Tuesday, 11 April 2017

TUESDAY, 11 APRIL 2017

TUESDAY, 11 APRIL 2017

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Amended Answers to Oral Questions

Question No. 7 to Minister, 5 April

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH (Prime Minister): I seek leave to make a personal explanation to correct an answer I gave to a supplementary question, question No. 7, on 5 April 2017.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is none.

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: In response to the supplementary question, I stated that the police receive 4,600 111 calls every day. I should clarify that the police receive, on average, 2,400 111 calls a day. The total of 4,600 calls includes ٭555 calls, non-emergency calls, and crime reporting line calls received by the Police Communications Centres Service Centre.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Emergency Housing—Availability and Motel Use

1. ANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement on the housing crisis that “I wouldn’t call it a crisis. We have strong demand, we have an uplift in prices—these are good problems to have actually”?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH (Prime Minister): Yes, and, as I said in that interview, the Government is spending over $300 million in emergency housing to provide an extra 2,150 emergency housing places around New Zealand—enough to support 8,000 families a year. Of course, getting more houses built faster would be easier if the Labour Party was not organising opposition to two of the large new developments in Auckland, in Three Kings Quarry and the Point England Reserve.

Andrew Little: What does he say to the Salvation Army, which is now turning away two to three homeless families a day, saying: “We’ve got nowhere to send them.”?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I would say to the Salvation Army—first, to thank it for the way it is working very closely with the Government, along with the other NGOs in Auckland, to get more houses on the ground faster, but, of course, both the Government and the Salvation Army would find it easier if the Labour Party was not organising opposition to the Three Kings development, which I think is 1,500 homes, and the Point England Reserve, which is also hundreds of homes—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The answer has gone on for long enough.

Andrew Little: After the heartbreaking scenes last winter of families sleeping in cars and garages, and the promises from his Government to fix the issue, why is the crisis still getting worse?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: As I said to the member, the Salvation Army and others are working very closely with the Government around getting the $300 million spent. Money is not really the constraint here; it is the ability to get the houses and the non-government organisations on the ground able to execute. Of course, we would all find it easier if the Labour Party was not opposing developments—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. In all three of the Prime Minister’s answers he has introduced material that is irrelevant and for which he is not responsible. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I do not agree with the member. The original question talked about a housing crisis. The Prime Minister has taken the opportunity of addressing what he thinks is part of the problem. One of the questions was “What would he say to the Salvation Army?”, and I suspect that if the Prime Minister was talking to the Salvation Army, he would be saying exactly the things he is saying in these answers.

Andrew Little: Putting aside the Labour Party’s longstanding support for the Hobsonville project and the Tāmaki Redevelopment Company, what effect has the State house sell-off had on the stock of State houses available today and—just be straight with me—are there more or fewer than when we started?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: Because of the reforms of traditional State housing, we now have a great deal more interest in providing social housing: more capital, more expertise, and thousands of them being built. But, of course, we also need the development at Three Kings, which the Labour Party members are opposing, and the Point England Reserve development, which they supported before they changed their minds and now oppose. So how could they possibly get 100,000 houses built if they are opposed to any development? [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Andrew Little: How many families a night are staying in motels because there are not enough State houses for them?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: There are, of course, a number in motels, and the Government’s response to that issue has been to spend $300 million on emergency housing and on building and procuring significant numbers more of social houses. But, of course, we are competing in a market that is a bit tight because the Three Kings development has been delayed now for several years. The opposition to it has been organised by the Labour Party and now it is setting out to oppose the Point England Reserve development and undo a Treaty settlement—and that has all been organised by the Labour Party.

Andrew Little: I seek leave to table a report from the Parliamentary Library, hitherto unpublished and, in fact, unknown, dated today, confirming that the number of motel rooms per night that is currently being funded by the Government is 400.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that information. Is there any objection? There is none. It can be tabled.

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

Andrew Little: How many of those 400 families, who have been put up in motels because he sold the State houses, are now facing being booted out of the motels and on to the street because the rooms are needed for thousands of visiting tourists attending the World Masters Games and the Lions tour?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: Of course, the Government agencies and non-government organisations will do whatever they can to meet the needs of people who have serious housing needs. They would like to be supported by the Labour Party—

Grant Robertson: You’re the one not supporting it—things that you’re not responsible for. Talk about what you do. You’re the Government.

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: —supporting development, because we could get more social houses in Three Kings if the Labour Party was not opposing the development—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is little point in carrying on unless Mr Robertson ceases his barrage of interjections.

Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: I will hear from Mr Robertson.

Grant Robertson: The reason for my interjections is the Prime Minister has continued to misrepresent Labour Party positions, for which he is not responsible at all.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! And that is no reason for the sort of behaviour from the member and the level of his interjection. If he feels that he has been misrepresented, then he knows there is a process for that. He lodges a breach of privilege via Standing Order—[Interruption] Well, the member now shakes his head, as if he knows that is not the case; that is the Standing Orders. Certainly, the way to address it is not the way the member just did, by yelling incessantly across the House. [Interruption] Order! The level of interjection from all sides is out of order and, frankly, out of control. It will settle down. If I need to do it with a more stringent measure, then I will do so.

Andrew Little: How badly has his Government failed New Zealanders when the social housing Minister’s answer this morning to the housing crisis was to shrug her shoulders and say: “A motel is better than car.”? Is a house really too much to ask for from this National Government?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: No. In fact, Government agencies, particularly in Auckland but also in other places, are asking exactly to get the houses that we need. One way the Labour Party could contribute to it is to stop opposing the Point England bill going through the House, because that will enable hundreds of social houses to be built. But the Labour Party is opposing it, as it is opposing the Three Kings development, which equally would allow for hundreds more social houses. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! That answer is quite long enough. [Interruption] Order! Order! Mr Twyford, when I stand to my feet that is certainly the time for Mr Twyford to cease interjecting.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: If political parties have supported 70,000 net—the population of Rotorua—coming here every year, without building the infrastructure including the housing of Rotorua every year, why are we having this sad argument between the guilty parties?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: Of course, the member may not realise but the people who are—in his words—guilty, are the Kiwis not leaving. Since he moved out of Government, 40,000 Kiwis per year more are staying in New Zealand. I would have thought that New Zealand First would regard that as success.

Job Creation and Unemployment—Employment Rate and Climate Change

2. JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on job growth in the New Zealand economy?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Finance): Over the last year, 137,000 jobs have been added to the New Zealand economy. This job growth has been accompanied by rising wages for Kiwi families, with the average wage growing at twice the rate of inflation to $58,700 annually, currently, and forecast to reach $66,000 by 2021. Our strong employment growth has been coupled with strong economic growth of over 3 percent. This has not happened by accident; it is the result of hard work by households and businesses, backed by the Government’s clear economic plan for our country’s future.

Jonathan Young: How do New Zealand’s employment statistics stack up against our international competitors?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Very well, in fact. New Zealand’s employment rate for the proportion of the total population aged 15 years or older—right up to 115—at work is 66.9 percent. That is the highest rate that New Zealand has ever had, and the second-highest employment rate in the whole of the developed world. In particular, we are significantly ahead of our closest neighbour, Australia, whose employment rate is only 60.8 percent.

Jonathan Young: Are the jobs being created in New Zealand predominantly full time or part time, and how does this compare with Australia?

Tracey Martin: Full time being 30 hours.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am just waiting for Tracey Martin to stop interjecting, and then we will have the answer.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The bulk of the jobs being created in New Zealand are full-time jobs. In just the last year the percentage of New Zealand’s labour force employed full time rose to just under 75 percent. If you compare that with Australia, its rate fell to just 64 percent. In fact, over half of New Zealand’s entire population over 15 is now employed full time, compared with just 42 percent in Australia. With this record, it is strange to see some commentators advocate for New Zealand’s monetary policy framework to be more like Australia’s. We have achieved excellent results in this country, and I think it is possible that Australia needs to change to ours.

Jonathan Young: How is New Zealand’s actual job creation tracking against previous estimates of job growth?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Very well. There have been 328,000 jobs—in addition—created since 2008, and Treasury expects further strong growth over the coming years. Members may recall Treasury’s 2011 estimate, which was for 170,000 jobs to be created over the following 4 years. This was attacked by some critics as a failure and a broken promise because they did not think it would be achieved, only for the actual figure to come in at 197,000, some 27,000 more jobs than anticipated. It would be a shame for these critics to repeat their mistakes just because it is election year.

Grant Robertson: According to the household labour force survey, how many more New Zealanders are unemployed now than when his Government took office?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I do not have the exact number with me, but the key point is—for the member’s benefit—how many people are employed. In New Zealand—in this country—we have passed 2.5 million people employed for the first time, and we have the second-highest employment rate in the OECD. That is progress.

James Shaw: Has he seen any reports about the loss of jobs and livelihoods caused by more frequent and more severe floods and droughts, resulting from climate change?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: No, I have not seen any recent reports in that regard. What I can say to the member is, actually, all the reports in New Zealand are of increasing numbers of jobs, in net terms. As I said, 137,000 extra jobs were added to the New Zealand economy last year—the second-highest employment rate in the OECD—and that is under the existing Government’s policies, with support for the existing Government monetary policy framework, which seems to me an indication that other countries should look to us for inspiration.

James Shaw: What reports has he seen about the jobs lost because of the 2013 drought that wiped $1.5 billion off the economy, or more recent droughts in Northland and North Canterbury?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: One of the challenges to the New Zealand economy, particularly in the primary sector, is that droughts occur from time to time. That is one of the reasons why this Government is so keen to encourage the development of water storage in those areas, so that those businesses can be more sustained and can retain and grow more jobs. Those dams also provide better environmental outcomes by improving water flows. So, given the member’s concern, I look forward to his support for that policy.

James Shaw: What reports has he seen about jobs lost and small businesses ruined from severe flooding in Whanganui, Northland, Auckland, or Edgecumbe?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The member raises some challenging times in terms of those floods for affected businesses, and the Government has been very supportive, not just in terms of floods but in terms of earthquakes as well. We are very supportive of tiding businesses over where we can until their solutions are solved and their insurance pays out. This country is challenged by some of the weather events, and has been for pretty much all the time that people have lived here. It is important that we set up a system that helps them respond, but New Zealanders are very resilient and, actually, we saw more than 100,000 jobs added just last year. That indicates the resilience of the New Zealand economy—137,000 jobs, in fact.

James Shaw: Does he agree with the Insurance Council’s position that if nothing is done to adapt to climate change, then there are going to be increased claims and higher losses, which could lead to higher premiums and cover being withdrawn?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well, actually, the insurance industry and New Zealanders respond to changes in the insurance environment all the time. The biggest impact on risk for New Zealanders is, in fact, earthquakes and the challenges that they bring, and we have seen that in sharp relief in recent years. Flooding is another risk. There are other risks, of course, in terms of fires and so on. The way we actually ensure that New Zealanders are resilient and able to respond to that is by keeping their incomes high and growing, by encouraging the development of our economy and investment in our productive industries, and by ensuring that the Government accounts are strong enough to be able to support people in their hour of need, and that is very much the focus of this Government.

James Shaw: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There were two parts in my question, which was whether he agreed with the Insurance Council’s position—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! No, I—[Interruption] Order! I heard the question very clearly and I do not think it has been addressed. I will invite the member to ask the question again.

James Shaw: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Does he agree with the Insurance Council’s position that if nothing is done to adapt to climate change, then there are going to be increased claims and higher losses, which could lead to higher premiums and cover being withdrawn?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well, the Insurance Council, obviously, always has its views in terms of how things could be impacted on, not just by climate change or earthquakes. I was pointing out to the member that there are a range of risks to New Zealand. Those risks and the insurance industry’s perception of those risks change from time to time. I appreciate its view. Certainly, I think New Zealanders know that they do have to be prepared, and this Government is focused on being prepared, for any events but not just climate events.

James Shaw: When New Zealand jobs are on the line, does he agree with the Prime Minister that when it comes to the question of whether climate change is causing more floods and more droughts that “we don’t spend time trying to connect the two”?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well, the Government focuses on the range of risks that present for New Zealanders, and those risks that you identify is one group of risks. As I have pointed out to you a number of times today already, some of the bigger risks are those that do not involve climate change, including earthquakes and so on. So you have to respond to all of the range of risks that present for people. It is something the Government focuses on a lot, and certainly in terms of making sure that our books are resilient, so that if we have big incidents and shocks in the way that we have seen in recent years, we can respond and support New Zealanders.

James Shaw: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was whether he agreed with the Prime Minister’s quote. He did not even mention the Prime Minister in his response.

Mr SPEAKER: It is a very marginal call, on my account, because you then talked about a range of risks and the Minister responded to that and the Minister said it was a focus of his Government. But, on balance, I will let the member ask that question again.

James Shaw: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Does he agree with the Prime Minister that when it comes to the question of whether climate change is causing more floods and more droughts that “we don’t spend time trying to connect the two”?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well, I agree with the sentiment from the Prime Minister, which is actually that we focus on the risks and managing those risks.

Police, Minister—Official Information Act Requests

3. RON MARK (Deputy Leader—NZ First) to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in his Minister of Police; if so, why?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH (Prime Minister): Yes, because she is a competent Minister and is working with Police to implement a half-billion-dollar investment in the police of 1,100 new staff, including 880 uniformed staff right around the country.

Ron Mark: Is he aware that New Zealand First lodged an Official Information Act (OIA) request with both his office and the Minister of Police on 3 February requesting all documents relating to his announcement to increase police numbers to 880 and that his office partially transferred that request to the Minister of Police on 16 February? Are you aware of that?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I am not aware of all the administrative details, but I understand some documents related—or appropriately related—to the decision we released yesterday.

Ron Mark: Is he aware that (1) a month after receiving our original OIA request she then wrote to New Zealand First saying that she was extending her response to 7 April, and (2) that on 5 April, 2 months after receiving the initial OIA request, she then said she could not reply until 10 May? Is that a capable Minister?

Mr SPEAKER: There are two supplementary questions there. The right honourable Prime Minister.

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well, I am sure it is the habit of New Zealand First that the possible deputy leader consults with the leader on all matters related to correspondence, but in the National Government the Deputy Prime Minister does not consult me on all matters related to correspondence. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Interjections must cease from both.

Ron Mark: Is he aware that on 10 April at 6.26 p.m.—[Interruption] Well, we know that the “Minister for Myrtle Rust” does know what is going on in her department, do we not?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Can I just ask for some cooperation from my right-hand side so we can hear the question without interjection.

Ron Mark: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Is he aware that on 10 April at 6.26 p.m. the Minister’s office informed us that they would release information that we requested on 3 February to the public; and is that the action of an open, honest, and transparent Minister?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: Not only open and honest but also remarkably precise, by the sound of it.

Ron Mark: No, she is late. [Interruption] Do not worry sweetheart, there is more coming. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! On this occasion I do acknowledge he was responding to an interjection. I will allow the member now to continue with his supplementary question.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You will have observed—and it is happening right now—that when my colleague got to his feet a barrage was coming from the front and back bench of the National Government, which is inexcusable and is against the Standing Orders, and they should be stopped.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have not observed it exactly the same way as the member describes. The member rose to his feet and started his supplementary question without any barrage of interjection at all, but as the member then got into his question and some of the facts that he detailed in his question, that is when I received without cooperation some further interjection from my right. I then told them they had to cease.

Ron Mark: How can he possibly have confidence in a Minister of Police who manipulates, obfuscates, delays, deceives, and misleads Parliament, or is this the new standard of Government that he is trying to lead?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Minister of Police has my full confidence. It sounds like she did a remarkably through job of dealing with what was no doubt a well-intentioned Official Information Act request, and now all the details of the considerations are available to that member as they are to the public.

Mr SPEAKER: Question No. 4, Dr Parmjeet Parmar.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Ron Mark: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: I apologise to the member. Ron Mark—point of order.

Ron Mark: I have a number of tables that I wish to seek leave to document—

Hon Members: Ha, ha!

Ron Mark: I have a number of documents. [Interruption] Well, I can table a table. I have a number of documents that I wish to seek leave to table.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I need to hear the documents described.

Ron Mark: OK, the first one is an OIA request regarding a police resourcing announcement, lodged by the Minister of Police, to the Minister of Police, Police, the Prime Minister, the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, dated 3 February.

Mr SPEAKER: The second document?

Ron Mark: The second one is a letter dated 16 February from the Prime Minister—a partial transfer to the Minister of Police.

Mr SPEAKER: The next document?

Ron Mark: An extension letter dated 1 March from the Minister of Police, extending the deadline to 7 April.

Mr SPEAKER: And the next document?

Ron Mark: An extension letter dated 6 March regarding the transferred request from the Prime Minister extending the deadline to 7 April; a letter dated 4 April from the Minister of Police declining—

Hon member: Ha, ha!

Ron Mark: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: The member is on a point of order. Would he hurry up and describe the document.

Ron Mark: The point of order is—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member is on a point of order.

Ron Mark: I know and I just raised another point of order.

Mr SPEAKER: No. We will deal with the first one first.

Ron Mark: Well, can you shut him up?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am getting to the stage where my patience will not last much longer. I will not even bother putting the leave very shortly. Continue with the description of the documents. You are on No. 5—

Ron Mark: Thank you. A letter dated 4 April from the Minister of Police declining the OIA that was transferred to the Prime Minister because it will soon to be publicly available, but which the Minister failed—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! We do not need that. Just describe the documents.

Ron Mark: A letter dated 5 April from the Minister of Police, extending the OIA response to 10 May; an email from the Police dated 10 April, 3.59 p.m., advising the release of material, that day; an email from the office of the Minister of Police, dated 6.26 the same day, advising that material be released to the public.

Mr SPEAKER: I will not go back and relay all of those. There are eight documents that the member is seeking to table. Is there any objection to those eight documents being tabled? There is not. They can be tabled.

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

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it still a Standing Order and a Speaker’s ruling and judgment that points of order will be heard in silence?

Mr SPEAKER: Yes there is, and the member knows that and on many occasions during points of order he has been guilty of interjecting as well.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I did not ask whether or not in the past that had happened. I wanted to know whether it was still a rule now and whether it was being applied, because when my colleague—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat immediately. [Interruption] The member will resume his seat. If the member had bothered to listen, I said right at the start when I got to me feet that, yes, there is a such a Standing Order and Speaker’s ruling. It requires cooperation from everybody.

Mr SPEAKER: Question No. 5, Jacinda Ardern.

Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: Excuse me, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: No; sorry. We got interrupted. Question No. 4, Dr Parmjeet Parmar.

