Mana. I just want to take a very short time to acknowledge her. I have had three elections against her.

Grant Robertson: How many of them have you won?

KRIS FAAFOI: I will not mention that. The record already shows that. The demeanour in which we have held our campaigns has been good, respectful, and, at many times, humorous. So I would just like to acknowledge Hekia as a political opponent locally.

Having said that, there have been many times when I have tried to whip up activity against her locally, against some of the changes that she has made in education. Certainly, the one that I think is of note is when she backtracked on class sizes. I would like to acknowledge the teachers in my electorate for getting out early one morning to attend a Porirua Chamber of Commerce meeting that was being held, and making their voices known—not just locally but on behalf of all teachers and schools around the country—to send the message that what the Government was doing at that time was wrong. There is also a push at the moment to say that the current moves by the Government, in a number of areas but also within this legislation, are wrong.

One of the benefits that you have in being a Wellington member is that every so often you can sneak away while the House is sitting—not sneak; I had leave—to be able to attend events. This morning I had the pleasure of accompanying the New Zealand Educational Institute’s (NZEI) “Better funding, better learning” bus outside Tītahi Bay Primary School. I think the Government should be very concerned about some of its moves on education, because a lot of the parents whom I spoke with outside Tītahi Bay Primary School, with the NZEI members from Tītahi Bay Primary School and also from Holy Family School in Porirua this morning, had an excellent response to the campaign that the NZEI is running to ask for better funding for schools and learning, and for the general support of the State education sector.

In the next half of my speech I want to talk about principals. One of my other colleagues mentioned the position of “super-principals”. I think this is where the Government does have a misunderstanding of principals as they operate now. I believe that at the moment, certainly, the principals in my electorate whom I have contact with are already “super-principals”. What we ask of them is immense. Not only do they have to operate as an educator and as a chief executive, to make sure that they can pay the bills, but also they are the chief social workers and mentors and motivators, not just for the staff but also for some of the parents who have issues with their children who are going to that school.

The principals are the ones who, when I am meeting them, are saying, out of the sides of their mouths, that they have to make sure they can tell me their concerns around the education sector, while also ushering in children to get apples from the apple box that is sitting in their office because the kids want some food. Giving principals the possibility that there will be an uber-principal under the current legislation I think shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how important a role a principal has in the community.

This brings me to the final point that I want to make, which was raised with me by a local principal. This is not an educational change as such, but a change to the State Sector Act within this piece of legislation. There is concern that if we do have this change, it will take away the ability for principals to be a mouthpiece for the community. There is the ability for the State Services Commissioner to say: “Well, here’s the contract, but we’re adding this on to it.” There is concern amongst principals who have a track record of standing up for the community, regardless of which stripe of Government is in office at that stage, and of being able to stand up against whatever changes the Government is proposing because it is not in the best interests of their schools, their families, and their communities that a change is being made—there is concern that this piece of legislation may muzzle that community voice that a principal has.

The principal is not just someone who sits behind a desk and orders teachers around. A principal is someone in the community who is seen as a leader in their community. I think this piece of legislation is very damaging to that position and to the principal’s standing in the community if they are not able to have that leadership role and speak out on important issues. I think that is a major danger of this legislation.

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): I also would like to begin my speech by acknowledging the contribution that the Hon Hekia Parata has made, to the education portfolio in particular. I think that was best demonstrated for me when I witnessed her speaking to hundreds of teachers in Blenheim, and the thoughtful, challenging speech she gave, covering a lot of the things that are within this bill. To see how warmly that was received by those teachers was, I think, something that many in the House should have been able to witness.

I turn to the bill. When hearing the contributions from those opposing the bill, there is a theme running through them. I think it really reminds me of a quote from a Charles Holland Duell, who in 1898 was appointed Commissioner of the US Patent Office. He was attributed a quote saying that everything that could be invented had been invented. I think what we are hearing in the opposition to this bill is that nothing new could be invented in education—there is no need to change anything, no need to give any flexibility—because it has all been invented. Well, that is absolute nonsense. The parties that are involved claim to be progressive parties—they are conservative and they cannot deal with change, and it is such a shame to see that.

Turning to the actual details in the bill—for example, Teach First NZ, which was referred to earlier by one of the previous speakers. One thing that she failed to touch on was that the evidence is that those Teach First NZ teachers have dramatically improved the performance of the classes they are teaching. It is absolutely irrefutable evidence. Now, I realise—wearing your tinfoil hat—it might be hard to deal with, but it is a fact. It is a fact—and I think that that flexibility is just another thing that will bring great innovation into schools. Having principals being able to be a principal of more than one school—again, providing flexibility. Having flexibility will drive innovation, innovation drives performance, and that is what parents will decide on. All of these decisions, particularly around principals being responsible for more than one school, will be made by the school community. They will not agree to it if they do not want it. So it is with great pleasure that I commend this wonderful piece of legislation to the House. Thank you.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn): We are in the dead of Thursday afternoon and it is a great pleasure to rise to my feet to oppose this “Trump Education Legislation Bill”. May I join with my colleagues, firstly, in wishing Chris Hipkins and his partner, Jade, the very, very heartiest congratulations on the birth of their lovely boy, Charlie. It is terrific to see the next generation of Labour leadership being in training already. Can I also acknowledge Hekia Parata, because for all of the albatrosses that she has had around her ministerial neck, she has always kept a smile on her dial, always kept a sense of poise with that portfolio, and she has done good service for the Government. We appreciate that it is a tough job and that she is doing her very best, so we wish her well when Mr Key makes a decision about how long she will warm that seat for.

Today is 20 October. Today is the date of the third US presidential debate. It was the historic moment when a candidate declared that they would not necessarily accept the result of the US election—something that has been incredibly harshly panned across the globe and across the US political spectrum. The reason I mention that is that the Republican candidate, Donald Trump, has made, according to The Economist magazine, a feature of something called post-truth politics; he does not give a damn whether there are any facts or evidence in his argument as long as he gets a sound bite, and he becomes more and more outrageous to shore up his base.

The reason I mention it is that exactly the same approach has been employed by the “Trump National Government” in respect of charter schools. Charter schools are a post-reality form of education. In the real world, in the reality-based school, we use things like the Education Review Office to see how we are going. We use the Official Information Act to allow the public to get information about how schools and the Ministry of Education are performing. We have teacher training standards so that the teachers we put in front of our children are qualified to teach them.

In the “Trump National Government’s” charter schools fantasy land, “Planet Key”, none of the above applies—none of it applies. You do not need to be a qualified teacher to get a job stumping up in a charter school. You are immune from the Official Information Act in a post-reality charter school, and no one is going to give a damn what your results are because you are not even subject to the Education Review Office. The reason that I feel just a tad passionate about this is I do not want to see creeping Trump-ism in New Zealand, and charter schools are the thin end of the wedge.

Why would we give to private investors Government taxpayer-funded capital so they can purchase assets and, when they go belly-up, not have to return them to the taxpayer? Why would we pay three to five times as much to educate a student—that is the taxpayer subsidising three to five times as much per student in a Trump-ist charter school—what a regular school gets in the same community? It is such nonsense, except it is not an accident, because certain private interests have lobbied the ever kind and generous National Government for a business break so that they can make profit out of educating children. In this post-reality “Trump” school of education, charter schools are the way to go, and it does not matter what the evidence says—it does not matter if the results are indiscernible from State schools teaching on one-third of the budget in the same community, the Government is so ideologically wedded to this that it will do it anyway. And, to make matters worse, it will mouth off about evidence-based policy.

This is the opposite. This is post-reality politics, ideological claptrap, self-interested rorting, and destruction of the public education system—just like those National Government members who are so out of touch that they want to ruin State housing and turn it over to so-called social housing providers so they can make a buck, even if they are run from offshore. And the average Kiwi has had an absolute gutsful.

Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: Yeah, the polls show that!