Family/Whānau Violence—Family Violence Information Disclosure Scheme

4. Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National) to the Minister of Police: What updates has she received about the effectiveness of the Government’s scheme to allow people to find out whether their partner has a history of domestic violence?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister of Police): In December 2015 we introduced a scheme that allows people to ask police whether their partner has a violent past. Sadly, there have been too many cases where people have been unable to find out whether their partner, or the partner of someone close to them, has a history of violence. The scheme has been used 158 times since it began, and 74 percent of requests for information have been approved by police. When police are able to provide people with information about their partner’s history of violence, people can then make more informed choices about their relationships.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: How does this scheme work?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: A disclosure request can be made to police by the partner of the potentially violent person or by a concerned third party, such as a family member. Police can also proactively release information if they believe someone is at risk of violence from their partner. The police have made 117 proactive requests; 41 have been by a third party. Preventing family violence is a priority for Police and this Government.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: What examples does she have of how the scheme has helped people to leave potentially violent relationships?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Police have told me about a disclosure they made to a young woman who was in a relationship with a man whom they knew to have had multiple relationships with very young women where he began to manipulate and use emotional abuse, and they saw that increasing. Police believed the woman was at risk, as his behaviour was escalating towards becoming violent. When police approached her to make the voluntary disclosure, she said she had seen the man’s behaviour deteriorating, and, as a result, she left the relationship and moved back in with family.

Children in State Care—Historical Abuse, Inquiry

5. JACINDA ARDERN (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement in regards to survivors of abuse while in State care that “they’ve been able to come forward, have their story heard, get some compensation. Some of them aren’t necessarily satisfied with that”?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH (Prime Minister): Yes. We have no problem acknowledging that for some people in State care in past decades, abuse occurred of the type that has left them with long-lasting and traumatic damage. The Government is focused on two responses to that. One is through various forms such as the listening service and, now, the service offered by the Ministry of Social Development. Individuals affected can come forward, have their story heard, and be paid compensation, and, of course, if criminal matters arise from that, they can then go to the police. The second strand has been to set out to change the system, which I understand many of the victims would like to see. That is why we have recently launched the Ministry for Vulnerable Children, Oranga Tamariki: precisely to move on from and greatly improve on some of the errors of the past.

Jacinda Ardern: When he said “There has been a form of that inquiry through the listening service that ran for seven years, designed to get to the bottom of these issues”, did he realise that this service closed while there were still people waiting to be heard?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes, and that is why the opportunity made available to them subsequent to the closure of the service has been significantly improved, significantly sped up, in a way that enables more people to be heard, to receive an apology, and to receive compensation.

Jacinda Ardern: If those abused in State care have “had their story heard”, why did Caroline Henwood, the person charged with hearing those stories as part of the Government’s closed Confidential Listening and Assistance Service, recommend that an independent body be set up to look at the extent of State abuse?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: Judge Henwood made a report on the basis of the listening service when it was concluded. I understand and appreciate that some people, including Judge Henwood, do have a view that there should be a broad inquiry, so there has been some discussion publicly about just what would be achieved by such an inquiry in addition to hearing the individual cases, apologising, and compensating, and completely changing the system on a scale that has not occurred since the late 1980s.

Jacinda Ardern: Has he seen the interviews in full with those in State care who featured on The Hui on Sunday?

Carmel Sepuloni: Did he even watch it?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I have not seen those interviews—

Carmel Sepuloni: No, he didn’t.

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well, just listen.

Carmel Sepuloni: Someone else needs to listen.

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: No, no. I have had the opportunity as a member of Parliament to sit through dozens of such interviews—dozens of them, not just with those who were children in care of the State but also with those who had suffered significant abuse in our mental health services and in our prisons. Again, I repeat that the Government is providing the opportunity—which we are quite open to tweaking or changing if the discussion leads us that way—for cases to be heard, for an apology, and for compensation, and, more significantly, has set out to change the system. In my discussions with people who are victims, they want both of those things to happen.

Jacinda Ardern: How can he guarantee that harm is not happening now, when we still do not even have an independent complaints process for children and their families who are in care?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member actually raises a very pertinent issue. The first step that has been taken there has been the setting up of an independent NGO entity called VOYCE—and a number of us have met the people involved with that—which gives a voice and independent advocacy for children. Children in care today can go to that service—it is quite independent from Government—and will be protected, I can assure the member of that. With regard to a proper independent complaints inquiry, I understand that is under discussion, for the reasons that I am sure the member would like to see it.

Jacinda Ardern: Is he claiming that VOYCE, a group funded by the Tindall Foundation and the Vodafone Foundation, is the official complaints process for Child, Youth and Family?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: No. I said it was a first step and, for the first time, there is the opportunity for children to obtain independent advocacy. With regard to independent complaint services, the Children’s Commissioner has been there since 1989. That has turned out not to be satisfactory, and so there is discussion going on as we speak about an independent complaints service.

Electricity Market—Consumer and Industry Prices

6. FLETCHER TABUTEAU (NZ First) to the Minister of Energy and Resources: Why hasn’t the Government called for a full-scale inquiry into retail electricity prices, given the percentage increase in power pricing?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Energy and Resources): We are not calling for a full-scale inquiry into retail electricity prices, because there is no reason to. The electricity market is more competitive than it has ever been, following this Government’s 2009 Ministerial Review of Electricity Market Performance. Retail power prices have fallen in real terms for the first time in 15 years, in the year to March 2016, by 2.1 percent. Statistics New Zealand’s 2015-16 household expenditure survey shows electricity is just 2.9 percent of average weekly household expenditure—the lowest proportion of household budget since 2000-01. That compares with 3.6 percent in the previous survey of 2012-13. That is a decrease of 5.6 percent.

Fletcher Tabuteau: Can she explain to Kiwi families and small businesses why electricity prices have skyrocketed 148 percent since National’s so-called 1998 reforms that were meant to lower prices? [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I will hear from the Hon Judith Collins. [Interruption] Order!

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, the member is simply wrong. I am happy to provide and to table, for that member’s benefit, the figures given to me by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment relating to this. These are, of course, obtained specifically from the Department of Statistics.

Fletcher Tabuteau: How could wholesale electricity prices, like at Ōtāhuhu, for example, average just over 6 cents per kilowatt hour but become 29 cents per kilowatt hour once sold to consumers and small businesses?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Well, I suggest that there is often a difference between wholesale prices and retail prices.

Fletcher Tabuteau: Does she believe that after-tax profits of over half a billion dollars, reported by Mercury, Meridian, and Genesis last year alone, are good for struggling households on fixed incomes, or, for that matter, small businesses just trying to stay afloat?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I think that if we can say the average electricity spend for a household is just 2.9 percent of the average weekly household expenditure, then that is actually a relatively good percentage compared with many other places in the world. I would say that our electricity market has not undergone some of the issues that some other electricity markets have, particularly around security of supply.

Point of Order—Points of Order Raised During Points of Order

RICHARD PROSSER (NZ First): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your guidance with regard to the point of order raised by Mr Mark in the earlier question. During the course of making his point of order, he sought to make another point of order. Looking at Speaker’s ruling 21/6, it says: “If members take exception to anything said in the course of debate which they consider a breach of order that it is their duty to point out, they should do so at once and not take it upon themselves to deal with it later in the debate.” This refers to debate, obviously, and there does not appear to be anything in the Standing Orders to preclude the calling of a point of order within a point of order. I wonder whether you could give some thought to this and perhaps come back to us and clarify whether doing so at once—in other words, calling attention to a breach of order, which Mr Mark was, with reference to an interjection—

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): One of the important things about calling a point of order is that it is, in fact, a point of order and not something you devise to attract attention to oneself.

RON MARK (NZ First): That is precisely the point. How would you or Mr Brownlee know whether my second point of order was or was not a legitimate point of order if you did not hear it? If Mr Brownlee has got a crystal ball down there, I would love to have a look at it sometime! [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: And I myself am blushing. [Interruption] Could we have a little bit of order while I rule on this matter. [Interruption] Order! All points of order and circumstances—I am addressing Richard Prosser’s point of order—are never quite the same on two occasions. When I consider the laborious process Mr Mark was going through in seeking to table documents that he thought might have been informative to the House, but when I consider them now were more about making a political point, inevitably there is going to be an objection or an interjection across the House. It should not happen, but it is no different than an answer being given recently by Minister Judith Collins and Mr Winston Peters taking objection to it and interjecting to that answer across the House. I will do my best to maintain order in the House, and it is certainly not helped by the last point of order raised by Ron Mark.

RON MARK (NZ First): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: Is it a fresh point of order?

RON MARK: Yes, totally. Shall I take it now, from your very considered view just given, Mr Speaker, that if I think a Government member is giving a laborious reply or a laborious point of order, it is quite OK for me to interject like that man over there did?

Mr SPEAKER: I remind the member that on many, many occasions he has done just that.

Schools—Communities of Learning

7. Dr JIAN YANG (National) to the Minister of Education: What recent announcements has she made regarding Communities of Learning?

Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): This morning I was pleased to announce that a further 17 communities of learning have been established, bringing the total to almost 200. There are now 184 early learning services, 1,630 schools, and four tertiary providers covering more than half a million young people in kāhui ako across the country. I am particularly pleased to see that the number of early learning services joining communities of learning has doubled in just 4 months, with 20 percent of kāhui ako now having the full nought to 18 learning pathway represented. Finally, in amongst all this good news, I was pleased to announce that more than 1,100 teachers and principals have been appointed to new roles. It is fantastic to see so many talented individuals in the sector taking up these new roles.

Dr Jian Yang: How do communities of learning support achievement for our young people?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: In so many ways. Communities of learning are about end-to-end education pathways with children and young people at the very centre. The achievement challenges that a kāhui ako sets, using its shared data, are about raising the achievement of all participating students. Communities of learning are designed to ensure all children and young people can benefit from the expertise and experience of the most skilled teachers and education leaders in their communities.

Mēnā ka whakarongo ēnā mema Pāremata, ka ako rātou me pēhea te haere o Te Kāhui Ako.

[If those members of Parliament listen, they will learn how communities of learning operate.]

Kāhui ako are intended to raise the quality of teaching and leadership across a whole community through sharing, expertise, and resources. I thank the member from New Zealand First for enjoying that answer so much.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister can resume her seat.

Export Sector—Growth Targets and Performance

8. GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by the statement he made on behalf of the then Minister of Finance, “we have a very ambitious target for export growth”; if so, what progress has been made towards that target?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Finance): Yes, it is an ambitious target, which the Government is committed to under the Business Growth Agenda by 2025, which, I remind the member, is just 8 years away. Notwithstanding some current headwinds, which include a decrease in world trade intensity, the big drop in dairy prices, and an unscheduled Statistics New Zealand revision, exports by value have grown and real exports as a percentage of GDP have held relatively steady and our goods and services exports have grown tremendously in markets where we have free-trade agreements.

Grant Robertson: Can he confirm that the export target referred to in the primary question was that his Government would lift exports from 30 percent to 40 percent of GDP and that, using the methodology used in the Business Growth Agenda, exports have in fact decreased as a percentage of GDP?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: In terms of the first part of the question, that is the target to be achieved by 2025. In terms of the second part of the question, real exports as a percentage of GDP, which is the figure I am referring to, have dropped slightly in the last calendar year, but they have actually been remarkably steady over the last 10 or 12 years. I think the achievement for our exporters has been that despite a large drop in dairy exports, the exports overall have grown.

Grant Robertson: Why has the value of New Zealand’s overseas merchandise trade fallen in real terms by $603 million since 2008?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well, in the modern world we do not talk about just merchandise trade; we talk about goods and services. In fact, for the member’s benefit, more and more of New Zealand’s exports are now in services rather than in goods, which is all about adding value to volume, which, I think, the member used to be in favour of. So, overall, our exports—I do not have the figure since 2008—in the last 2½ years have grown from just under $68 billion to $70 billion, despite a drop of $5 billion in dairy exports.

Grant Robertson: Why was the target to lift exports to 40 percent of GDP not included in the Trade Agenda 2030 policy announced recently by the Government?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: It is included in the Business Growth Agenda targets and it will be in the next update.

Grant Robertson: When he was asked in February what had happened to the target to lift exports as a percentage of GDP and he said “Watch this space.”, did literally he mean that there is now a void because he had ditched the target?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: This is why the member is known as a trainspotter. He is an absolute trainspotter. He does not actually focus on the substance of anything. He literally looks at little bits of paper all day and tries to work out where the inconsistency is. This Government is proud of its record, which has seen exports grow at the same time as the dairy industry has gone back $5 billion. The member may recall that a couple of years ago he thought that the dairy industry declining would mean the end of New Zealand exports. He was wrong.

Grant Robertson: I seek leave of the House to table a document compiled by the Parliamentary Library tracking exports of goods and services as a percentage of GDP, showing that it has dropped since the National Government came to office.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that particular information. Is there any objection? [Interruption] Is there objection or does the member want to speak to the point of order?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I just wanted to check whether it was a real or nominal.

Mr SPEAKER: The member is asking—

Grant Robertson: It’s real—real. It’s the same methodology.

Mr SPEAKER: It is real. I will put the leave and the House will decide. Leave is sought to table it. Is there any objection? There is no objection; it can be tabled.

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

Housing—Affordability and Availability

9. DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT) to the Minister for Building and Construction: Does he agree with Liam Dann in the New Zealand Herald that “Young house hunters should just give up.”; if not, why not?

Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister of Justice) on behalf of the Minister for Building and Construction: No, for a number of reasons. Firstly, because the Auckland market is easing and we have seen median house prices in Auckland fall 8.5 percent since October. Secondly, we are in the middle of the longest, strongest boom Auckland has ever seen, and only today Colliers reported that 2,770 apartments are due to be completed this year—the highest since 2005—with 3,840 apartments expected next year. Thirdly, the HomeStart grants scheme—the most generous support for first-home buyers in a generation—has provided almost $130 million in grants, which has helped over 27,000 people into their first home, with about 2,500 of them in Auckland. I also note that there are currently over 1,800 listings on TradeMe in Auckland for properties advertised under $600,000. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

David Seymour: In respect of the number of homes being built, does the Minister agree that the current so-called house-building boom still gives us a lower number of homes built per capita than any of the decades from the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, or the 2000s?

Hon AMY ADAMS: I have not had the opportunity to study the data that the member is referring to, but what I can tell the member is that the number of houses being built in Auckland at the moment—of 10,000 a year—is the highest in 10 years. The work that this Government has done around freeing up land supply, around supporting housing projects, is a big part of the reason for that growth, but we could move a lot faster if there was more support across communities in this House.

David Seymour: Is, then, Shamubeel Eaqub wrong when he says that New Zealand has underbuilt to the tune of half a million houses; if not, why not?

Hon AMY ADAMS: What I would say is that this is a Government that is doing everything it can to see more houses being built, which is why the number has almost doubled since we have been in Government. If it was not for opposition across this House and across communities to things like the RMA reform, to things like the special housing areas, and to things like Three Kings and Point England, we would be seeing even more houses built even faster—but thanks to this Government, we are seeing more built in Auckland than we have for 10 years.

David Seymour: In respect of RMA reform, is the Minister disappointed that his own Government ended up voting against many of Amy Adams’ most important proposed reforms, which I put up in the RMA bill as amendments during the Committee stage, such as recognising the importance of land supply, economic development, and infrastructure, which would have made it easier to build homes?

Hon AMY ADAMS: What I will say is that this Government is absolutely confident that the reforms that it has passed will help to further speed up the supply of land and houses into both the Auckland and the New Zealand markets. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

David Seymour: Does the Minister have any advice for thrifty young homebuyers attempting to save faster than they can earn, when the average price of housing in Auckland rose by $114,000 last year and is now over $1 million?

Hon AMY ADAMS: What I would say to homebuyers is that with interest rates at low levels, houses are more affordable now than they have been for some time. Actually, whether you look at the average or the median house prices in Auckland, over the last several months they have been falling, which is an encouraging sign.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I want to check the number of supplementary questions this member has been given. I cannot believe this sadism should go on like the way it is.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! If the member attempts to use more than his allocation, I will handle it.

David Seymour: Indeed, has the Minister enjoyed standing in for Nick Smith today, and has she asked the Prime Minister whether she can do it more permanently, as of 1 May?

Hon AMY ADAMS: I always enjoy being a part of this team.

David Seymour: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Mr Peters, you might have noticed we now have a point of order, so it is meant to be heard in silence.

David Seymour: In the course of some of the barracking in this question, Ron Mark called me, I think, an idiot, which is not only unparliamentary but, as the events of today have shown, it is a bit hypocritical.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I was going to assist the member, until the last part of his point of order.

Veterans—Repatriation of Remains

10. MAUREEN PUGH (National) to the Minister of Veterans’ Affairs: What announcements has he made regarding repatriation of military personnel remains?

Hon DAVID BENNETT (Minister of Veterans’ Affairs): The New Zealand Government has announced that it is giving the families of military personnel and their dependants the opportunity to repatriate the remains of their loved ones buried in Malaysia and Singapore between 1955 and 1971. This decision comes as a result of recommendations of the Veterans’ Advisory Board, and the advocacy of the Royal New Zealand Returned and Services’ Association and affected families. I would like to especially acknowledge the petition of the families of the forgotten fallen who presented to this Parliament last year. It is about making an unfair situation fair.

Maureen Pugh: How many veterans would potentially be included in this announcement?

Hon DAVID BENNETT: Between 1955 and 1971 there was inconsistency in how repatriation occurred. Prior to 1955 there was no expectation of repatriation. After 1971 all bodies were repatriated. Between 1955 and 1971 some families had repatriation where they paid towards the costs. Others were not informed or were discouraged from repatriation. Meanwhile, civil servants were repatriated. There are 36 families that will be given the opportunity to repatriate from cemeteries in Singapore and Malaysia. This covers the Malaya- and Vietnam-conflict military personnel. The New Zealand Defence Force will consider extending the process to a further 13 families who have loved ones buried in other locations around the world from the same period of time. The Government is rectifying the inconsistencies of the past in repatriation for affected families.

Maureen Pugh: What are the options for the families for repatriation?

Hon DAVID BENNETT: The initial step in the process is for families to contact the New Zealand Defence Force. The families will have the choice as to whether or not to repatriate from the overseas cemeteries. We understand that this is a sensitive issue for many families, especially those with particular cultural considerations. For those who choose to have their loved ones brought back to New Zealand, it is now a process that will be worked through with the New Zealand Defence Force. The Government is determined to right the wrongs of the past and give repatriation to those families who wish to do so. It is time to bring them home.