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: That is why the polls do show, Minister Coleman, that John Key’s popularity is lower today than at any point since he became Prime Minister. Two of the last three polls show National at its lowest level of support since it first took office. Two of three polls show National barely above 40 percent. I am looking forward to the first 39 percent poll. I am looking forward to the smile on Simon Bridges’ face when the first 39 percent poll comes in, because he will be one step closer to his succession plan. But will Jonathan Coleman be smiling as well, sitting next to him? God, imagine the jostling that goes on in that front bench when the writing is just a little bit more discernibly on the wall. Imagine that voice that you hear coming through the ether, that sort of “Heh, heh, heh” that is Judith Collins plotting her takeover and then euthanasia of the entire National front bench, as she amasses all portfolios unto herself.

It is the same level of logic as this bill, because it has the same relationship to the truth. It has a Trump-like elastic relationship with the truth. If members opposite think that this is funny, it was just yesterday that we heard that the Telford institute was being fined $1.5 million because it rorted the tertiary education system. The disease that started with National’s “Trump” charter schools and infected the private training establishment sector has now gone all the way to the university sector. Lincoln University, a once-proud institution, is having to pay $1.5 million back for embezzling the Government—embezzling the Government—of $1.5 million by overstating the duration of courses delivered through its Telford division.

This bill gives those same institutions the ability to invest in charter schools. Why would we want universities investing in charter schools? Why would we ask universities to obey a certain set of transparency and prudential measures when they are doing their core business, but then exempt them from the same criteria when they are investing in “Trump” charter schools? Why would we do that? I challenge the Minister, I challenge any member opposite, to take to their feet and explain to the New Zealand public what possible logical explanation there can be for asking universities to dodge the normal requirements so that they can invest in these ideological-claptrap charter schools.

Speaking of post-reality politics, in the real world parents have to drop their kids at school and then go and work an 8- or 9- or 10-hour day, and then, if they are lucky, find some way to get somebody to pick their kids up. In the post-truth “Planet Key” world we have got a bill that says: “Hey, we can change school hours as much as we like. Parents will just have to fit in.” In the real world, being a principal of a school—as my colleague has said—is a full-time job. In this “Trump” post-reality bill—what the heck? It is a part-time job! A principal could run three schools at once—except, I hope, not in my electorate of New Lynn. Not in Kelston, not in Green Bay, not in Lynnfield, not in Avondale—no, no, no, no. We think it is a full-time job and we are quite happy with our principals, who are very important leaders in our communities, sticking to their day job.

Summing up, this bill is the thin edge of a deep divide in New Zealand politics between those who think that the public education system is worth protecting and that it should be accountable and should be transparent, and those who are prepared to mortgage our children’s future and take a punt to do favours for private investors. I say shame on them, because it took decades to build up a world-class public education system, and we do not need post-truth Trump-lite ideologues on the Government benches wrecking it to set up some get-rich-quick scheme for their mates.

JOANNE HAYES (National): This is an excellent bill, contrary to what that member over there, David Cunliffe, says. I do not know why he has got a Trump fetish, but he has. I am proud to commend the bill to the House. Thank you.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Education Legislation Bill be now read a third time.

Ayes 63

New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Noes 55

New Zealand Labour 29; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.

Bill read a third time.

Third Readings

Third Readings

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): I move, That the Accident Compensation Amendment Bill (No 2), the Burial and Cremation Amendment Bill, the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Amendment Bill (No 2), the Holidays Amendment Bill (No 2), the Land Transport Amendment Bill (No 3), the Medicines Amendment Bill, the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Amendment Bill, and the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time. This legislation will amend eight Acts to remove references to “medical practitioner” and replace them with the words “health practitioner”. That is going to enable a wider range of suitable health practitioners to undertake certain functions that are currently restricted to only medical practitioners. New Zealand’s health workforce is evolving, and many health professional groups are now capable of performing the tasks that were previously the sole domain of medical practitioners.

The purpose of this legislation is to improve access to services for New Zealanders, and this Government wants to ensure that people receive timely care from the most appropriate health practitioner close to home. That is going to be a very necessary approach if we are going to have a sustainable health system that can provide the services that everyone across the country needs in the long term. These eight bills divided from the original bill align very closely to the New Zealand Health Strategy, which is all about moving care from secondary care out into the community, taking a preventative and early intervention approach, and, very importantly, using all the skills that we have right across the healthcare workforce and deploying them in the most effective manner.