Children in State Care—Abuse Data and Reporting

11. JAN LOGIE (Green) to the Minister for Social Development: Is she satisfied that, according to her answer to written question 1048, she could not say how many children were reported to have been seriously abused in State care in 2015/16?

Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister of Justice) on behalf of the Minister for Social Development: Yes. As was explained in the answer to the written question, the methodology for the reporting of the abuse of children in care is changing quite dramatically from previous years. The approach for 2015-16 is that all types of abuse, across a larger population, will now be considered and the manual work required to create this data set has not yet been completed but will be publicly available in the second half of this year. I would also like to note that it was only under this Government that reporting began on these numbers, in 2010-11. I would also like to add that the previous Child, Youth and Family, now the Ministry for Vulnerable Children, Oranga Tamariki, puts the safety and well-being of children in its care above all else, and it has clear policy and guidelines in place for responding to any complaints or allegations, including safety assessments, and referral to police when warranted.

Jan Logie: Does she share the concern of former social development Minister Paula Bennett, who, in response to questions from the Green Party about why the Government was not reporting, in 2011 said: “It, quite frankly, horrified me that we didn’t know how many children and young people in our care were abused and re-abused.”, particularly at this time of restructuring, when, potentially, mistakes might be made that could result in more children being hurt?

Hon AMY ADAMS: We absolutely recognise the need to know and understand how many children in care have been abused, which is why we are now taking the opportunity to count larger numbers of abuse types, across a larger population—because while this Government started the collection of that data, we now want to go even further and ensure we have the fullest possible picture of the abuse that might happen in any type of State care. That work is taking time but it is absolutely being collected and will be reported.

Jan Logie: Why is she not adding extra reporting criteria to the previous one, instead of creating a new one, which will make it impossible to track whether more or fewer kids are experiencing serious abuse in care?

Hon AMY ADAMS: We are adding further criteria, but what we have to do is go through the files manually, and if we had gone through them manually on the old set it would have taken even longer and duplicated the work. So to get to the answer, the decision was made by the Ministry of Social Development that rather than duplicate the repeat of the narrower set, it wanted to go through those files once and get the most comprehensive answer. We are not going to be losing visibility. That information is being collected and will be reported in the second half of this year.

Joanne Hayes: What work is the Minister doing to ensure that current and future children in care are able to raise any concerns or complaints?

Hon AMY ADAMS: As part of the new Ministry for Vulnerable Children, Oranga Tamariki—which was launched on 1 April—changes have already been made to ensure that children and young people have increased visibility and access to a feedback and complaints mechanism that listens and responds to their voices. The feedback and complaints response is a crucial component of the support we wrap around our most vulnerable children to help ensure their safety and support them to thrive. Work is also under way to establish an oversight of the ministry’s feedback and complaints mechanism. Also launched from 1 April was VOYCE - Whakarongo Mai, an NGO that provides children and young people in care with a network of contacts and peers that will support them and ensure their voices are heard.

Jan Logie: When the last available figures showed that a child in State care was being seriously abused every 9 days—a 25 percent increase in the very short time that her Government reported—how is it OK to stop reporting this information?

Hon AMY ADAMS: I repeat again that we have not stopped collecting the information. We are, in fact, going through the process of building a much more comprehensive way of reporting, counting a wider scope of abuse across a wider population, because, in this Government’s view, all abuse in any form of State care is insidious and unacceptable and we want to have visibility of it all. That data is being collected, and will be reported this year.

Jan Logie: Is the Minister hiding an increase in the number of children being abused in State care?

Hon AMY ADAMS: I am really not sure how I can put this any more clearly. The information is being counted and will be released, and it will be more comprehensive than any information that has previously been put out. I think I have made it very clear that we want to see the widest range of analysis of all types of abuse in all types of care. That work is being done now and will be reported. There has been no stop in collection and there has been no hiding of data. We are getting the information now and it will be reported in the second half of this year.

Emergency Housing—Motel Use

12. CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston) to the Associate Minister for Social Housing: Does he stand by the former Prime Minister who said “If they’re sleeping in a car, my very strong advice is to go and see Work and Income and we’ll see what we can do”?

Hon ALFRED NGARO (Associate Minister for Social Housing): No one in genuine hardship should be living rough on the streets or in cars. I do agree with the former Prime Minister; they should go to see Work and Income.

Carmel Sepuloni: What impact will the upcoming World Masters Games—which is estimated to draw 35,000 contestants and supporters to Auckland—have on individuals and families who are homeless and requiring emergency accommodation from 21 to 30 April?

Hon ALFRED NGARO: We have been working hard—the team has been working hard—to ensure that we have a range of options that are available to our families, and to our individuals as well. We have pre-booked motel rooms at rates that are not much greater than we usually expect to pay. What I can assure the member too is that since we have invested—the first Government—$354 million into emergency housing, our baseline is that we have 265 places that are tenanted by families, with another 220 that are coming online in the next few months. We can say, on top of that, that there are another 430 places, and roughly half of those are coming online in the next few months as well.

Carmel Sepuloni: How many motel rooms has he pre-booked during the World Masters Games period to ensure those requiring emergency accommodation have access to it, particularly in light of the number of 400 per night who we know are requiring emergency accommodation already at this time?

Hon ALFRED NGARO: What I can tell the member is that there are roughly around 350 people a week who access the special needs grants. Of those, we know that there are places that are already in place—as I have said, 265 places that are there as well. We have a range of options, not just motels. There are other options that are there. We also have the emergency houses coming online as well. What I can say to the member is that earlier this month, with the Prime Minister, we actually launched Luke Street, which is in Ōtāhuhu. That is 43 units of transitional housing in Ōtāhuhu. That means 250 mums and dads and their children—for up to 12 weeks—will have warm and dry accommodation as well. In Kepa Road, in Ōrākei—as soon as the weather clears—there will be six modular houses on site. In South Auckland—soon to be announced—there will be another 63 units available as well.

Carmel Sepuloni: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was really clear. I asked how many motel rooms he had booked during the World Masters Games period, and he has given a number of other—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is all we need. The question is how many motel rooms have been pre-booked during the games.

Hon ALFRED NGARO: In my answer I said there are a number that have been pre-booked. I can get the number for the member, if the member would like to put that in writing. What I said was that there are a number of options. There have been pre-booked motels. There are actually houses that are in place at the moment—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The question has now been addressed.

Carmel Sepuloni: Given that Auckland accommodation is so stretched that 53 American tourists stranded by a cancelled flight had to stay overnight at Te Puea Marae in February this year, how does he expect Work and Income to ensure homeless families are not sleeping in their cars when there are 35,000 extra tourists in Auckland needing accommodation?

Hon ALFRED NGARO: This Government has been working in partnership with a number of providers. Part of that initiative is around Housing First Auckland. This complements the programme of work that this Government has been doing at the moment. We are piloting a programme of 472 homeless over Auckland, costing around about $4.5 million over 2 years. The Government takes its responsibility around homelessness seriously. The question around homelessness is a partnership with Government and emergency housing providers, as well as community housing providers, also.

Carmel Sepuloni: Can he guarantee that his “team’s been working hard to make sure we’ve got that covered”, and that no one who approaches Work and Income in need of emergency accommodation during the World Masters Games will be turned away without some form of safe housing?

Hon ALFRED NGARO: I have great faith in the team, which has been working hard. We work hard because there is a genuine response to meet those needs. Our providers, who are out there at the moment, are in touch and on the ground. We are working with emergency housing providers to ensure that we have confidence that we are meeting those needs. If there are contingencies that need to be put in place, we know the team is prepared and ready for that as well.

Bills

Telecommunications (Property Access and Other Matters) Amendment Bill

Third Reading

Mr SPEAKER: I call the Hon Gerry Brownlee—please mind your crystals.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) on behalf of the Minister for Communications: I move, That the Telecommunications (Property Access and Other Matters) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. The bill amends the Telecommunications Act 2001. The amendments in this bill ultimately will make it easier for more New Zealanders to realise the benefits of next-generation communications networks such as ultra-fast broadband. The approach taken will reduce the frustrations and time delays experienced by many New Zealanders who are seeking fibre connections. As well, the companies that are installing the connections are also being alleviated of some of those frustrations. What I would say is that none of the granting of statutory rights of access to shared property for the purpose of installing ultra-fast broadband alleviates any of the need for the companies making the installation to behave in a reasonable fashion when dealing with property owners. The bill provides for regulatory requirements for ultra-fast broadband to be continued into the second phase of the programme and it makes improvements to the allocation of telecommunications development levy liability.

Recently the Hon Simon Bridges announced that an additional investment will provide 85 percent of New Zealanders with access to ultra-fast broadband by the end of 2024. This bill will contribute to achieving this target, which will put New Zealand among the leaders in the OECD for access to fibre.

The bill creates a new consenting process that telecommunications companies must follow when installing modern telecommunications networks like ultra-fast broadband in instances where multiple parties have legal interests in shared property, such as shared driveways and the common areas of multi-use complexes. These amendments are necessary to provide better outcomes for the estimated 71,000 households that are currently unable to connect to fibre due to problems with obtaining consents for it to be installed. These problems can range from uncontactable neighbours to instances where consent may be withheld because of an unrelated conflict. As Mr Bridges has said before, these provisions do not obfuscate the TELCOs from having to deal with property owners in a reasonable fashion, but it will speed up things and allow more households to connect, and the bill will also benefit homeowners in other ways. It incentivises telecommunications companies to use lower-impact methods for installation, where possible, resulting in less disruption to the property.

The amendments also grant statutory rights of access to use existing electricity lines for deployment of fibre-optic cable in rural areas. Utilising existing infrastructure for this purpose provides an opportunity to improve the rural productivity in a low-cost, effective way, while also making progress towards connecting as many New Zealanders as possible to better telecommunications networks.

The bill amends the requirement for the provision of financial information in the Commerce Commission’s telecommunications development levy liability allocation process. The bill also extends the regulatory requirements relating to the first phase of the ultra-fast broadband programme to the extension of this programme, which Mr Bridges announced at the end of January. This will ensure consistency with what Parliament has already enacted for the first phase of the programme. It means that the companies contracted to build and operate the ultra-fast broadband network in new areas will be subject to requirements of the Commerce Commission related to the cost and characterisation of their network services. What that all means is that it still pursues a fair pricing approach.

On behalf of the Minister, I want to thank the members of the Commerce Committee for their time and considerable effort in working through this bill. I would also, on behalf of the Minister, like to thank those who submitted on the bill for their useful and valued contributions.

Access to faster, more reliable internet is a vital part of our plan in developing a productive and competitive economy, improving health and educational outcomes, and creating more jobs for New Zealanders and their families. I commend this bill to the House.

CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): It is a relief, actually, to be speaking in the third reading on this bill. It is not often that the Opposition gets up and is perhaps more effusive than the Government in speaking on a Government bill, and it is not often that the Opposition gets up and says that it is proud of a bill. Occasionally we get a member’s bill through, and that is definitely an occasion to be proud of, but it is rare that a Government-introduced bill has such strong support.

There are two reasons for this, with the first being that a large part of this bill was actually Labour’s policy in 2014. I will just read to you what our policy said—and remember, this is 2014—“Currently, between 20 and 40 percent of UFB installations require consent for right of ways and for multi-unit dwellings, and we understand that there are legal impediments for householders in right of ways to access fibre. We support finding solutions to these issues so they do not unnecessarily impede the ability to roll-out of fibre while respecting the property rights of owners. We believe that there have been unnecessary delays in resolving this issue and will work with the industry as a matter of urgency to do so.”

Well, guess what? It is 3 years later and we are only now getting through a piece of legislation to deal with that quite important issue—and the Government has only just got round to sorting it out. We know from the submissions before the select committee that for some providers at least 17 percent of connections, for people who wanted to get connected to ultra-fast broadband (UFB), were being held up by these impediments. One provider told us that 60 percent of their work was being held up as a result. We also know that the cost to industry of not doing those connections was at least—and has been at least—$40 million of business that could not be done because people were being held up by being unable to get consent processes through, and just giving up in many cases, and just sticking with the poorer connectivity that they had.

We also know of hundreds and thousands of frustrated and angry constituents who could not get access to this new infrastructure because of the impediments in law. That is one reason why getting this legislation through today is actually very important. The second reason is the part of the bill that was introduced at the select committee stage to allow fibre to be deployed across electricity poles and through private land in rural New Zealand. This is a revolutionary part of the bill. It opens up important economic opportunity to rural New Zealand and actually overtakes the existing Government policy. It came about because of the good work of the select committee as the result of the push from the industry—and here I want to acknowledge Northpower, the electricity lines company that has been a provider of UFB within part of its footprint. It was its vision and its tenacity that pushed this through the select committee.

I do want to acknowledge the work of the Commerce Committee chaired by Melissa Lee and the work of officials on this bill. The select committee worked extremely hard and productively and constructively to get this legislation through. As a result, rural New Zealand now has an opportunity to get fibre out into places that it would not have got into much sooner than with the Government’s existing policy, whether for ultra-fast broadband or for rural broadband. It is an unusual example of a select committee producing legislation that is substantially better than the policy of the existing Government. We not only support this bill; we were a key driver along with other Opposition parties in getting it through select committee, and we want it passed because there are too many obstacles in the way of many New Zealanders getting access to fibre.

The sticking point in getting this proposal to the select committee had been whether or not Federated Farmers supported it, and I think we should acknowledge that—that is why the Minister did not allow it to come in the original bill. Federated Farmers did acknowledge, when it came before the select committee, that there was a digital divide, that it was a major concern, and that Northpower’s proposal would help, but it wanted compensation for access to its land and for the poles and lines across its land. The Minister and the ministry had been frightened off by this—by its initial opposition—but they could have done this work behind the scenes before it came to select committee. Instead, it was left to the committee, which it did.

A good compromise was reached and it meant that the private landowners were able to get a connection as part of the deal of the fibre going across their land. It really came down to a matter of how many metres that free connection could be strung out. We came to the compromise position of 200 metres for a free connection, and for anything beyond that up to 500 metres, it would be a fifty-fifty charge. That was a good compromise. Ultimately, it was the result of hard work and good negotiations that came out of the select committee. As I said, I am acknowledging Northpower, because it did a lot of the work to push it through. I think it is really important that we acknowledge that.

The digital divide in New Zealand is real. It is significant and that is why this bill is so important. It is not just about the 100,000 schoolchildren who do not have access to the internet at home and the 300,000 New Zealanders who have never used the internet. It is about places that are more remote in New Zealand, outside the urban footprints, that simply are on dial-up speed or only just above that, yet having $300 million spent by the Government in its rural broadband initiative—which I consider to be a poor cousin to the UFB—their speeds have barely improved.

In Wairoa for instance, 49 percent of the population has no internet connection. In Huntly just 44 percent of households have internet access, 51 percent in Tuakau, 51 percent in Taumarunui. In Kawerau the main schools have complained that very few of their students have the internet at home due to cost and access issues. We have heard nightmare stories from people about their inability to even get their EFTPOS machines working in parts of New Zealand. These are not the most remote parts of New Zealand; these are parts of New Zealand that should be able to be doing better than this right now.

That is why this bill is so important: it provides an economic opportunity. With the Government’s two announcements, I heard the Minister say that the UFB will improve things. Well, for 130,000 people in New Zealand it will not improve things until as late as 2024. That is 7 years away; 130,000 people will not benefit from the ultra-fast broadband scheme until 2024. That is light years away in terms of internet access. Imagine what impact that will have on all of those children who are going to school during that time, and all of the people who are trying to develop business opportunities during that time.

What this bill does, despite the Government’s actual policy, is it provides an economic opportunity for lines companies, whether they choose to do it themselves or engage with a third party, to open up rural broadband, backhaul, and actual access to the rest of New Zealand who are the poor cousins, who are the second cousins, who have been disadvantaged and are likely to be disadvantaged for potentially up to another decade. We commend this bill. We supported this bill. In fact, we helped write part of this bill.

MELISSA LEE (National): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to take a brief call on the Telecommunications (Property Access and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the members of the Commerce Committee, as the honourable member across the House has actually done as well. I would especially like to thank my deputy, Mr Brett Hudson, whose knowledge has actually been tremendously helpful, and also the secretariat and officials for their due diligence in assisting us with our work.

The bill creates a new consenting process that telecommunications companies must follow when installing modern telecommunications networks, such as the ongoing ultra-fast broadband network roll-out around New Zealand. These changes will help New Zealanders get faster and more effective access to top-level internet speeds in their communities, cut through the red-tape and bureaucracy that comes in multi-owner dwellings, and overall assist with the best possible development of our online needs around the country. As the member opposite has actually said, the speeds at which we want our internet to be, and our taste and our desire, have actually grown as the technology has progressed.

The Commerce Committee made a number of recommendations on the telecommunications amendment bill. One of the biggest issues discussed at the committee was the deployment of fibre on electricity lines, which was traversed extensively during the Committee stage of this bill, and also by Ms Curran earlier.

Another key recommendation was about the narrow definition of property in regards to shared property, where at least one party with an interest in the property has requested fibre to the premises’ service. The recommendations also allow for more effective roll-out where installation methods with the lowest impact will no longer need consent from other parties and will overall ensure that installation with local impacts on other property or property rights holders will no longer need consent from all parties, speeding up installation rates and supporting the interest of the community.

Many communities have been waiting for a long time for this bill to happen, and I am not going to delay the process by talking about who was right and who was wrong. The Commerce Committee is a split committee, where members opposite and the Government have equal members. Without cooperation at the committee, we would not be bringing this bill back to the House. I appreciate the support of the Opposition, as well as the Government members, who work very cooperatively. As Miss Curran has actually said, in terms of the conversation of fibre on electricity power lines, it came as a result of the recommendation by one of the submitters, and we, in fact, extended the time at the committee, seeking extensions to discuss this further and to traverse the conversation with a wider audience. We wanted to get it correct and get it right, and I think the Commerce Committee has actually delivered. It is a good bill and I commend the work that the committee has actually done, and I commend the bill to the House.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): Can I add to the comments of previous speakers. As my colleague from the Labour Party, Clare Curran, has already mentioned, the Labour Party is fully supportive of this bill—both legs of it. The first leg, in respect of enabling access along common property, is one that is easy to understand. If four people have an undivided interest in a driveway that is servicing four flats, then, at law, an interference with that driveway requires the consent of all four, unless we in this Parliament confer a right on one person, in concert with their technology provider, by law giving that person, if they want it, the right to carry out low-impact activities. Low-impact activities can include a trench up a right of way into which plastic pipe is put and the fibre is laid through that pipe. Eventually, one of the reasons why this is an appropriate thing to do—to, effectively, override, if you like, the property rights of the three that are not involved, in favour of the fourth—is that over time everyone will benefit, and that pipe will be able to be used to supply fibre for the four properties at the end of that driveway, even if at the start it is only servicing one. So there is a very low impact on the private property rights.

It is an interesting example, where the National Government is, effectively, agreeing that there is a limit to private property rights, that this is an appropriate limit to the private property right, and that there is a community interest in enabling the delivery of infrastructure, such as fibre, notwithstanding the fact that one of those property rights owners might object.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: It’s not extensive, and they have still got to behave themselves. They don’t at the moment.

Hon DAVID PARKER: Yes. No, they do have to behave themselves. I agree, and they cannot go too far and they cannot damage fences and things, and there has been a bit of that at times.

It is interesting that this is occurring just a couple of weeks after the Productivity Commission reported on the Resource Management Act and other legislation affecting resource management in New Zealand. It has got a very good analysis in its report of the limits to private property rights, because although you hear from groups—including, I think, The New Zealand Initiative—at times over-describing the private property rights that the landowner has in New Zealand, it is interesting that, I think, the Government has got it right here to recognise that there is a proper limit to the private property right of the individual property owner and that the community right and the community interest in the delivery of this infrastructure is such that the rights of the individual property owner can, effectively, be overridden in this limited way to ensure that the infrastructure is put in in a cost-effective and timely manner.

The area that the Commerce Committee members—on all sides—pushed to improve was for rural areas. As my colleague Clare Curran said, it started with a submission from Northpower, which is a provider of lines services in the North, coming and saying: “Well, look, it would be useful if existing electricity infrastructure, including lamp posts”—which often cross private land, or the lines between the lamp posts, and the lamp posts themselves, are often sited on or over private land—“could be used also to deliver ultra-fast broadband.” Of course, that is the most cost-effective way of doing it. Just about every house in New Zealand has electric wires leading to it, and they are strung along lamp posts, and it is sensible that they be used to service these areas, particularly where the economics of delivering fibre is worse because of the low concentrations of population.

There is, of course, a historical precedent for this, and I suspect that Federated Farmers were mindful of that historical precedent when they came to the select committee and supported the proposal. When electricity was first distributed throughout New Zealand, that was done through power poles and wires being delivered throughout the country in the most cost-effective means possible, which generally meant taking a straight line across private property, which was done generally with the approval of the landowner—I suspect sometimes it was without the approval of the landowner—and, once put in, those electricity poles, power poles and the lines had a right to stay there prescribed or set out in the Electricity Act. It is the Electricity Act that, in that situation, effectively, overrides the private property right of the landowner. There was a quid pro quo in society where through that accommodation between the State, which was rolling out electricity across the country around the time of World War II and after—before and after World War II. There were some areas that were not connected, I think, until as late as about 1950. It was that arrangement between the State and private owners that saw the faster and more cost-effective distribution of electricity throughout the land.

I know that in retrospect some of the farming groups have said “Hey, this is not fair. We now want to be paid for the existence of those power poles.”, but actually, in truth, most farmers either agreed to it at the time or bought subject to that impediment. So I do not think they suffer any unfairness in having to put up with that continuing presence of the power lines for no recompense, because that was the state of their property rights when they purchased it in the first place. Against that precedent, you can see when the select committee started to look at the Northpower recommendation that it thought that it was actually the same in principle as the roll-out of electricity all those decades ago. Even better than that, there is even less inconvenience to the landowner on this occasion, because the power poles and power lines are already there. This is just stringing an extra wire from them, which is unlikely even to be noticed. So the select committee, I think, got to a very sensible point.

I congratulate Federated Farmers, and also the regional lines companies. It is interesting that a lot of those lines companies are still community-owned. I think that is a good thing for New Zealand. I know that there are some people around who think that we should be forcing the consolidation of these various lines companies so that we have got fewer of them. I disagree. I do not mind them being owned by their local communities. If there are inefficiencies in the way in which they maintain that infrastructure, they can always group together, a bit like councils group together and deliver shared services these days. You do not actually have to push the ownership together. I like the fact that we actually, effectively, have co-ops for the delivery of our rural lines. I really like the fact that those community organisations do not have a purely commercial motive. They have a service motive when it comes to servicing the needs of their people. They actually, I think, will step up to the mark and say: “Hey, this is something that we can do for the benefit of our community. We expect a reasonable rate of return for it, but it will be cheaper than any other way of delivering fibre to those rural networks.”

So it seems to me that everyone wins. The dispersed communities in rural areas are more likely to receive fibre earlier than they would otherwise have received it; whether it is earlier or otherwise, it is likely to be cheaper than it would have been otherwise, because it is utilising that expensive infrastructure; and it is avoiding the legal costs of seeking easements and those negotiations that are, to be honest, a bit of a pain for everyone on all sides, including, often, the landowner. So it will be cheaper and more convenient, and it will mean that we have got better broadband services. Why is that important? In my view, broadband services to rural areas are important for maximising the economy of those local areas, for bringing new economic opportunities to rural areas through new industries, and also—and I think this is, perhaps, underemphasised at times—for ensuring that we can use technology to achieve better levels of environmental performance on farm.

The automation through sensor technology, mobile devices, and feeding back through broadband—or through mobile, for that matter; both are appropriate channels—to the regulator and to the farm manager information about moisture levels, nitrate levels, and run-off levels to rivers will be enabled by this modern technology. It is one of the routes to get back to cleaner rivers in New Zealand. As we know, in many parts of the country they are now so polluted you cannot swim in them. So technology is an important part of that answer. This amendment agreed to at select committee and now being passed by this House will aid us in doing better on that front, too.

BRETT HUDSON (National): It is a pleasure to rise in support of this Telecommunications (Property Access and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. There are just two parts I want to briefly canvass on, the first, of course, being what has taken some time to achieve: balancing property rights with both the desire of the recipient to receive fibre in their home across shared infrastructure, and, of course, also the Government’s desire to expand our broadband capability across greater parts of New Zealand into more of the population.

It is important to know that we are not actually suspending property rights. We are not really constraining them or removing them. All we are doing is limiting, under very specific circumstances, rights of objection. It is notable that it is where the works are going to be temporary, both in their nature and in terms of their impact, in the sense that there is no great lasting impact. I think it is a very pragmatic way of getting past areas where people have been able to object and forestall the installation and receipt of broadband of some of their neighbours, simply for their own reasons of not particularly, perhaps, liking a bit of digging works outside their house along the driveway. I think it is a very pragmatic approach.

The main part I will just finish with is this idea of extending fibre access across rural properties, one where the Commerce Committee worked very solidly together to protect private property rights, particularly of our rural landholders, while also seeking to extend the Government’s objective of extending not only high-speed broadband but fibre access across more of our rural communities. It is a fantastic example of members of Parliament working across the House for a common objective. It was an absolute pleasure to sit on the committee as we worked through that, and I think we have returned a very, very solid bill, one that I commend to the House.

JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green): I rise to speak on the third reading of the Telecommunications (Property Access and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. The Green Party supports this bill. Of course, the Green Party has been very supportive of investment in infrastructure that can benefit all New Zealanders and help us transition to a lower-carbon economy. Ultra-fast broadband is one of those investments, and although we probably have had concerns about the particular approach the Government took to ultra-fast broadband investment—it seemed to favour some providers more than others, and we have questions about that—the reality is that it is an example of investment in something that is in the public interest. There are many areas like that, particularly as we are looking to reduce our carbon emissions, looking to reduce inequality, and looking to get an economy that is working for New Zealanders—a fairer, greener economy. It will require more leadership from Government, not less—more leadership on those investments that have wide public benefits, like ultra-fast broadband.

The other really phenomenal thing about this bill, which is dealing with very particular problems that came up in the roll-out of ultra-fast broadband around, initially, dwellings that included multiple owners—we had to find a solution to that. What was interesting about this process—I did not sit on the Commerce Committee, which went through this, but my colleague Gareth Hughes did, and my understanding is that because the numbers on this particular select committee are perfectly balanced, there was a need to find consensus and work together, which we do not often see here in this House. I think there is a really great lesson that comes out of that, which is that we are better when we work together. We are better when we hear from all of the different people who are affected, and we find better solutions when everyone, with their different perspectives, is able to bring something to the table and we can work through it on a consensus basis.

That does not usually happen in this Parliament because the reality is the Government has the numbers on most things right now. It has one vote, thanks to the support of two very small parties that have only one member each, and so it does not have to find consensus. But I think the story of this bill is that when you do have to find consensus and work together, we can produce legislation that is going to come up with better solutions for all New Zealanders. I think that the people of New Zealand would like to see more of this type of collaboration from their politicians. I think there is a real hunger out there as we face the different challenges we are facing, particularly our long-term challenges around climate change and inequality, and we do need a more democratic approach and a more collaborative approach.

So the Green Party is very happy to support this bill. We were very happy to participate in the process of making the bill better with other parties from across the House, and we would like to see a New Zealand where we have more of that collaborative approach more often, because we know that that is going to help more people. Kia ora.

RIA BOND (NZ First): I am pleased to rise on behalf of New Zealand First and take this third reading call on the Telecommunications (Property Access and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. New Zealand First, in the first reading, supported this bill to the select committee stage, and that was because of the concerns we had, primarily, with things like property access—access to multiple properties, driveways, and shared dwellings—and the issues that members of our community were actually facing when trying to get connectivity to ultra-fast broadband or fibre. What this bill actually tried to do in that initial process was to address those matters, which is why we did say we would support it to the select committee. We could definitely, on merit, see that this bill would do that, and we wanted to tease it out through the select committee process to ensure that these concerns were not only brought to us from submitters but also discussed in an open forum through that process.

I have to say that in previous calls in the first reading, second reading, and Committee stage the time this bill took in the background in order to get here in the House had been touched on by various members. It has been said that it took some 4 years, and, due to the fact that internet connectivity and IT provisions within this country are growing so rapidly, I also wanted to point out that it did take its time to get here, but we are pleased that it is finally here.

I do want to say that we had 54 submissions come through the Commerce Committee, and we heard 14 submitters. In that process—and I have said this before—we had mums and dads, we had farmers, we had New Zealand councils from right round the country, and we had Federated Farmers. We also had a submitter, whom Clare Curran spoke to in the Committee stage, Ewan, who spoke about the fact that he wanted the committee to insert a new section that would allow the fibre-optic cabling to be sitting alongside the power lines. With that kind of communication and dialogue that was quite open with the committee, we found that it made common sense to look at that and to discuss it in more depth.

What we also received in one of those submissions was actually a submission from Northpower, which shared with us that it had been working with the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment for over 12 months and trying to look at the option of having legislation changes to allow the fibre cable to sit within pre-existing infrastructure that was currently owned by them. The fish-hook in there came in the areas of private land ownership—so, like, the rural areas and farmland. It became apparent that Federated Farmers and Northpower needed to sit down around a table and consult each other about those issues that Federated Farmers had brought through to Northpower and the concerns of those farmers. We were quite happy that the information and the support and communications that came back from Northpower was that they had indeed reached an amicable decision about this.

One of the submitters who rang in further supported this by saying that he was OK with Northpower to provide 200 metres to the breakout point. He was quite happy, and some other fellow farmers were actually quite happy too, to personally pay for the other 300 metres from the breakout point to their dwellings. So what was seen as potentially quite a big issue became quite small in comparison when we looked at the economic improvements that our rural area could actually have.

I also spoke about the digital divide between our urban and rural areas, and I spoke about the fact that this bill, particularly with the amendments and also the Supplementary Order Paper 280 that the Minister for Communications introduced, was actually going to be quite good for the urban and rural areas.

I want to touch on some of the issues that some people in my area in Southland have had. I relayed back to the Dennis brothers, who are identities within the racing industry—when I visited their farm and looked through their issues, one of the things that one of the brothers said to me was: “How crazy is it that we can’t even bet on our own horses when we’re not at the track—on our property.” That property is 7½ minutes from Invercargill’s city centre. So I know that the Dennis brothers—if you are watching this today, you will be quite happy with the fact that this bill is going through.

I also want to talk about the fact that I met with Rural Women New Zealand, and some of the concerns there were about the fact that a lot of the women were actually doing a lot of the paperwork on behalf of the farm, and they had issues with connectivity or being unable to upload their data on to their software systems. It was a huge problem for them. I want to say that this bill will now address that problem too. But also, actually, another area in the rural area with women was the fact that a lot of them had start-up businesses from home. These were entrepreneurial women who found it absolutely not OK that they could not get connectivity, so they were unable to provide a foolproof service to their customers. I know that I am quite happy—with all the amendments and the changes that the select committee has worked really hard on, along with our policy advisers—that this bill is now actually going to be fit for purpose.

I would like to talk about that Supplementary Order Paper 208 just a little bit more. When it came to me at half past 10 on Tuesday morning last week I took the time to go through it and look at all the recommendations that actually were further amending what the Commerce Committee had actually provided. I did say at the time that this was quite small—that it looked at little glitches and technical drafting issues. Although it was quite a big Supplementary Order Paper it also made sense to actually further improve the bill so that members on both sides of the House could put through legislation so that it was actually fit for purpose, it was actually going to meet the intent of what the bill was necessary for, and it was going to fix the issues that we have had all around New Zealand and that we have heard from our submitters when we went through the select committee process.

On that note, I would like to say that New Zealand First does support this bill. We support the fact that it is a sound bill, and we look forward to its passage through the House.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): I will take a short call on this Telecommunications (Property Access and Other Matters) Amendment Bill for no other reason, really, than that there is quite a lot of concord in the House and support around this bill today. As other members have noted, the Commerce Committee worked quite hard and collegially on this. There were a number of issues that did strike us. One of them was around the whole balance between, of course, private property rights—particularly important to this side of the House—but also an acceptance that if one person on a shared driveway or within a body corporate setup, for example, wants access, they should be able to have the right to do that. This bill rebalances things, in many ways with a presumption that the fibre should come to the home.

Importantly, we did understand as a select committee that there could be some tensions around that, and we do not want to completely ride roughshod over that, so the bill has provisions for, effectively, appeals, or the chance to actually go to a dispute dynamic. That is quite important.

Look, a lot of the other elements have been well surveyed already by other members of the House. As I said in my first speech many months ago, as we introduced this, there is the difference between the old dial-up speed, which is like a 10-minute speech, and an ultra-fast broadband speech, which is over in just less than 1 minute and 30 seconds.

MICHAEL WOOD (Labour—Mt Roskill): I am very happy to rise to speak to the Telecommunications (Property Access and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. I was not here as a member of the House in the earlier stages of this bill, but it is one that I actually talk about quite a bit. As a new member, people ask me what it is like to be a member of Parliament: “What’s it like in the House? What is it like in Parliament?”.

Richard Prosser: I hope you don’t tell them.

MICHAEL WOOD: Ha, ha! Of course, what people are interested in is the niggle. But, actually, I draw reference to this bill to explain to people that on some occasions this House and the processes we have in this House actually work well, and that when we sit down with common objectives to improve the lot of people in our country and when we work through legislation in a sensible way, with an eye on the benefits that we want to see for people, we can actually get really, really good outcomes. That is certainly the case with this bill. It is not the case with every bill, but when we have a bill like this I think it is important that we do acknowledge it and, in fact, celebrate it.

In this case it is particularly important, because, to me, this bill is about equity. It is not just a technical bill—it could very easily be seen as something that is just about technology. It is sort of in that realm that is maybe very technical and does not impact on people’s real lives that much, but it is fundamentally about equity. It is about moving towards a situation in which all people in New Zealand have access to an incredibly important piece of infrastructure.

What we do know is that there is a very real digital divide in New Zealand. This bill does help advance the closing of that digital divide. InternetNZ acknowledges this. It says that the internet has become an important part of participating in society, and the digital divide between those who have internet access and those who do not is widening. This is backed up by research from Statistics New Zealand, which has really looked into the impact that it has on different communities that do and do not have access to modern, high-quality internet.

Ten years ago we were probably just talking about whether people had access to the internet or not. Five years ago it was probably about whether people had access to dial-up, ADSL, or VDSL. Now the debate is about whether people have access to fibre that is fit for purpose. This goes to every part of our lives. It goes to the opportunities that small businesses have—to be flexible, to be responsive to their customers, and to get access to the services that they need to drive their businesses forward. It goes to education and the right of every single child, no matter what community they live in, no matter how rich or poor that community is, whether it is in a city, whether it is in a town or whether it is in the countryside, to have access to the information and connection that the internet gives us.

I have seen this first hand in my own child’s school—a decile 2 school in Mount Roskill South. They are part of a programme called the Ako Hiko programme, which gives every single child in the senior school access to the internet through Chromebooks. The opportunity it gives for inquiry, learning, and connection with other kids all around the world is simply enormous. It should be—and I am sure it is—the objective of every member of this House that all of our children share in that opportunity.

More broadly, it goes to the right of citizens to participate in our society. I will warrant that across the 121 members of this House, every one of us enjoys that opportunity. Every single one of us runs most of our communications through the internet. Every single one of us keeps in contact with friends and family through the internet. We should want to ensure that every member of our society has that same opportunity.

This bill does some very practical things to bridge that digital divide. As we have heard, it provides a sensible regime in terms of allowing access for fibre to be rolled out for people in shared property types—down those shared driveways, and into apartment buildings. This is important now because we know that there are something like 71,000 people, not just in those situations, but 71,000 people who are on the books, ready and waiting for access to fibre who are having problems of one kind or another because of those difficulties that you can get when shared access issues arise.

This bill very pragmatically looks to address those issues. It says that when you need to get through someone else’s property in a shared property kind of situation, let us actually have a look at the impacts. If the impacts are relatively minor—if it is simply digging up a bit of soft surface that you can very easily fix up afterwards, it is something you should notify the person of—you should not have to go through an elaborate consent process. If it is a bit more complicated, let us give the other property owner 15 days to raise any issues that they might have so that they can be worked through, but let us not allow any of those objections to really hold things up unreasonably, as sometimes does happen. It means, increasingly, for the New Zealanders who live in apartment buildings where there are common areas of access that technicians need to get into to install fibre, we have simplified provisions in terms of how that might work.

Some other important aspects of the bill include the dispute resolution service, because, of course, when we do start getting into this area of property rights, moving across properties where people have multiple interests, it is important that there is some recourse for people who may have concerns.