I would like to thank members from across the House for the support that they have given to this omnibus legislation in its earlier readings, and I would also like to thank the Health Committee and those who took the time to make submissions on the legislation. The legislation has had a long passage to this stage of the Parliamentary process. This has ensured that we now have legislation fit for purpose that will make real changes to how people can access services from health practitioners. We have not only enabled suitably qualified health practitioners to undertake statutory duties but we have also used the opportunity to make statutory terms and descriptions much more consistent right across legislation.

I know that a number of members focused on the meaning of amendments for the work of nurses and nurse practitioners in their speeches earlier in the debate. The amendments in this legislation are designed to ensure that all suitably qualified health practitioners are able to undertake certain statutory activities if they have the required training, knowledge, and skills. In some cases, nurse practitioners will be the only suitably qualified group; in other cases, nurse practitioners, registered nurses, or pharmacist prescribers may all be suitably qualified. For other statutory activities, a range of health practitioners may be suitably qualified and the most appropriate and available people to undertake the task at hand. The safety of the public remains secure as the regulatory framework governing health practitioners continues to be managed through the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act 2003.

I will briefly sum up the amendments in each part of the original bill. In Part 1, we were dealing with amendments to the Accident Compensation Act. The legislation amends schedule 1 of that Act so that any health practitioners providing treatment to the claimant are given the opportunity to participate in the preparation and costing of an individual rehabilitation plan for the claimant, to the extent that they are willing and able to do so. Examples include physiotherapists or occupational therapists.

In Part 2, we had amendments to the Burial and Cremation Act. This legislation amends the term “doctor’s certificate” to “certificate of the cause of death”. References to “medical practitioner” are amended to allow nurse practitioners to also issue certificates of cause of death, and that is quite a major change. Nurse practitioners are qualified in a similar way to medical practitioners to issue these certificates through their training in diagnosis and their position as lead healthcare providers. I can tell you that certifying death is not as simple as it may sound.

Part 3 amended the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989. The legislation amends references to “medical practitioner” to enable a social worker to request suitably qualified health practitioners to examine a child. The legislation also replaces references to “psychiatric hospital” with “hospital” to give it the same meaning as in the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992.

In Part 4, we had amendments to the Holidays Act 2003. Those amendments mean that proof of injury or sickness under that Act may include a certificate issued by a health practitioner rather than just by a medical practitioner—i.e., a doctor. A suitably qualified practice nurse could provide a certificate of proof of illness or injury that would save a sick person both time and money, and, at the same time, would make the best use of the health practitioner’s precious time.

In Part 5, we had amendments to the Land Transport Act 1998. The legislation now amends references to “medical practitioner” to allow health practitioners to undertake duties relating to taking blood specimens and assessing the fitness of people to drive. The legislation is also an opportunity to update the terminology so that references to “doctor’s surgery” and “surgery” are now replaced with a much more common term: “medical centre”. In Part 5A, we had amendments to the Medicines Act 1981—specifically, an amendment to section 105B(d) of that Act, meaning that nurse practitioners will be able to supervise designated prescribers. Nurse practitioners, like medical practitioners, are authorised prescribers. As new prescriber groups are established under the Medicines Regulations, it is important that we have sufficient authorised prescribers to provide the support and mentorship that is going to be needed in order to deliver safe practice.

In Part 6 we had amendments to the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992, and these amendments are going to provide the opportunity to insert a new definition of “nurse practitioner” so that that legislation aligns with other legislation. Section 8B is amended to allow a health practitioner who is either a medical practitioner, a nurse practitioner, or a registered nurse practising in mental health to issue a certificate to accompany an application for assessment. Currently, only a doctor can issue such a certificate. Section 9 of that Act is also amended so that an assessment examination may be undertaken by a medical practitioner or a nurse practitioner who is approved by the Director of Mental Health. Currently, only medical practitioners can undertake that important and very sensitive assessment, so that amendment is a very good example of enabling a suitably qualified person to undertake an assessment examination. Often, the nurse practitioners practising in mental health are not only the people who are most available but may also be the people who have the most knowledge of the history in the current situation of the patient before them.