My colleague Clare Curran spoke earlier about Part 4 of the bill, which is actually the revolutionary part of this bill. It is the bit that was not there when the bill was first tabled in the House. It is the bit of the bill that Clare Curran has been campaigning on for years and years and years with a real passion, and it is about looking at some sensible mechanisms to get fibre out into our communities in the provinces and in regional New Zealand, because that is one of those places in which the digital divide I spoke about before is most keenly felt. There are tens of thousands of New Zealanders who, actually, even under the provisions of this bill, are still unlikely to get access to fibre by 2024, but the provisions of this bill will improve that situation somewhat.

What I really liked about this bill was that elegant solution that we have arrived at. As David Parker said before, we are talking about private property rights here and some impingement on those private property rights. We are looking at stringing infrastructure across people’s private property without necessarily seeking their permission in the first instance. That is pragmatic and reasonable but it is an impingement on those private property rights.

The elegant solution that we have arrived at here is that for those people, most likely on a farm, who are having a bit of fibre strung up on the power poles across their property, that property will get access to that fibre with 200 metres of that fibre rolled out to their property and then a 50 percent subsidy if it needs to be above 200 metres. I just think that it was a sensible, smart, and pragmatic process that the select committee went through to get to that outcome. It came about because of a submission from Northpower, it came about because of the tenacity of Clare Curran, and it came about because of the pragmatism and reasonableness across that split committee to try to get to a sensible outcome. I think that everyone involved in getting there deserves some commendation in this debate, and I offer that forward.

Where do we go to from here? Probably the lesson of this bill is that we cannot take our foot off the accelerator. This bill has come about as a result of deficiencies in the roll-out of fibre across New Zealand because we knew that we were not doing well enough. We still have 15 percent of New Zealanders who, under the Government’s current track of progress and under the provisions of this bill, which are improved, still will not have access to fibre by 2024. That is tens of thousands of households. There are parts of Auckland, not too far from where I live, which still will not have access to fibre for 2 years from now. That is actually a very, very long time to wait in the modern world.

As I move towards a conclusion in this debate, this is clearly a bill that, as we have heard, the Labour Party commends to the House and will be supporting, but it cannot be the end of the matter. We need to keep moving on this. We need to roll out that fibre so that every kid in every school has access to it, so that every small business has got access to it, and so that every person in their home can connect with the world around them. If we can do that, I think this house should be very pleased with that outcome, but it will require real work. As we have seen over the course of this bill, what can help us to get there is cooperation between parties and a real focus on getting outcomes for people. That is my plea to the House as I roll up my remarks. Let us pick up the spirit that came through in this bill and recommit to getting fibre access to all New Zealanders to enhance every aspect of their lives. I commend this bill to the House.

TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): It is very encouraging to hear the intelligent and constructive comments that have come from members across the House. Clearly, the Commerce Committee has done a very good job, and I too support this bill.

Aupito WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere): I recall that in the 1960s when we landed in Ōtāhuhu, the outhouse of the house we lived in was outside. In order to use the bathroom, you had to go outside. Things have changed since then, of course. I recall, also, that for a number of years Manukau City Council talked about the underground infrastructure—being able to take your household wastage to be cleaned somewhere else, and you would get fresh drinking water. In this day and age—I think, from 2000—internet connections are now an essential for households and an essential for the workplace. It is an essential. It is an essential thing. Whether it is for business or personal usage or for our education, for our young people, internet connection—high ultra-fast broadband connection—is an essential for our communities.

We proudly cheer ourselves for New Zealand being one of the more developed countries in this particular part of the region. Yet, when I look at the information that is available as to who has connection in this country—which communities have connection and which communities do not—it is disturbing because, in this day and age, one would expect that we would invest sufficiently in this infrastructure, because it is vital. It is critical for our business, for our social interaction, and for our children’s education.

If you look to Auckland, only 17 percent of premises are connected; Waiheke Island, 0.2 percent; Northland, 20 percent; Pukekohe, 5 percent; Waiuku, 8 percent; Hamilton, 14 percent; Cambridge, 12 percent; Te Awamutu, 12 percent; Tauranga, 17 percent; Rotorua, 14 percent; Tokoroa, 9 percent; Taupō, only 6 percent; Whakatāne, 8 percent; Gisborne, 6 percent, New Plymouth, 11 percent; Napier-Hastings, 15 percent; Hāwera, 8 percent; Whanganui, 9 percent, Palmerston North, 17 percent; Feilding, 6 percent; Masterton, 11 percent; Kāpiti, 3 percent; Levin, 5 percent; Wellington surprised me, 14 percent; Nelson, 11 percent; Blenheim, 19 percent; Greymouth, 5 percent; Christchurch, 16 percent; Ashburton, 14 percent; Timaru, 16 percent; Ōāmaru, 11 percent; Dunedin, 16 percent; Queenstown, 9 percent; and Invercargill, 12 percent.

I thank the House for its patience, but those numbers are critical. Actually, if those numbers are now out there and shared by our communities, this Government should hold its head down in shame.

Rino Tirikatene: Run through them again?

Aupito WILLIAM SIO: Yes, I should run through them again.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order!

Aupito WILLIAM SIO: I am highlighting here in this House that in stage one, stage two, and the Committee of the whole House, there has been no opposing party—am I right—or maybe just one, but these guys are not going to matter in that boat. Every other party in this House has voted in support of this legislation, and yet this Government has dragged its feet in getting us here. My colleague Clare Curran even helped write some of the legislation—facilitate it—so that the Commerce Committee would not hold it up.

We are here in 2017. The list I read out—the percentage of people who have access to ultra-fast broadband—is a disgrace. Here is another disgrace. If I look to Māngere, only 57 percent of people in Māngere have access to internet—57 percent. For the rest of New Zealand, it is 72 percent. There is something not quite right here. In this day and age, every community, every school, every church hall, every factory, and every household should have access to this infrastructure. It is essential and vital infrastructure if we are going to be able to compete with the rest of the world.

The Government knows all that. We have supported that, but it has dragged its feet on it. Why? Because it costs money to invest in this, and, instead of investing money, it decided to do the tax cuts when it came into power. That is why we are in the hole at the moment. That is why. That just also reveals the type of Government that we have. Instead of prioritising things that would last long term, and things that would benefit a whole bunch of people—in fact, the whole country—it prioritises things that only a small, select group would benefit from. That tax switch, when it first came into power in 2009, has skewered the whole finances and the whole situation for this country and the gap of inequality has continued to grow, and that is reflected in the numbers that I have just outlined for the information of this House. It is not just Māngere, where only 50 percent of its population has access to internet; there are other working-class communities, as reflected in the numbers and percentage of people who have premises connected.

It is the third reading. This Government just needs to get on with the priority things. This is also an issue of leadership. Instead of following the polls, it should be leading, but that is not what it does. I want to commend my colleague Clare Curran for her leadership, for her wanting to work collaboratively with the members of the Government on the Commerce Committee, and I understand, for all intents and purposes, she was pushing, along with other Opposition members, to make sure that we get to this stage quickly. But we have not got to this stage quickly, and it is worse now, because even though we are at this point in facilitating access to many of the households, as Clare read out earlier, we still have significant numbers—in the hundreds of thousands—of people who do not have access to internet and do not have access to ultra-fast broadband. That is a shame.

If I was this Government I would not be—this is a shame and a bad mark on it. But this is only one of the key fundamental pieces of infrastructure that this country needs. I am not going to talk about housing, not going to talk about the situation with our health, but they are all in the same vein—critical infrastructure that benefits the whole population. This Government does not make that a priority, as reflected in the figures—and I would happily read these figures out again, but I will not. I will not. I will save your ears, Mr Assistant Speaker. But those figures are a blight on what has happened in the last 8 years.

The ultra-fast broadband is important. It was raised that in many of the rural areas they are not getting any connection. In today’s economic world, you need ultra-fast broadband to be able to conduct your business, not just in New Zealand but on an international level. I believe that many of our rural businesses, including farmers, should be outraged that this Government, which has the means and the powers and the resources to have got this infrastructure out, dragged its feet on it. So my contribution is that whilst we are supporting the bill, shame on this Government for taking its time about it.

SARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill): I support the comments made by members on this side of the House, I support the principles of this bill, and I therefore commend the Telecommunications (Property Access and Other Matters) Amendment Bill to the House.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Family and Whānau Violence Legislation Bill

First Reading

Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister of Justice): I move, That the Family and Whānau Violence Legislation Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Justice and Electoral Committee to consider the bill. The rate of family violence in New Zealand is simply unacceptable. It has a devastating impact on individuals and communities that can span generations and lifetimes. In 2015 alone, police investigated more than 110,000 family violence incidents, yet we know that up to three-quarters of violent interpersonal offences by a family member are not reported to police. Growing up with family violence is a major risk factor for our children and young people. We know that exposure to this abhorrent form of abuse has severe, long-lasting effects, including mental illness, substance abuse, offending, self-harm, and homelessness. It is time that this insidious intergenerational cycle ends.

That is why this Government has made reducing family violence a priority. A number of cross-agency work programmes are dedicated to improving the way we respond to family violence. The Ministerial Group on Family Violence and Sexual Violence brought together Ministers from 16 portfolios in an unprecedented way, with the aim of reducing the devastating impact that family and sexual violence has on people and communities across the country. The new Ministry for Vulnerable Children, Oranga Tamariki, in consultation with the Ministry of Justice, is exploring options for changing the behaviour of young people who perpetrate family violence and are known to the Family Court.

The Family and Whānau Violence Legislation Bill I present today will underpin our response to family violence. It will strengthen the family violence laws and build the legal framework necessary to deliver the wider components of our work programme. The changes in the bill have been shaped by the hundreds of submissions I received in response to my discussion document. The bill makes these changes through a package of reforms of two main parts. Firstly, the bill amends the current Domestic Violence Act 1995. This core piece of legislation will be updated to ensure it is fit for purpose and aligns with modern understanding of family violence. Changes will also empower the Family Court to consider family violence matters and make temporary protection orders when considering proceedings under the Care of Children Act. Secondly, the bill will make important changes to criminal law, including the Bail Act, the Crimes Act, the Criminal Procedure Act, the Evidence Act, and the Sentencing Act. The changes to these Acts will seek to respond better to family violence in a criminal context.

I want to begin by touching on key changes being made to the Domestic Violence Act. When the Domestic Violence Act was first enacted in 1995 it was regarded as a significant advancement in dealing with domestic violence. Since then, expectations and understandings of family violence have developed, and new evidence about how to stop violence occurring continues to emerge. It is obvious that more can be done to recognise and reduce the occurrences of family violence. Changes to the law are needed to ensure that it can continue to support and guide best practice across the entire system.

Domestic violence is commonly understood as being violence against an intimate partner; however, we know that domestic violence affects more than just intimate partners. The bill will change the name of the Domestic Violence Act to the Family and Whānau Violence Act. Changing the term “domestic” to “family and whānau” more clearly acknowledges the violence that occurs in a wide range of family and whānau relationships. The amendments within the Act better reflect the many forms of violence and the harm that it causes, while bringing our legislation more in line with overseas legislation and research.

Responses to the discussion document indicated that people supported having principles in the law. They acknowledged that the principles can be used to guide decisions made by those in the sector, and identified the objectives of the Act. The bill introduces 12 new principles at the beginning of the Act. These place emphasis on the need to maximise the safety of victims and the importance of ensuring culturally appropriate responses for Māori. In addition, the principles focus on the requirement for effective responses for perpetrators of family violence.

An important focus of the reforms is to enable earlier, more effective interventions for both victims and perpetrators. Police safety orders (PSOs) were introduced in 2010. They enable a police officer to order a perpetrator out of the home for up to 5 days, to protect the safety of the people at that address. These orders have become an effective tool for police officers attending family violence incidents. The bill I introduce today will make better use of the opportunity that police safety orders create for early intervention. Police will be able to direct a person to a risk and needs assessment when they are bound by a PSO. This assessment is the first step in linking a perpetrator to the right services to help change their behaviour. If we can address the perpetrator’s violent behaviour earlier, we can better help to keep victims safe in the longer term.

Many who responded to the discussion document told me that applying for a protection order can sometimes be difficult. They supported the idea of having someone else able to apply for a protection order on behalf of the victim. Changes made by this bill will give the Minister of Justice the ability to approve third parties, who can apply for protection orders on behalf of the victims, and shifts responsibility away from solely sitting on the victims’ shoulders, for their own safety.

The bill also clarifies that special conditions can and should be imposed on protection orders in some circumstances. Special conditions are particularly important for people with additional vulnerabilities, such as older age or a disability. This change will enable orders to be better tailored to the needs of the vulnerable, making them more effective. We know that harm to victims can be prevented by changing the behaviour of perpetrators. This requires earlier and more effective interventions. However, perpetrators are not always connected to the right services, and protection orders create another opportunity to address this.

This bill makes changes that would allow perpetrators to be referred to a wider range of services when a protection order is issued against them. In the future they will be assessed according to their risks and needs, which will signal which services they should be attending. The court will be able to direct that attendance at those services is mandatory, as we know that targeted services can be important in addressing violent behaviours. Services will look to be culturally appropriate, incorporating tikanga and restorative approaches where relevant. By more directly addressing the specific issues a perpetrator has, we will be at a better place to protect victims and prevent future violence.

Responses to family violence are more effective when those involved have the full picture. Better access to information is necessary to prevent harm to victims and to better assess risk and needs. However, actual and perceived barriers to sharing information negatively impacts agencies’ abilities to work together, resulting in difficulties and delays for those affected by family violence. I am introducing a number of bespoke information-sharing provisions to enable the family violence sector to share information. The new provisions make it clear that those specified agencies and professionals are able to receive, use, and share information with each other for the purposes of better responding to family violence. Strong safeguards will ensure that only relevant and appropriate information is shared. The sharing of relevant information will enable quicker and more effective responses to those requiring support. These new provisions will help to provide a foundation for a more cohesive and integrated system.

The second part of the bill amends the criminal law Acts I outlined earlier, so that family violence is more appropriately addressed as a criminal matter. Three new offences will be introduced. Significantly, this includes a new offence of strangulation and suffocation. International evidence tells us that the likelihood of a person being killed by their partner is significantly increased when they have been strangled by that partner previously. We want to send a clear message that this type of behaviour should not and will not be tolerated. The offence of strangulation and suffocation will have a maximum sentence of 7 years in prison. Offences of coercion to marry and assault on family members will also be introduced. Assault on a family member will complement the existing offence of male assaults female. It recognises that, for example, violence against a daughter by her mother or violence against a brother is unacceptable, as is violence by a male against a female partner.

Family violence is prosecuted under a range of criminal offences. Currently, there is no way to accurately identify family violence offending, which can lead to inconsistent decision-making and responses. A new system of flagging family violence offences through the criminal justice system will be introduced. Identifying a perpetrator’s pattern of behaviour will be made easier and it will provide valuable information to decision makers, including the judiciary and police. Recording a family violence offence on the permanent court record reflects the seriousness of offending against someone that you are in a family relationship with. It will also provide the opportunity for the nature of family violence to be considered, for example, at bail decisions.

We know that New Zealand must do better to reduce family violence. Everyone should have the opportunity to lead healthy and fulfilling lives. Everyone should have a home that is free from violence. Effective laws are a cornerstone of how we can address family violence; however, legislative change cannot be the whole answer. To make a positive, long-lasting difference, we need behaviours and attitudes to change. Creating an effective, integrated system requires everyone who plays a part in preventing and reducing family violence to get involved. This bill will help to drive that change. Together we can develop an integrated family violence system that will support better practices, better outcomes, and better safety for the victims of family violence in New Zealand. I proudly commend the bill to the House.

POTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East): I rise to take a call on the Family and Whānau Violence Legislation Bill. Firstly, I want to commend the Minister, Amy Adams, for the work that has been done on this bill. As she explained, it is a process that was commenced by her calling for submissions on the discussion paper in 2015, and I, for one, am really looking forward to the robust discussion that will happen at select committee and the submissions made by the experts who will come to speak to that from the family violence and sexual violence community. So thank you, Minister, for bringing the bill to the House.

I am really concerned—and I will be doing, along with my colleagues, my utmost to ensure that this is not a case of missed opportunities. We take every opportunity to update the legislation, which is over 20 years old, that will really go some way to supporting the safety of our families.

Some of the changes in the legislation that the Minister has outlined, I also want to put some responses to. Protection orders are part of this legislation, and there are changes to protection orders in terms of their accessibility. The legislation makes it easier for victims to access protection orders, but the counter to that is that it does not appear that the requisite support to enforce a breach of a protection order is put in place. While it is easier to obtain a protection order, will it be easier for authorities, like the police, for example, to enforce breaches of protection orders? This is a question that I hope we get some answers to at the select committee.

As a person who used to work in the refuge movement and ran a refuge, one of the things that used to concern us in our particular refuge was the six women holding a piece of paper to keep our women and kids safe. We would want, at this time, the examination of protection orders to be as thorough as it can be so that we can actually provide protection through this mechanism, with the requisite backup of community services and the police.

The Minister referred to police safety orders providing a mechanism for people who perpetrate violence to have access to anger management and change management processes. What I have to say about this is that this is actually returning us to a situation that used to occur prior to the changes in the prosecution guidelines. In family violence specialist courts it became a requirement that in order to arrest an offender for family violence, there had to be sufficient evidence that that offender could be prosecuted in court. So they raised the level of evidence that was required, and what happened was that people who went through the family violence court—who would normally access anger management programmes as of right because the court mandated those programmes—had their access to court reduced because they were not being arrested, because the evidence required to arrest had gone up.

Within this legislation, under the police safety orders, we are returning to a situation that already happened. I am really grateful for that. However, in terms of legislation, we should be moving forward. What kind of support do those community agencies that provide the anger management and change management courses require in order to be able to support perpetrators who come through the process, under the police safety orders?

I am really impressed that there is a focus on children. There is a very clear statement in this legislation that children who are in homes where violence is present are impacted by that violence. Regardless of whether they witness it or experience it themselves, they are impacted by violence. But again I say, where is the requisite support to support those children who experience the trauma of being in homes where violence is present? There is a focus on the new crimes under the Crimes Act around forced marriage, non-fatal strangulation, and the whānau violence aspect, where members of the family can be charged under this legislation.