In Part 7 we had amendments to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 that allow specified nurse practitioners, registered nurse - designated prescribers, and pharmacist-designated prescribers to prescribe controlled drugs for the treatment of addictions. The parameters for the new groups to prescribe under that Act are the same as those for medical practitioners, including the need for health practitioners to be compliant with applicable guidelines issued by the Director-General of Health for the treatment of addictions.

The purpose of this omnibus legislation is to reduce legislative barriers so that competent health practitioners can perform a number of statutory functions that were previously limited to doctors only. Changes to the statutory provisions in the legislation will allow competent health practitioners to use their qualifications, knowledge, and skills to the full scope of their practice and, ultimately, will help us deliver better health outcomes for a greater number of New Zealanders. This legislation is also going to help us run the health system in a much more efficient manner and improve health practitioner accountability by making practice much more transparent. The Government intends to review unnecessary restrictions for statutory functions for health practitioners in other Acts as they are revised. This is excellent legislation. I thank everyone who has been involved with it, and I commend these bills to the House.

Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour): Labour, as it has throughout this legislation’s progress, supports it at its third reading. I want to begin by saying that I would have thought the Minister of Health could have shown a little bit more enthusiasm about this legislation, which makes quite a significant—

Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: I used it all on your question today.

Hon ANNETTE KING: You certainly did, Minister. You used it all on the questions today; it is just a shame you never answered any of them. But it is a shame that the Minister did not sound so enthusiastic and sounded a little bored by it all, because, certainly, the Health Committee did not find it boring at all. In fact, I want to begin by saying that the Health Committee took the legislation very seriously. We did a very good job on the legislation, and reported it back once we got our hands on it.

The biggest problem with this legislation is the time that it has taken for it to get through this Parliament and to make the changes that are needed. I have raised this in the first reading, in the second reading, and in the Committee stage, so you will not be surprised that I am raising it again in the third reading. You see, sometimes really good ideas, under this Government, seem to be put on the back-burner and come second, third, or last in some of its priorities. Unfortunately, they are often very good health ideas, and that may reflect the energy of the Minister—I am not sure.

This is legislation that was needed, and has been needed for some time, because of the complexities that we now have in our health system and our need to have a range of health practitioners able to provide a range of services when they meet those competencies. The very first piece of legislation that was going to enable others to prescribe, for example, happened a long time ago—in fact, it happened in 2005, when I was Minister of Health. I introduced something 14 years ago, and here we are making a little improvement all these years later.

So I do say to the Minister, when we have got legislation like this, use your muscle to get it up the Order Paper. I am sure the Leader of the House, if he was approached—being a very approachable man—would listen to him and say: “Yes, this is important.” I think it is more important than some of the legislation we have, and certainly more important than worrying about lost luggage and things like that.

This legislation, as the Minister did say, is from an omnibus bill. It does amend eight statutes and it does increase the range of functions that can be performed by health practitioners under those statutes. In those old statutes, they made reference only to “medical practitioners”—in other words, doctors—so they restricted what could be done by any other practitioner. By amending that and changing it to “health practitioner”, it widens the range of who can carry out those functions. Actually, as the Minister pointed out, health practitioners are carrying out some pretty important functions under this legislation. For example, the Misuse of Drugs Act is being amended so that a qualified nurse can treat addiction patients. Changes to the Burial and Cremation Act will allow nurse practitioners to certify the cause of death. As the Minister said, that is not easy, so you need to have people who are trained in doing it, but they do not have to be medical practitioners. We will also amend the Land Transport Act with this legislation, and it is being amended because at present it states that only medical practitioners—doctors—and optometrists can provide medical reports on a person’s fitness to drive. Then, if you look at the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act, it restricts medical examinations of children to medical practitioners whom the court considers qualified for the purpose. So the legislation amends, as I said, eight statutes and allows other health practitioners to undertake those roles.