But, in reality, what is family violence like for our families? Our families come presenting multiple issues. They come presenting issues that are created by the stressors on families, whether that is around poverty, jobs, poor housing, low incomes, poor health, or whether they have been the victims of family or sexual abuse in the past. Family violence is a bit like a black cloud that sits across the whānau, the families in New Zealand. Like a black cloud, it impacts every single person. So any solution that we have to family violence has got to deal with all of those affected—not only those who are harmed but those who do the harming and those who witness and experience the trauma by being part of a household where violence is present.

So, in reality, legislation only goes so far. While this bill hopes to deliver real change, there are some aspects that I believe are missing, which I hope that through the select committee process we actually have an opportunity to address. The first is: what is our overarching strategy to deal with family violence in the long term? Legislation alone will not do it, neither will just applying programmes. What we need to do is we need to have a strategy to deal with family violence, and it has to be a long-term strategy.

We used to have Te Rito strategy. Unfortunately this Government cut funding to Te Rito, which was a network mechanism that was a support for those providers of family violence services across the country. There were 27 networks across the country, and the evaluation of that strategy said that the most effective way to work in family violence was through networks, where services were networked and connected up to each other.

Education is needed. We need to have an ability to raise public awareness to have some support for young people, for example at school. We need to be discussing the issue of consent, and we need to be talking about respectful relationships. All of these things we have had in the past, but funding cuts to those organisations that have delivered that have meant that those programmes no longer exist, or exist at a very low level.

We need to provide support for our police to do the work that they need to do, and we need to support our community organisations. We need to have appropriate public awareness, like we do with White Ribbon or It’s Not OK. Those programmes need to be supported.

I just want comment on one other aspect, and that is around integrated responses to people who experience family and sexual violence. There is currently a pilot running in Christchurch called the Integrated Safety Response. Funding was taken out of full-time equivalents in the community sector and reinvested largely into the statutory agencies, into their response to family and sexual violence. We know, from reports from the pilot in Christchurch, that that is not entirely working as it was designed. Those community agencies that lost funding to support this programme have now been asked to pick up that work.

There is a lesson we must learn, and it is about taking the opportunity to get this right. At the select committee we must ensure that we examine this bill thoroughly and that we speak to the experts. The experts tell us what they would like, and we listen. We take the opportunity to craft a piece of legislation that actually will, at the end of the day, keep our family and whānau safe. We in Labour are supporting this bill. We hope that the select committee process will add some real meat to the legislation. We are commending the bill to the House. Thank you.

SARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill): I rise in support of the Family and Whānau Violence Legislation Bill. I rise in support of its principles and the movement to get on top of this insidious issue that is rife within New Zealand. I rise in support of the Hon Amy Adams who, with a group of other Ministers in this Government, has spearheaded this cause. She has spearheaded extensive consultation with NGOs and people in the sector. I myself ran a family violence legislation review workshop in Invercargill, and I thank the participants for showing up to that workshop and participating and putting submissions into this process to help bring about this reform.

This is a reform that is long overdue, in respect of our 20-year-old domestic violence laws. As the Hon Amy Adams says, it is legislation. It is the platform for us to springboard, to hold perpetrators to account, to put victims and survivors of domestic violence at the heart of bail conditions and the heart of this issue, and to wrap around services so that perpetrators get the help that they need to form appropriate behaviours moving forward. But it is also to support the victims and the survivors and their children, to empower them to make the right decisions, and to put in place measures to support them to move forward and live happy and free lives so that they too can reach their potential.

As we have heard from the Minister, domestic violence is absolutely rife in New Zealand. There were 110,000 call outs in 2015. Of that number, 76 percent of intimate partner violence-related deaths were perpetrated by men. This piece of legislation creates a platform, as I have said, to hold perpetrators to account and, in doing so, creates a new offence of strangulation. There is also a new offence of coercion to marry, and, of course, assault on a family member, which goes right to the heart of this issue—that any type of violence towards a family member is unacceptable and will not be tolerated.

We are making it easier to apply for protection orders, and, again, we want to make sure that the appropriate NGOs and wraparound services are provided to victims and survivors of this intergenerational crime that must be got on top of here in New Zealand.

With that, I look forward to the select committee process. I know that the Justice and Electoral Committee is quite united on this issue of making change for the better for New Zealand citizens. I commend this bill to the House.

JACINDA ARDERN (Deputy Leader—Labour): I certainly share the view that the debate and discussion around the Family and Whānau Violence Legislation Bill by the select committee, where it will eventually be referred, will indeed be constructive. That is because this process, to date, has been constructive. We acknowledge that when Amy Adams, as Minister of Justice, first flagged her intention to do review work in this area, she offered to members of this House to engage with her in that process. Labour was quick to take up that offer, as were other parties. In fact, we reached out to the Minister. We wrote the Minister a letter co-signed by myself, Poto Williams, Kelvin Davis, and other caucus members who had an interest in the area. We all reached out to the Minister asking for an opportunity to meet with her. She accepted that offer, and, to her credit, brought in other members of Parliament to sit down and have an initial briefing with her.

At that point we put before the Minister some real areas of concern, some of which I will touch on today and some of which my colleague Poto Williams has also expanded upon. In large part, our view was that the preventative work that we need to do is still really under-resourced, the ability of people to access services without having been referred through the formal justice system is still inadequate, and, ultimately, that throughout our justice system there still needs to be competency built around identifying and working appropriately with those who are the victims of domestic violence. There are a range of elements that we will be seeking to really flesh out to build upon some of the initial suggestions that have been made in this legislation. Having said that, we also, as a party, put in a submission into this process because we did want to use every opportunity we have to be constructive, and will continue to do so.

In my opening comments, as well as acknowledging that openness by the Minister, I also want to acknowledge that family violence affects everything. It affects absolutely everything. To be honest, as a member of Parliament, I did not grasp that in its entirety until I really had the opportunity to work in the children’s portfolio to the degree that I have. I have seen the impact of family violence on children, and then on children as they grow into adolescence, and then on as adolescents go on to be parents themselves.

I think probably one of the points when it really hit home—and I have spoken about this before—was the moment when I put in an Official Information Act request to the coroner’s court to access all of the reports that the coroner had done on children who had died in Child, Youth and Family’s (CYF’s) care. Actually, at that time, I was seeking further information on the way that we had failed our most vulnerable children. It was off the back of a horrific case of a child who had committed suicide while in CYF’s care.

I had an expectation of seeing cases of, perhaps, sudden, unexpected death in infancy, of abuse—of a range of things that you see in our media reports. I did not expect to see the number of cases of children who had been known to Child, Youth and Family who had taken their own lives and who had witnessed, on an ongoing basis, domestic violence in their home. I did not expect to see that. When I saw that, I remember asking, down the track, a police officer who worked intensively in the area of family violence—I raised with him that correlation. He said it was a correlation he had seen in his own district to the point that he had gone back through the files of the call outs that related to mental health or distress call outs, and then linked them to domestic violence call outs. The correlation was undeniable—undeniable.

This is not only pervasive, but it affects a child’s brain development. We have the research and evidence to tell us that now. I raise that so that we do not look at this issue in isolation and we understand that investment in this area is investment in a child’s future—in particular a child’s future—as well as their protective parent’s future. That is why I feel so very, very strongly about the work that we are doing here.

I want to pick up on a couple of the specifics in the bill, just to give an example of where we will be seeking extra work. We raised early on that it was our view that protection orders—at the moment hundreds of protection orders are denied when there has been an application for legal aid. That would surprise a lot of people—the idea that someone who is seeking financial support in order to seek assistance with a protection order might be denied that. It was our view that the process of accessing a protection order should be free. The mechanism we can discuss—be it a community law centre, be it an automatic legal-aid process, or be it whatever. The mechanism is up for debate, but the principle was the same for us. The idea that a partner, for instance, who might be financially bound to the person who they are seeking to get a protection order against—how can you asset test that person against what might be the assets of their abuser from whom they are seeking a protection order? It made sense for us to make that as accessible as possible.

The second point was that a protection order is only as good as the enforcement of that order. We have a long way to go for individuals to have faith in the system and faith that if they seek help when a protection order is breached, that help will be swift and uniform in response—that is where I refer back to the idea of competency. I remember asking a legal-aid lawyer to give me some examples once of cases where they had seen breaches of protection orders that had not been followed through appropriately. Their example was that, if in isolation, a police officer has a protection order being breached alerted to them—and it might be in the form of some flowers being left on the doorstep. If a police officer sees that, in isolation, as an individual case, they might just simply take sympathy or empathise that it is someone trying to make amends without seeing, perhaps, the markers of stalking behaviour and the abuse that has happened in the lead-up to that event. Actually, really building an understanding of the different markers of domestic violence in abusive relationships is incredibly important when it comes to effectively enforcing protection orders.

We also need to have a conversation about how we are talking about the ability of others to make applications on behalf of individuals for protection orders, but we still, ultimately, rely on the victim to enforce them. That is hugely problematic as well. So these are all things that we would like to debate and discuss in a select committee.

The other issue that I want to raise is that I think it is absolutely right that when making parenting arrangements in the Family Court that we require the court to consider whether a protection order has been made. We have cases—and I know this because I have seen them—where there have been medical files demonstrating the substantiated physical abuse in a relationship and there will still be a shared custody order, which forces the protected parent to have an ongoing relationship with their abuser. The issue I take here is that that makes an assumption that as soon as you remove the intimate partner from that relationship that that individual poses no threat or risk to a child. That is the assumption that we are making there. We have got to have a debate around the way that parenting orders work when there are protection orders in place. There are a lot of contradictions when there is substantiated abuse in relationship where there is still ongoing contact with the abuser and a child.

I want to add to that that if we are going to have that discussion, we actually need to go back and review the way the Family Court reforms are working, or not working. We were promised a review this year, and I would say to the Minister that if we want the domestic violence legislation that we are reviewing now to be comprehensive and fulsome, we absolutely—I would say first—need to review the family law court reforms because they are hugely problematic. They are hugely problematic and are contributing to this problem tenfold. It is very hard to separate them out in the way that we are being asked to do as a Parliament. So I would really endorse that need, again, for us to review those reforms.

A second connection point is that this legislation, with the way that we operate our care and protection system—I think that we have to acknowledge that there are cases where there is domestic violence and Child, Youth and Family, as it was known, has gone to a protected partner and, essentially, said: “Unless you leave, we will remove your children.” We know that is happening. We know that is happening, and the trauma that that creates. We make an assumption that that removes a child from harm, without acknowledging the trauma of removal for a child, who in some cases will view themselves as the protector of the parent in that abusive relationship. It is a really simplistic view.

I understand how many practitioners may have come to that place, but it lacks a full understanding of what is happening in those relationships. We need to have a conversation about what is happening to children in those homes, and take a systemic response to children who are living in homes where there is pervasive domestic violence.

JONO NAYLOR (National): While we are currently experiencing in New Zealand an all-time low in a long time in terms of our crime rates, the big blot on that is the increasing amount of family violence. I think we would all agree, right across this House and right across New Zealand, that that is absolutely unacceptable. It is something that we do need to take a system-wide look at. Over the last little while, Minister Amy Adams has taken the lead on that, and I think it has been great to see what has come out so far.

What we have today, though, in this Family and Whānau Violence Legislation Bill is an omnibus bill that actually says we are not going to just tweak around little bits of the edges. Today, as we start this bill on its journey through the House, we are going to see six different Acts amended and that will change over 30 pieces of law. I think that is really critical at this point in terms of us actually putting another stake in the ground to say that we are not going to tolerate this any further.

Amongst those 30 changes to the law there are a number of things, and I will look forward to debating them all, particularly as we go through the select committee process and through the other stages in the House. But today I just want to focus a little bit on the fact that while it is absolutely appropriate that up to now we have been focusing on victims, there is actually something within this legislation that says we are going to look to have earlier and more effective interventions with perpetrators. That is not to excuse their behaviour. It is not to make allowances for them. But if we are actually serious about stopping this, we need to get in earlier with people to look at what is causing them to perpetrate, and we need to get that intervention in place so that we can actually either prevent victims from being revictimised or have people be able to detect early the signs that they might go down this path so that they may be able to seek help.

So, right across the board, I agree with this bill. I am looking forward to it coming to the Justice and Electoral Committee, and I am sure that we will have a really interesting time looking at the various issues. I look forward to seeing it come through.

JAN LOGIE (Green): It has been widely acknowledged tonight that we have a real problem in this country with sexual and domestic violence and child abuse. I think it is uncomfortable to say it, but we do have an epidemic of this violence. You know, I have got no doubt that if 2.5 percent of this country at any one time, or 15 to 20 percent of people over a lifetime in this country, got a virus that was completely debilitating for years and might even kill them, then we would have had a different response. But that is actually the exact situation that we are in in this country with the levels of intimate partner violence alone. Domestic violence is that serious a problem, and the good news about looking at it in that way is that it focuses our attention on the fact that if we intervene properly, it is something that we can change. It is an epidemic that we can turn around.

The Green Party will be supporting the Family and Whānau Violence Legislation Bill—of course we will. Just in the last term of Parliament I gave over 30 speeches in this House advocating for reform of our laws and policies relating to domestic and sexual violence, so, in many ways, for me at least, it is a real relief to be able to get the opportunity to start debating this legislation. It is well overdue. While I was giving those speeches last term, and again in this term, I have to acknowledge there have been some small, discrete pieces of legislation that have passed that might be helpful. But also we have seen very significant erosions to our Family Court protections, housing, and social security, which all provide vital protections for victims and, when done right, provide measures of accountability for perpetrators, and those things together over time have fundamentally undermined protections, which we need to be addressing. I do want to just briefly go through some of those areas of concern so that people who are listening can consider whether the legislation that is in front of us today is going to address the clawbacks that we have seen over recent times.

Under the National Government we have seen changes to the police prosecution guidelines, making it harder for victims to get cases to court and for perpetrators to get access to programmes to change their behaviour. We have seen reforms to the Family Court that removed protections for victims of domestic violence and that were roundly criticised as focusing on money saving rather than on safety. I am now hearing in the community—which has absolutely horrified me, if I am honest—refuge advocates saying that they are now at times advising victims not to go to the Family Court because the decisions that are coming out of some of our Family Courts are putting those victims and their children in more danger than if they were not going to the court. We have been promised a review on this, as has already been pointed out, but we do need to be considering those things at the same time. It does not make sense to be looking at making changes to domestic violence legislation and not considering those reforms and the impact of them on the Family Court.

Because of part of those reforms, we have seen a loss of 25 percent of family law lawyers, which has made the systems of support much more difficult to access, and the restrictions that were put on legal aid resulted in some women paying thousands of dollars for protection orders, which they cannot even guarantee will keep them or their children safe because the courts are not consistently responding to them and acting on breaches. In some cases, the police are being told off for bringing minor breaches to the court and wasting the court’s time because they are under so much pressure. Then the perpetrators are seeing that as a kind of free card, and their violence is escalating and we are seeing much more harm. So we really have to be looking at those things in a package.

We have seen an increase in the number of domestic violence cases going to restorative justice, even though virtually no restorative justice practitioners in this country have been trained to safely work with victims and perpetrators of domestic violence, and there is nothing in this legislation that is actually acknowledging that or providing any guidance on the appropriateness or, indeed, a level of skill that should be required for doing that work. There has been a reduction in baseline funding for specialist agencies, which means that they have had to reduce paid hours, cut services, and spend money on a national fund-raising campaign to try to raise money to have a child advocate in refuges. This is why we are talking about this more. Demand is going up and we are seeing the police deal with this more, and the very services that are able to provide the support are having to cut back. It does not make sense, and the legislation—in the context we have been given for it—is not addressing that.

We have seen a further loss of specialist kaupapa Māori services, which we know are essential for effective processes for Māori, and we have seen the introduction of a presumption of shared parenting in the Family Court and a provision in the Vulnerable Children Act that makes it easier for children to be separated from their protective parent as a result of the behaviour of an abusive parent. That has already been touched on by Jacinda Ardern, but it is really critical to understand that while the outcomes of that are deeply profound—and that is part of the reason for the cycle of violence, because one of the things that results from that reality is that a child is left not understanding who was wrong. Often they will think that they are wrong and that the person who had the power and who used the abuse is no worse than the parent who was trying to protect them. It sends children no message about the direction and where we stand in our values as a country. It is critical that we change that, and there is very little in this legislation that does that.

On top of all this, we have seen changes to Housing New Zealand and Work and Income that make it much, much harder for victims to re-establish themselves after leaving a violent relationship. Of course these have just been more barriers in the way of victims being able to get and become safe. This system has been described by various reports as broken, fragmented, and inconsistent with gaps and overlaps and no infrastructure to hold together all these services and outcomes. I am certainly going to be interested in the conversation that we have in select committee to test whether this is going to provide that structure. Is this legislation the answer to that broken system? Because on my first reading of it, I have a concern that maybe it is not. We have an epidemic; we need a response worthy of that to actually let New Zealand know that we can turn this around. We can build safety in our communities, and we need this response to seriously start doing that.

However, considering all of those terrible changes that we have been seeing over the last few years, I do particularly want to acknowledge the Minister, Amy Adams, and offer her my wholehearted congratulations on getting this work on the Table. It is a turn-round from what we have been seeing, and I do not at all underestimate the amount of work and the political skill that must have gone into her being able to get this across the line. As inadequate as I might think it is, it is a very significant change in this Government’s approach.

There are just a few other points I want to touch on. In the regulatory impact statement it is pointed out that there is other allied work going on and that this is not everything. It talks about the Child, Youth and Family reforms as allied to this. But that for me is quite problematic because that legislation adds domestic violence in a completely token sense. It is not at all integrated and does not address the problems that victims of domestic violence have been reporting to us for years.

I also want to say that people I have spoken to about the bill are quite disappointed that there is nothing in here that is significant around the reforms of the Care of Children Act or the Vulnerable Children Act. It also talks about the work that is happening around sexual violence and the court processes there, and I would like to point out to this House that we have been waiting almost a decade for that work and we still have not got it yet, so it is pretty difficult to have confidence in that.

TRACEY MARTIN (NZ First): I stand on behalf of New Zealand First to address the House on the first reading of the Family and Whānau Violence Legislation Bill. First of all, can I add my voice to the congratulations to Minister Adams. As Jacinda Ardern mentioned in her contribution, the Labour Party and the Green Party did write to the Minister and sent her a letter asking for the opportunity to work with her on a piece of legislation like this and on the review that she did prior to this bill coming to the House.