In a changing health system, those roles, as I said, do require us to use the expertise and training of every health practitioner whom we can use. We can augment the work that is done by medical practitioners when others are involved in the provision of health services, so this legislation widens that ability. It is going to give greater scope and I can see real use for it, particularly in rural New Zealand. It is often hard to recruit medical practitioners there, but in our rural areas we have extremely good nurses with high levels of skill, nurse practitioners, those who are involved in emergency responses, and those who are involved in rural health practice. I can see great use of them to carry out these functions. Imagine if you were in a small town and you had to wait for a medical practitioner to arrive to declare that a person was dead. It is great stress on a family, waiting for that certificate to say that a person has died. Now in that community there can be a person with the appropriate training who can undertake such a function. I think it is going to be very valuable. I notice that the member Barbara Kuriger, who does represent a rural seat, is nodding her head. She understands the practicality of this change, as will many out in our community.

There is one fear I have with this legislation—I raised it at the committee and I raised in other readings of this legislation—and that is what has been said by the Minister, which is that there is no cost to doing this. Well, I think there has to be a cost to doing it, because if a person has greater skills, be they a nurse or any other health practitioner—if they have got greater skills and they have got greater qualifications, they do need to be paid more. They will not be doing it at the same price as a practitioner who has lesser skills. There will be a cost, and one of my worries and fears is that if we think there is no cost, we will fail to fund those practitioners to carry out the role.

One of the problems that we have had with nurse practitioners is that district health boards (DHBs) have not funded those who are qualified to be nurse practitioners, because of the higher costs. Where there could be hundreds and hundreds of nurse practitioners—we have got thousands of nurses who have got Master’s degrees and above in their qualifications not being used because DHBs have to pay more for their skills, and they do not. They have not used that capacity and skill that we have in New Zealand, because of the cost. That is my fear—that we will pass this legislation and little will change. Little will change, even though there are those who have the skill to do it, unless DHBs are prepared to pay for that skill.

We have just gone through a junior doctors’ strike, seeking to ensure that they are properly rewarded but also treated fairly when it comes to rosters and so on. We cannot ask another workforce to carry out the greater duties that we need without ensuring that it too has proper working conditions and the remuneration that goes with it. I just hope that I am wrong, but I have seen what has happened.

The first nurse practitioner was actually registered in Hamilton back in about 2002, and I thought that we would have seen thousands by now. That has not been the case, and it does, as I have been told, get down to money. I hope that at our select committee we do not have to bring this up with the Minister during Estimates hearings and at other times, because he has got it right—I hope I have got it wrong and he has got it right—that there does not need to be any extra money. But one of the things we ought to do is monitor the impact of this legislation over time to ensure that all the things we think will happen by amending these eight statutes actually will happen for the provision of health services in New Zealand.

We do commend this legislation to the House. I am glad that it has finally reached the end of a very long process. I too think the Health Committee is a very good committee, and I am being very objective in this—you know, I could be highly political. But I do think we have an extremely good Health Committee, and I will say of Simon O’Connor, he is one of the best chairs we have had of a select committee.

Grant Robertson: Is he going to get into Cabinet?

Hon ANNETTE KING: I think he should be in Cabinet. In fact, he would probably make an extremely good health Minister. He is informed, he is reasoned, he knows a little bit about it, and he is interested, and none of those qualities, you could—

Grant Robertson: That puts him well in front.

Hon ANNETTE KING: That puts him well in front. None of those qualities our current Minister has. I have just done him to death; he probably will not get a job now. But we support this legislation, and I am very glad it is going through the House.

Grant Robertson: Oh, good timing.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Yes, impeccable timing—serendipitous, even. Thank you to the member Annette King, who has just resumed her seat, for the very kind words. It is a death knell for my career to have the Opposition laud me so strongly. It has been an absolute pleasure to serve this House—this could become a valedictory.

Hon Annette King: Is this your valedictory?