The Minister was kind enough to include New Zealand First as another member of the Opposition in those conversations, so we appreciated that. I also note that some of the work put in by New Zealand First has found itself inside this piece of legislation. So we appreciate her openness and her invitation to participate, and we actually support the comments by our Green colleague Jan Logie that we do not underestimate the amount of effort that has had to go into bringing this bill to the House, even if we support it with reservations—and that is the comment that needs to be recorded from New Zealand First’s perspective. We are supporting this bill at its first reading but we have some severe reservations, and we hope that, like others have mentioned, the select committee process will bring out all those who are affected by what is this awful secret.

It is something that we try to keep secret about New Zealand society, and I think of Jan Logie’s description—if this was a disease, if this was an epidemic of typhoid, for example, the amount of effort and the speed with which it was being addressed, the money that was being put in, would be instantaneous. There would not be a conversation about it. There would not be a conversation about whether it was necessary or not to invest money into an issue such as that, and yet this is an epidemic inside New Zealand.

Inside the bill some of the concerns that we have are these. First of all, and I am going to say this, the title interests us. What is the Family and Whānau Violence Legislation Bill? Nowhere else is the word “whānau” actually mentioned inside that bill, so we do not understand what that is about, and if the bill needs to be called the “Whānau Violence Legislation Bill”, then let us do that. I see that we have seen grandmothers in the Hawke’s Bay stand up recently and say: “We’re being beaten about by family members who are P addicts.” So that is family violence. That is whānau violence. If that is what this bill is about, then just name it for what it is.

The two names are a duplication of a name, and it either shows a lack of understanding about what the words actually mean, or, for some other reason, somebody has decided they have to tack this on in there. So we would like to know what the story is with the title. It is completely unnecessary and, although it might seem a really small point in what is a big issue that we are trying to address, in our view it starts to reinforce some negative stereotypes and some separation. And there is no separation here; this is a New Zealand issue.

There are a couple of other things around the wider range of safety, non-violence programmes, and prescribed services to be ordered when a safety order or a protection order is imposed. We are very pleased to see that. We are very pleased to see that because we have to—and the Minister spoke to it—change behaviours here. The majority of this bill deals with the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff. The majority of what is being invested in this issue at the moment deals with what happens after violence has occurred and we have to shift our focus and our investment.

When I talk about investment—and, again, we hope that this is something that will come forward—right now it is estimated that family violence costs New Zealand between $4.1 billion and $7 billion per year. At the moment we spend $60 million per year on a response to family violence, and most of that is after the event. In the bill, the budget that has been set aside for the new conditions that are going to be implemented here suggests that it is going to increase the costs to around about $130 million over 4 years. Well, that is just another $32 million per year and it is just not enough.

If we compare this with what we do around road accidents, we see that road accidents cost $3.4 billion per year and we spend $297 million per year on trying to prevent them. Domestic violence costs us between $4.1 billion to $7 billion per year and we spend only $60 million and it is going to go up only by $32 million under this piece of legislation. It is not enough, and the select committee needs to look at widening the education programmes under that particular clause in this bill.

I want to mention programmes, for example, and education has been mentioned. Can I just say to the member Sarah Dowie with her contribution that under the umbrella of what was domestic violence, which is now called family violence, one of the recognised bullet points under that description is that if a child is present when violence takes place, they are a victim. So they are a victim. When we look under that umbrella, we have got several levels of victim and they must all be addressed.

We would suggest programmes like the women’s refuge in Rodney, with regard to the healthy relationships programme, where year 10s participate in the ability to recognise coercive control in themselves and in others—coercive control being the lowest-reported but probably the most insidious level of violence that we have in this country. It leads not only to just control but, generally, to violence. If we can stop coercive control or minimise coercive control through education programmes in our schools, which need to be funded by the State for every student, we have an opportunity to change the culture within a generation.

We have a crisis of anxiety inside our schools at the moment that counsellors will tell you about. There are young people who do not want to come to school. It is not because they do not want to come to school; it is because they are too frightened to leave home. Their very presence—and again it has been suggested in here—puts a chilling factor on violence, so they feel responsible to stay inside their homes to protect the parent who could possibly be the victim. There are opportunities here for this to be addressed and invested in further, and we hope that the select committee will actually raise those issues and go forward with them.

Again, we have complimented the Minister on the fact that she has brought this to the House. But let us be clear: this has been coming for a long time. I want to acknowledge the National Council of Women and what was in the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) account. The CEDAW report, which the National Council of Women noted in 2007, had a recommendation that has finally found its way into the bill, which is great: “The Committee recommends that training be enhanced for the judiciary, public officials, law enforcement personnel and health-service providers”.

We would suggest that the select committee have a look at funding Women’s Refuge across New Zealand as the provider of that training. They should be funded in a similar way to how the School Trustees Association is funded—as experts having to deal on the front line, as trainers that are providing it now are doing so on a piece-by-piece basis, predominantly for free. Actually, the select committee should look at them as an organisation along, perhaps, with the Māori Women’s Welfare League or others who have been on the front line of this issue for so long, as being the training providers, and finally funding Women’s Refuge to a level that it should be funded at.

We also note that in 2012 it was reported that “High levels of violence against women are still evident, and NGOs consider that more women are disadvantaged by violence than any other factor. While a Government campaign has raised awareness of domestic violence and led to increased reporting to police, funding cuts have impacted on refuge services and women face higher barriers to accessing legal protection.” Jan Logie mentioned it. Only today the police have come out and said they do not have the numbers or resources to deal with what is a wave of reporting around family violence. This cannot be done in isolation. This will require investment and it will require more investment than $32 million on top of the $60 million per year that is currently happening.

The select committee, I hope—and perhaps I will be able to sit in on it—will need to look at numbers and make a recommendation for the Government—whatever Government sits on those benches—to put into the Budget the amount of money that is going to be required to shift this issue in the New Zealand culture. We need to do it. We need to do it now. We have talked about it too long. New Zealand First will support the bill to the select committee, and then we hope that the select committee will flesh it out a bit further. Kia ora.

CHRIS BISHOP (National): Last week—or was it the week before; I think it was the week before—I was in Australia with my colleagues on the Justice and Electoral Committee, ably chaired by Sarah Dowie and Louisa Wall.

Peeni Henare: Sounds like a junket.

CHRIS BISHOP: Well, Peeni Henare says it sounds like a junket. We actually ran into him in the Australian Parliament, and I can say for sure that while we were doing work, he most definitely was on a junket. So one needs to be a bit careful when interjecting, Mr Henare. We were not on a junket; we were meeting with officials from the Office for Women in Canberra and the Attorney-General’s department—the federal Attorney-General’s department. We met with the ACT Legislative Assembly—various members from one of their standing committees dealing with family violence—and we had very productive discussions. Louisa Wall, I see, is nodding away.

It is interesting to see some of the challenges, actually, that Australia is grappling with, and the federal nature of Australia makes that quite tricky. We had quite extensive discussions around the difficulty of enforcing protection orders between states in Australia. Actually, that applies to New Zealand as well. One of the issues we canvassed with some of our colleagues over in Australia was trying to develop a better mechanism for the enforceability of protection orders issued in New Zealand against people in Australia, and maybe that is one of the issues that the committee will be looking at.

As we were over in Australia it was very clear that this is not a party political issue, I do not think. Obviously, it is an issue being considered by the Parliament and we are made up of political parties, but, actually, this bill is going to go to the select committee unanimously, I believe. I think it is going to be a good thing that we look at it on the Justice and Electoral Committee in a fairly non-partisan way. That tends to be how that committee works, actually. It certainly has been in the time that I have been a member of the committee.

Various speakers before me have canvassed all the issues. This bill is a start, and I echo what Tracey Martin says. I am looking forward to examining it on the Justice and Electoral Committee. Kia ora.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): The next call is a split call. Mojo Mathers—5 minutes.

MOJO MATHERS (Green): I rise to speak to the Family and Whānau Violence Legislation Bill. I commend the Minister for bringing this bill to the House. Other speakers have addressed the bill and spoken about why it is needed, and they have the concern that it does not go far enough. What I want to do is talk about a very specific clause that has very deep, personal significance to me, which is that the bill, in new section 3B in clause 9, updates the definition of family violence to include harm and ill-treatment to pets as part of that definition, and it recognises that as psychological abuse. There is no doubt that that change is needed.

In 2012 there was a ground-breaking report by the SPCA and Women’s Refuge called Pets as Pawns: The Co-existence of Animal Cruelty and Family Violence, which brought to public light the prevalence of cruelty and harm to family pets as a means of controlling partners and children in violent family situations. More than half of the respondents had partners who had threatened or actually harmed a family pet, more than a third had had a family pet killed at some point, and the report described the psychological impacts of that both on partners and children. It described how there are some women who could not leave their partner for fear that their loved family pet would be killed.

This is something that is close to my heart because I know personally the harm that that causes. When I was 9 years old my grandmother gave me a kitten. It was a beautiful tabby kitten with white paws and a pink nose. I can see that kitten now in front of my eyes. Of course, like all 9-year-old children, I loved that kitten and I played with it whenever I came home from school. I named that kitten Mittens, which is not very original, I know. But one day I came home from school and Mittens was not there, because during a family argument with my mother, a member of the family had taken a piece of wood and bashed my kitten on the head to show how angry they were, and it killed my kitten. Of course, I was devastated. I was 9 years old and I was as upset as you can imagine any 9-year-old child could be.

But the consequences of that are more than the tears that I shed on the day, because they become the deep and abiding fear of what people will do, of what members of your own family who are meant to keep you safe will do, when they are angry and want to control other members of the family. That an innocent animal, a pet, should be harmed in this way is just outrageous. So it is well overdue for this to be recognised in the definition of family violence, to recognise that this is psychological abuse, and that it needs to be recognised in the court in applications for protection orders and so on—that actually it is an incredibly controlling mechanism.

So I am very pleased to see this in the bill, and I applaud the Minister for making these changes. It will be very interesting to see what other stories come out at the select committee around family violence and around the many multifaceted aspects of it in New Zealand.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I call Stuart Nash—5 minutes.

STUART NASH (Labour—Napier): John Clarke wrote one of my all-time favourite songs, and it starts out: “At the dawn of the day in the great Southern Ocean, when the world’s biggest fish was being landed”—and we all know the chorus. It goes on to say: “We don’t know how lucky we are, mate. We don’t know how lucky we are.” But the thing is that for around about 525,000 Kiwis, they would listen to this song and go: “Where is this paradise that Fred Dagg is talking about?”. For 525,000 Kiwis, domestic violence is a very real part of their lives, of their community. They do not see the wonderful country, the fantastic image that we sell ourselves to the world with, because, for them, they are living with violence day in, day out.

The tragedy is that only about 20 percent of domestic violence is actually reported to the police, and there are still around 110,000 call outs to the police. About 3 or 4 months ago I went to the police watch station on a Monday morning. What the police did was they had the three major districts in the Hawke’s Bay. They had Hastings, they had Napier, and they had Wairoa, and they had lights on each of these areas. They said these were the domestic violence call outs they had had over the weekend. I said: “What, per month or, you know, whatever?”. They said: “No, no, just on the Saturday and just on the Sunday.” You are kidding me!

You know, I do not think many New Zealanders understand. Obviously, 500,000 New Zealanders do, but I do not think many New Zealanders who live in the sanctity of a nice, warm, dry home and go to work etc., understand the epidemic that is domestic violence in this country. The police attend 279 calls each day—on average about one every 5½ minutes—for domestic violence. Children are present in 80 percent of all domestic violence instances, and a number of MPs have talked about the damage this does to the nation’s children. About 32 Kiwis are murdered every single year—13 women, 10 men, and nine children are murdered. You know, this is a really serious problem.

We are supporting this bill—I must say that—the Family and Whānau Violence Legislation Bill. We are supporting this, but there are a number of things in the bill that I have real concerns about. Let me tell you one thing: in 2015 there were 4,624—4,624—proceedings against people who had breached a protection order. That was up by nearly 20 percent from 3 years earlier. These are court-ordered protection orders that are supposed to keep Kiwis safe when they are in a violent relationship. We need the teeth here.

There is an organisation in Napier called DOVE. It runs programmes that give men, basically, strategies for dealing with their anger, as opposed to smacking their women or their kids. It gives them strategies on how to deal with this. It is really concerned, with the directive that it must provide all information to the Ministry of Social Development, that a whole number of men will not self-medicate and come along and end up with these strategies. So while this is good, you know, to put the measures in place, we cannot forget that there are a whole lot of other agencies and other measures that we need to do.

The National Government has announced that there are going to be 880 new police. Police actually said it wanted 1,165, but with the 880 new police the Minister has said that what she wants to see is a 10 percent decrease in murders as a result of domestic violence. That is only three murders a year. We need to resource the police in a way that allows them to deal with this, because this is a real issue. Let us not sweep this under the carpet. Let us not think this is just someone else’s problem, because it is not. Domestic violence is at, I think, epidemic proportions in our communities. We need to deal with this. We need to fund the agencies in a way that allows them to provide the interventions. We need to ensure that the police have the resources to protect people with protection orders and protect our community. This is a start. This is a start, but it is not enough. We need to do a whole lot more, and what I would like to see the Minister do is commit to the next stage, which is really resourcing the police and the community organisations that will make a difference.

MAUREEN PUGH (National): I too stand in support of the Family and Whānau Violence Legislation Bill in the name of the Hon Amy Adams. This bill is the biggest overhaul of our family violence laws in 20 years. The new principles within the bill will guide decisions in protecting victims from all forms of violence and minimise disruption to their lives. It will guide practitioners to work together to protect families and victims. Another aspect of this bill is the improvement to access for victims to protection orders. Those orders will be better tailored to the vulnerable victims. They will have an easier application. Those more vulnerable victims I speak of are our older people and people with disabilities. This bill provides a new foundation in tackling the unacceptable level of domestic violence in New Zealand, and I have great pleasure in commending it to the House.

LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. It is my pleasure to speak on this, the Family and Whānau Violence Legislation Bill, in its first reading. I am a proud member of our Justice and Electoral Committee, so I look forward to scrutinising the passage of this legislation through the House. I too want to pick up on the title of the bill and just make some comments about the relationship between family violence and sexual violence. A lot of people will not know that of women who experience family violence, 80 percent of them also experience sexual violence. I am already putting to this House a proposition that this should be the “Family and Sexual Violence Bill”. I do want to commend Minister Adams for her leadership of this issue to date. She has been very generous in her collaboration across the House, and so I do feel this is an area where we have cross-party support for actually creating something that is going to make a difference. I want to commend all the speakers before me, because I think we have kind of traversed the variety of opinion about how important this piece of legislation is.

As a member of the Commonwealth Women Parliamentarians—actually, for the last 5 years I have co-chaired that group, initially with Dr Jackie Blue—I want to acknowledge my colleague Jo Hayes, who is in the House today, and also Maureen Pugh, who has just taken over that responsibility on behalf of the National Government. In a letter that we actually put out on 18 September 2015 we noted our support for global action petition Girls Not Brides, which was being presented to the United Nations. I want this House to acknowledge that 80 percent of the MPs in this House pledged to end child brides.

One of the particular issues I know we are all incredibly passionate about, and that Jo Hayes has a bill in the ballot about, titled the Marriage (Court Consent to Marriage of Minors) Amendment Bill, is actually related to some of the changes that the Minister of Justice is proposing in this legislation around coercion to marry. Coercion, by definition, is about persuading by using force or threat—persuading someone to do something or coercing them to do something. One of the missing elements in this section of this piece of legislation is actually to give effect to Jo Hayes’ bill. That bill was originally Dr Jackie Blue’s bill. I note that Claudette Hauiti had it in her name when she was in the House, and now Jo Hayes has that bill.

I want to put on record that this House would support specific amendment to the Marriage Act, in addition to some of the other legislative changes, to ensure that 16- and 17-year-olds can get married only with the consent of the court. At the moment it is with the consent of parents, but given that section of the legislation is about coercion to marry, we should actually recognise that in some circumstances that coercion is by parents of their children. It was particularly highlighted by the National Council of Women of New Zealand in 2013, and by the United Nations, that New Zealand had to do something about this particular issue, and so I am hoping through this process we will get consensus to make that particular amendment.

I also would like to highlight that in the coercion to marry area there are actually some other issues, and those issues are relevant—and it is good to see the Minister of Immigration in the House—to international marriage. A lot of New Zealanders will not know that there are about 400 partnership visas issued every year. These are New Zealand residents or citizens who go over, mostly to India, and get married, and under a partnership visa their wife or spouse is allowed to stay in New Zealand. After a year the husband then has the opportunity to apply on behalf of their wife for permanent residency, but in some situations that application is not done. We know women who are living in incredibly abusive situations who end up fleeing to providers such as Shakti because the family violence is so intolerable that they actually end up risking their whole life. They get alienated from their families and they get disowned by their communities. It is an issue that we need to deal with and that I want to put on the table.

One of the other things that our cross-party women’s group did was to write to the Minister of Immigration and ask whether or not this was a form of trafficking. From our perspective, women are being coerced into coming to New Zealand. They end up being slaves in their own homes. They are not allowed to leave. I expect that this piece of legislation will provide an opportunity for us to deal with that particular issue. I also want to put on the table that as a cross-party group this issue has actually been the only issue that we as women across the House have identified as an area of collaboration.

One of the other issues that needs to be addressed, in terms of our international marriage context, is around dowry abuse and, also, honour-based abuse. We have had instances in New Zealand where women have been burnt and have suffered acid attacks. If we are going to futureproof our legislation, we think these are also issues that should be created under a new section of the bill titled “International marriage”.

From a personal perspective, I would like to highlight some of the issues in my electorate, particularly with the ability to get protection orders. In doing so, I would like to acknowledge Women’s Refuge, which does a fantastic job of advocating for our women who need protection orders. This piece of legislation, when it goes through, will now allow Women’s Refuge and other third-party NGOs to apply on behalf of women to get those protection orders. For all intents and purposes, we take the issue of educational issues of having to fill in the forms or resource issues because people do not have access to lawyers to complete these forms on their behalf. So we will have greater access to protection orders.

One of the other things I want to put on the table is the ability for police to apply for protection orders on behalf of victims, and for those protection orders not to be contested. I have a particular constituent who was going through the process of getting a protection order, and the person she was getting that protection order against actually fought her every step of the way and made it incredibly difficult for her to get her protection order. I think if the police actually think it is serious enough—and I am looking at my colleague Stuart Nash, who leads that particular area on behalf of our caucus—that is a Supplementary Order Paper that I think, with consultation with the police, we can also advocate for.