SIMON O’CONNOR: It could be my valedictory. I am very pleased to take a call in this third reading of the bills divided from the Health Practitioners (Replacement of Statutory References to Medical Practitioners) Bill. I think it is important to note that, of course, the original bill has been split into eight bills, as the various aspects that we have looked at, from ACC to the likes of death notices—so that affects the Burial and Cremation Act—begin to extrapolate out.

I thought I would just touch on a couple of points—first and foremost to say thank you, as others have, to everyone who has been involved, to the Minister, who has brought the legislation to the House, and to the Health Committee, which worked very hard on this. Even though there was tongue-in-cheek at the end of the last speech and at the start of mine, the committee actually worked very hard to try to get its head around the various aspects. I think one that really stands out for me was actually the contribution of the member, particularly around mental health and who is the right person or persons to be assisting—how far this should be expanded. But, very importantly, we understood quite early on, particularly through a member’s intervention, that we had to be very clear in this legislation of what facilities were appropriate. The long and the short is that the legislation as initially drafted around facilities was quite broad, so the committee worked efficiently to tidy that up.

Thanks, too, to the officials. I think that although we as MPs work hard, we are very conscious of the work of officials in the background.

There are two other general points I want to make. The first is that we are expanding the terminology from “medical practitioner”—so, again, from doctor—to “health practitioner”, taking in a whole range of other skills. So you are thinking nurses primarily, but you are thinking right across the competencies, such as podiatrists, occupational therapists, and the like. That is the distinction, but I think what is really important to note is that there is a difference, I would maintain, between doctors and the other professionals. They work in a complementary manner.

Some of the comments picked up—sometimes in the select committee; sometimes in the debates—have said they are sort of becoming one and the same. I just want to stress, from my point of view and that of many others too, that there is still a distinction, if you will, between medical practitioners and health practitioners. It is not one simply in legislation but by the various models—clinical, medical, and otherwise—that they make. So this is not making nurses or podiatrists or occupational therapists or other health professionals into doctors; it is just allowing a broader competency, in the same way that doctors within their various professions are broadening their scopes. I have spoken a few times in this House about how general practitioners are now doing the work that some dermatologists, plastic surgeons, and general surgeons are doing—for example, in the same way that nurses are now doing the work of the likes of endoscopists. So there is whole lot of change and flux.

I think it is really important, too, to understand that even though this legislation allows an expansion, there is another piece of legislation in the background, the health practitioners competency Act—I am paraphrasing the name there. The long and the short of it is that all these health practitioners, their colleges, or their associations have guidelines—that might be one word to use for it—of what is and is not within scope. So this is not just carte blanche or a blank cheque for health professionals to do whatever they want. Their colleges and their associations have a very clear list, if you will, of guidelines to say what is and is not possible. It is my understanding that those colleges and the Ministry of Health are working together to update those at the moment.

I will not go on for too much longer because I think we have heard some of the core elements of the legislation being described and I am very sure that people after me will be going through the different stages. Suffice to say, this legislation is about expanding the scope of practice for health practitioners—again, the classic example that has often come up is around the likes of death certificates. At the moment, only a doctor can do that; post this legislation, if it passes into law, other health practitioners will be able to undertake that.

So, yes, this is about health practitioners getting an increase of scope, but, really importantly, it is about this Government and this House—I believe everyone is supporting the legislation—acknowledging that the profession is changing. People in other professions do have the skills necessary, and we are trying to adapt and change to them. Fundamentally, that will continue to build on an excellent health system and make it even better, and so I commend this legislation to the House.

POTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East): I actually want to start my contribution where the member Simon O’Connor, who has just resumed his seat, has left off, and just talk about, I guess, what happened 14 or 15 years ago, when the conversation in the health sector was about the competencies that someone required in order to do a good job. I remember the conversations that were held when I was working in community health and community mental health about the extraordinary work that nurses, in particular, were capable of doing—that their scope of practice was such and their training was such that they could be engaged in a wide range of health provision. It was at that time that the then Minister of Health was introducing the discussion around the ability to train nurses to take on higher functions and take on the roles as nurse practitioners.

I remember the discussion very distinctly. Nurses were very much in demand because of their scope of practice and their ability to work in such a significant way, and they were being taken to do other work, kind of outside the clinical practice in a way. A lot of them were taking roles as managers of services, particularly health services, and there was a real pressure on the New Zealand health workforce to be able offer a range of services that were at a level that was sufficiently high enough to be challenging for certain practitioners, but were not those duties specifically of a medical practitioner or a doctor—but getting pretty close. I recall the discussions that happened at that time. So it has taken us some time, really, to catch up with the actual practice that is happening in the community—or what should be happening—and this legislation, I think, has brought us to a place where we can now address what is current practice in New Zealand.

I think we have kind of missed an opportunity to futureproof ourselves in terms of what will be future practice for these practitioners with the advent of the advancement of technology. But what this legislation does do is that it actually allows for the scope of practice to occur as it should do. So nurse practitioners are the ones most often quoted, but there is a range of other practitioners for whom we can now encourage a range of career pathways. Specifically, they are going to be able to legally conduct some statutory functions that have been denied to them in the past. We have already heard the examples of being able to sign death certificates.

What they will also be able to do—and this is important in the mental health field—is conduct assessments where psychiatrists or psychologists are not available to conduct those assessments. That is really important when we have situations—say, for example, the police may have picked someone up, or someone has become unwell and is having an episode and they are unable to get to a psychiatrist or a psychologist quickly. Health practitioners will be able to conduct those assessments and be able to have people into treatment relatively smoothly and quickly.

There are some other examples—for example, the assessment of children with regard to health practitioner roles within the care environment for Child, Youth and Family, and one or two other aspects of their job.

The report back from the Health Committee—and I do want to commend the work of the select committee. It often has very complex issues to deal with, and this was also relatively complex legislation. The report back from the select committee recommended some changes: defining what a nurse practitioner actually does, which includes what type of practising certificate they must hold and that they are governed under the Nursing Council and the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act; changes in terminology from “doctor’s surgery” to “medical centre”; and various other things, particularly under the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act—the ability to actually be the provider of those assessments.

The previous speakers have actually outlined the significant parts of this legislation and how it amends the eight pieces of principal legislation. I do not think there is much more that I need to contribute to this debate. We are happy for the bills to be passing into legislation and we commend them to the House.

BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): It is a pleasure to take a short call on the legislation arising from the Health Practitioners (Replacement of Statutory References to Medical Practitioners) Bill. It is the third reading. We have enjoyed going through this process as a Health Committee. It is going to be really good legislation, which is going to help us to deliver better, faster, and more convenient healthcare to patients. We actually heard before about rural New Zealand, where we can, effectively, use the skills of the workforce. We do have a lot of nurses out there who are well and truly capable of taking on further roles and further work, but at this point in time, before enactment of this piece of legislation, the law is not in a position to enable them to do that. The legislation is going to help not only our rural communities but all other communities tremendously. Changing to health practitioners, rather than having everything being done by medical practitioners, is going to give us a lot more scope and a lot more ability to do things in our communities.

We are working really hard to fulfil National’s election promise to encourage younger nurses to stay in the country after graduation through the voluntary bonding scheme, which pays off student loans for nurses, medical and midwifery graduates who agree to work in hard-to-staff communities and specialise for 3 to 5 years. I think this is going to be a really good process for that in terms of enabling them to do what they are fully capable of doing.

As our healthcare changes, the way we deliver health services changes as well. I have spent a bit of time since I have been a member of Parliament on the mobile surgical buses, looking at the specialist services on some of those mobile buses—which we had in Parliament while we were discussing this bill, as a Health Committee. They play a greater role in terms of bringing health services to us, and it just means that those nurses in our communities are able to specialise further and help provide more services for our communities.

I also want to commend the work that has been done by the Health Committee under our more than capable chair, Simon O’Connor. We are a very good committee. We actually work extremely well together. We are focused on what is going to provide better things for our future in our communities, and it is my great pleasure this afternoon to have the opportunity to commend this legislation to the House. Thank you.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.