Just in summary, I would like to take the opportunity to acknowledge all the providers who work in this area. In South Auckland—and I know my colleague Aupito William Sio and I have, for the last 3 or 4 years now, been invited to our White Ribbon dinner, which has been run by Safer Aotearoa Family Violence Prevention Network: Raewyn Bhana, George Ngātai, and people who every day of the week are advocating and ensuring that those families who are living in family violence situations have the support that they require.

I would also like to acknowledge Gandhi Nivas, which has actually created another opportunity, which is embedded in this legislation, for the police to be supported through their police safety orders, and now having community providers that are able to take men for up to 5 days. They allow the women and children to stay at home, and the men are then given accommodation and support through these other providers, and Gandhi Nivas is one of them.

Finally, I also would like to acknowledge the work of our police. I think our police do an incredible job to keep not only children and families safe but also communities safe. I know that our police are doing a lot of work to make sure that services are wrapped around families and that we ensure that families who come in to the system are given all the support that they require so that we can actually start addressing some of the cycles of family violence that happen in our communities. This is a very important piece of legislation, and I look forward to being part of the process. I encourage as many people as possible to make submissions. Thank you.

TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): I was not expecting to take a call on the Family and Whānau Violence Legislation Bill but I am very pleased to do so, not only because it is a subject that is dear to my heart but, actually, because I think it is a subject that is dear to the heart of every member of this House. It has been encouraging to hear such intelligent and sensitive contributions from members across the House, and I do thank them for that.

I am very mindful of the fact that the galleries are filling, and I would flatter myself to think that they are here for me, but I know that they are not. Nevertheless, given the fact that the main act appears not to be quite present at this moment—

Iain Lees-Galloway: Keep talking.

TIM MACINDOE: —ha, ha!—I shall oblige the Opposition on this occasion by assisting them out of their little predicament while my very good friend the senior Opposition whip sees whether he can rectify the minor problem that exists at this moment.

In all seriousness, this is a very important bill, and I endorse the comments of Louisa Wall, the member who spoke before me. In particular, as she did, I want to acknowledge the tremendous work that women’s refuges do around the country and to sincerely thank them, because what incredible challenges—what heartbreaking cases—they sometimes have to deal with. In my own electorate, in Hamilton West, I want to acknowledge the fine work that our women’s refuge does.

We cannot do enough to try to get on top of this problem, because it is an astonishing blight on our society that such a terrible situation exists in a country of such wonderful opportunity, where we have so much going for ourselves and where there are so many wonderful things happening.

I am delighted to be able to say now that the other reason why the galleries are so full has emerged. I therefore have great pleasure in commending this bill to the House.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee.

Valedictory Statements

Valedictory Statements

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn):

Te papa pounamu

Aotearoa New Zealand

Karanga, karanga, karanga;

Ngā tupuna

Haere, haere, haere;

Te kāhui ora te korowai o tēnei Whare;

E tū, e tū, tū tahi tonu

Ki a koutou ōku hoa mahi ki Te Kāwanatanga;

Noho mai, noho mai, noho mai

Kia tau te rangimārie ki a tātou katoa;

Ka ao, ka ao, ka awate-a!

[The dark green

Land of the Long White Cloud, which is New Zealand

Calls, summons, and beckons;

To the ancestral fathers

Depart, travel on, farewell to the clustered well-being and cloak of this House;

Stand firm, upright, and as one continuously

And to you, my fellow colleagues and the Government;

Remain, stay, goodbye

Let peace prevail over all of us

It is dawn, it is light, it is daylight!]

They say that giving a valedictory speech is a bit like being buried alive; it is intended to be permanent, it is usually followed by a wake, and you get to witness the eulogies. Having failed miserably to obey Holyoake’s advice to breathe through my nose on my way in here, his advice may be more useful on the way out. May I thank colleagues from all sides who have joined us today—yes, I really am going. To all of the friends and family who have joined us from New Lynn and all around New Zealand, it is profoundly moving to have you all here. Thank you so very much for attending.

I think our early lives frame why we are all here. My parents were from a politically mixed marriage. For years, they actually cancelled each other out at the polling booth and probably should have saved the petrol. My father, the Rev. Bill Cunliffe—the “Red Reverend”—was the son of railway workers and miners. He was the first in his family to go to university. Priests, poets, and politicians—the Cunliffes were always idealists.

My mother’s family were National-voting farming folk. They just got stuff done. My mother was one of four feisty daughters and ahead of her time. She nursed around the world for a decade, starting in post-war Africa. But despite my mother’s pleas to avoid politics at the breakfast table, ours was never a household short of opinions—it still is not, as I look to my sons—or, as an Anglican vicarage, was never short of opportunities to meet and help the needy.

As a kid, I helped my dad with Labour Party chook raffles at the Pleasant Point pub because he was chairman of the Point branch and on Sir Basil Arthur’s LEC. I was also caned in the third form for biffing a mate who called me a “Labour poof”, so I learned some of my politics by osmosis and some by more direct means. My childhood in small-town rural New Zealand was both idyllic and formative. From Te Aroha to Te Kūiti to Pleasant Point, afternoons were spent fishing, weekends playing rugby, and holidays farm labouring or rousying in a shearing gang. Those are things you can definitely find on my CV.

Politics, they say, is like malaria: once it is in your bloodstream, it is really hard to get rid of. I really caught the bug as a Foreign Service officer tramping Capitol Hill in Washington for the New Zealand Embassy. But it was not until I got back to New Zealand that I got to indulge it. In 1999, thanks to an amazing Titirangi campaign team, we turned a National-held marginal into a safe Labour seat. The campaign theme was so simple, I can still remember it: cops, docs, trees, jobs, and kids. Not a bad line if we are stuck for one in 2017.

About that time I featured in a Young Labour fund-raising calendar as a gladiator. Go figure. Marian Hobbs was a nun on a motorbike, and Trevor and Steve were the Blues Brothers because they were cool.

Hon Trevor Mallard: A long time ago.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: It was a while ago. But, in any case, picture the class of ’99 washing into Parliament with huge energy. We actually staged a backbench revolt in the Finance and Expenditure Committee to hold up the demutualisation of the New Zealand Stock Exchange, preventing a hostile takeover by the ASX and demanding a proper regulatory framework that may have been good for economic sovereignty, but we got our ears boxed for our enthusiasm. Likewise, chairing the Commerce Committee in my first term, we did not sugar-coat too many pills after 9 long years of Opposition. I must have mellowed with age, because the Regulations Review Committee, which I chaired this term, has never put anything to the vote, and I thank members on both sides of that committee for their collegiality and professionalism.

The years 1999 to 2000 saw business pushback against the Clark Government’s reforms. It was countered with our very own “smoked salmon offensive” of canapé and conversation. My small part in that was tragically outed when I erroneously emailed a plan to Jenny Shipley’s office. When it turned up on the 6 o’clock news, it took precisely 2 seconds for Prime Minister Helen Clark to ring me and share her views on the story with me. You know what I mean: “Yes, Helen.” Jonathan Hunt gave me two excellent pieces of advice that first term that stuck: never forget you are here only because you have Labour next to your name, and knock every door in your electorate in your first term, because once your constituents know that you are there for them, they will forgive your later time in Wellington. I have loved being a local MP. To the good people of New Lynn, thank you for letting me represent you. I hope I have done the job justice.

MPs come to Parliament not only to serve their district but also to contest ideas and policies. We are lucky that we have this institution, that we have the media to cover it, and that we have healthy debate. Since I first walked into this place, my political values have been grounded in a very simple belief: that all people are created equal and that, therefore, they all deserve equal opportunity, dignity, and respect; that markets make good servants but bad masters; and that it is the Government’s job to ensure that the economy serves our people and not the other way around.

In a small country, we are all in it together. If we do not educate all our young, who is going to pay for the superannuation and healthcare of tomorrow? If all our people do not have warm, dry homes, some of our kids will get sick and cannot learn, and if all people do not have jobs that pay a living wage, we will all be the poorer for it. Those are principles that we worked hard to deliver on in the fifth Labour Government, and the next Labour Government will too.

I was fortunate to cut my teeth in the Beehive with Sir Michael Cullen, surely one of New Zealand’s greatest finance Ministers, and under the leadership of Helen Clark. I always thought that to work with one of them would have been lucky; to work with a team of two was extraordinary. But it did not take me long to work out that the real job of an Associate Minister is photocopying, which is shorthand for doing anything else that senior Ministers do not have either the time or the inclination to do. So I got to ask State-owned enterprises why they were not writing bigger cheques to the Minister of Finance and to ask the IRD why the child support system pleased absolutely nobody. A highlight was making sandwiches with Trevor Mallard for that modern miracle, the State sector Budget round. Michael Cullen described the fiscal balance as the difference between two very large numbers that bounce around a lot—Grant is smiling; he knows—but balance them he did, with nine straight surpluses and KiwiSaver and the New Zealand Superannuation Fund to boot. They have stood the test of time, and I believe they are crying out to be built upon.

In information and communications technology (ICT), I watched Hon Paul Swain get sliced and diced by the then monopoly Telecom after the 2001 Fletcher inquiry called time on that neo-Liberal version of The Emperor’s New Clothes known as “self-regulation”. It sounds a bit like self-flagellation, but less useful. When, after the 2005 election, Helen Clark asked me to take on the ICT portfolio, we started a broad-based stocktake review immediately, and after 6 months of research it was a compelling business case for pro-competitive regulation. Because of the sensitivity of the issue, we placed high security around all of the paperwork, but that did not stop a Beehive messenger slipping a copy of the Cabinet committee papers to someone from Telecom at a cycle club meeting. The resulting protest from Telecom was, however, too late; Cabinet had already approved the far-reaching package that unbundled and operationally separated Telecom and overhauled the regulator. Taking legal advice, we released the package that very day, and despite the short-term impact on share prices generated by the loss of monopoly rents, as predicted, investment in the sector doubled, retail prices fell, and broadband roll-out took off. The current Government has continued that work, and good on it. New Zealand is now amongst one of the best-served telecommunications markets in the world, and Kiwis really did get faster, cheaper broadband.

As immigration Minister, my focus was on protecting human rights and getting the skills we needed to move New Zealand forward. I learnt pretty quickly that moderate, skill-driven immigration helps build a modern, connected New Zealand. But too many people too quickly puts undue pressure on infrastructure and communities, all in the name of grabbing more GDP. No prizes for guessing which zone we are in now!

Inheriting the health portfolio a year before a general election was bound to be fun. In my first week, senior doctors were about to go on strike. The headlines screamed “system failure”. The strike was averted after a long liquid dinner in my Beehive office with the district health board and senior doctors’ representatives. The only condition was no one was allowed to leave until the deal was signed, which was actually at 5.30 the next morning.

Building on the work of previous Ministers, we accelerated universal bowel cancer screening—something that still has not happened; we integrated service planning for cardiology, health, IT, and other specialities; we boosted mental health funding, which still needs doing, and kept a strong focus on public health. I still believe that there is huge benefit in a free or low-cost, world-class health system that is nationally integrated and reaches right into communities.

Going into Opposition in 2008 was a shock for the Labour Party. The global financial crisis had made sure of it for our Government, and I think we had also lost connection with the people and some of our own members. It has been, as it is for most parties, a long, hard road back, but it does give you time to reflect on what really matters.

My time in several economic portfolios led me to some pretty straightforward conclusions. New Zealand, as Grant knows, does not save enough. What we do save, we invest in the wrong things. Without enough saving, investment is too costly and jobs are too few. KiwiSaver was a good start, but it needs a boost, and the New Zealand Superannuation Fund must be made sustainable. We invest less than half of the OECD average in research and development, and yet that smart stuff is what is going to win us markets and give our kids access to the global jobs of the future.

What capital we do have, we spend on the wrong things, like bidding each other’s house prices up. I remember my horror when I found the first family in Kelston living in a garage. We got the dad a job, the kids are now at medical school, but, tragically, you cannot find many garages to park a car in these days in South Auckland. New Zealand has become a speculator’s “pavlova paradise”: no capital gains tax, negative gearing, weak rules on foreign land bankers, and throw in tax loopholes big enough to drive an Apple through.

It is time we put our policies where our principles are, not only because a fair go is right but because the evidence is compelling: more equal societies do better economically too. In New Zealand, inequality is actually holding us back. It is crippling our ability to do well as a country. The poor are getting poorer, the middle is working harder just to stand still. With nearly all of the wealth created in the past decade attaching, on average, to the top 1 percent, a smaller and smaller share of national income is actually going to wage and salary earners. At some stage, hopefully soon, it has got to reach a tipping point. Notwithstanding that, as the late, great John Clarke said: “We don’t know how lucky we are.”—I think he said “Trev”.

This side of the House makes no apology for fighting inequality, investing in people and smarts, and celebrating all that is good in this beautiful, diverse, and innovative country, and much of that, thank goodness, we all share. That was the message I hoped would resonate with many New Zealanders during my short time as Leader of the Opposition, including some of the missing million who could not be bothered to turn out to vote at all because they could not see the point any more. I could write a book about the 2014 election campaign, but I do not think anyone would believe it, or possibly read it. But, in any case, that campaign was one of the most bizarre the country has ever seen. We had Kim Dotcom, Donghua Liu, and dirty politics coming out our ears, but what the Labour Party did not have enough of was time: time to heal our old wounds, time to raise the money, and time to build the systems to get our message through. Mike Moore once said that the easiest way to be wrong in politics is to be right too soon. I have no regrets for standing up for what I believe in, though I recognise that my delivery could at times have done with some work. And no, family violence is still not OK.

So it was a huge privilege to be able to lead the New Zealand Labour Party, and I am indebted to all who were part of that campaign. I want to commend my successor, Andrew Little, and his deputy, Jacinda Ardern, and all my colleagues, who are now building for the 2017 campaign that will give New Zealanders a real choice for a fresh start.

Progressive politics has been my passion for these last 18 years, but if politics is like malaria—a recurrent fever—I think I might be just about cured. I have done what I can, and the time really has come to move on. I thank members for coming along to make sure I really mean it, but, unlike David Lange, I am not even going to joke about changing my mind, because I am lucky enough—I mean this—to be able to change tacks in my own time, in my own direction, and without a by-election, because Labour did so well in the last two I just could not inflict another one on members opposite. [Interruption] Lighten up, I am going.

Mr Assistant Speaker, thank you for allowing the electorate offices of all our departing members to continue to serve needy constituencies through these short months of interregnum. They say—this is unfair—that politicians are a mile wide and a millimetre deep; that may be the Bellamy’s catering. I am, however, looking forward to returning to the private sector and getting stuck in to some deeper issues, consulting to businesses, iwi, and regions.

So I am moving on with a real sense of optimism and excitement and, of course, a huge deal of gratitude. It is not possible—we all know this—to commit to a life in politics without the generous and selfless support of family and of friends. There are so many people to thank, it is impossible to do justice to them all. For some, I will convey privately the gratitude that time and place does not allow me to do today. To my longstanding electorate agents Sue Hagen and Lusi Schwenke: you have been with me through virtually the whole of my time in politics, and you have been there through the tough times. I could not have wished for better support or better friends. Thank you.

To my talented researcher Kris Lal; my dedicated executive assistants Reremoana Fuli, Esther Robinson, David Hawkins, Paul Grant, Sue Piper, Gay Pledger, and others; to my former Labour leader’s office staff, including Karl Beckert, Wendy Brandon, Rob Carr, Simon Cunliffe, Carolyn Dick, Rob Egan, Chris Harrington, Neale Jones, Matt McCarten, Deborah Manning, Elizabeth Munday, Dinah Okeby, Bronwyn Presland, Bridget Service, and Clint Smith—not forgetting, in the whips’ office, Emma Williams and Peter Hoare, and my former ministerial staff, some of whom are in the gallery today: thank you all so much for what you do for New Zealand, and thank you for what we did together.

To the Labour Party leadership, especially presidents Nigel Haworth and Moira Coatsworth, general secretaries Andrew Kirton and Tim Barnett, as well as the thousands of volunteers and members who give so selflessly to build a better New Zealand; to our affiliates in the union movement, especially my friends the late Helen Kelly and the late Peter Conway; to Sam Huggard and Jill Ovens and friends here today; and to Richard Wagstaff, Angus McConnell, Chris Flatt, Joe Fleetwood, Bill Newsom, Robert Reid, and many others: kia kaha, e hoa.

To the incredible New Lynn Labour electorate committee: to Greg and Jan Presland, Clare Hargraves, Raema Ingles, James Armstrong, Eanna Doyle, and Val Graham; Kirsten H and what’s-his-name, Don and Noreen Clark—[Interruption]; there is a reason for that—Val and Don Rogerson, Bruce and Trixie Harvey, David and Liz Craig, Dorothy and Alan McGray, Nissanka Kumarawansa, Ami and the late Savitri Chand, Susan Zhu, Vanessa King, Kaye Jones, Martin and Laurice Holland, and to my excellent intended successor for New Lynn, Dr Deborah Russell, and to the Socialist Speechwriter, thank you all.

To Helen Clark, Michael Cullen, Jonathan Hunt, Perry Keenan, Sir Bob and Lady Harvey, Richard and Jackie Randerson, Rick Boven, Richard Zeckhauser, and Nitin Nohria: thank you all for your patience and guidance over the years. Thank you to the press gallery and the media for the important role that you continue to play. To all the parliamentary staff who keep us fed, watered, and safe: we could not do it—New Zealand could not do it—without you.

Finally, to my family, who have given the most over so many years, and especially to my two sons, William and Cameron, who are here today: I am so very proud of you guys. I love you very much, and I am looking forward to spending more time with you when I get home. You guys face a world that is more complex and more challenging than that inherited by those baby boomers, and us Gen-Xers, sitting in Parliament today. While our world is changing in fundamental ways, the values that guide us should not, because they are, ultimately, what make politics worth doing, not the rollercoaster of media attention or the greasy pole of competition. This is, ultimately, a service job, and that is what, for me at least, has made it such a privilege to be part of.

To all sides—all sides—of this special House and all who serve it, I wish you all well. I look forward now to just being a voter and a constituent from now on. Haere rā.

Waiata

Sitting suspended from 6.03 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

Bills

Education (Update) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): I move, That the Education (Update) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. This bill amends the Education Act 1989 by putting the achievement and learning of children and young people at the centre of early childhood education and compulsory schooling, ensuring there is strong accountability throughout the education system, enhancing collaboration between education providers, making improvements to the areas where the law needs modernising or more flexibility, strengthening the legal framework for managing teacher competence issues, establishing a future-focused legal framework for online learning, and improving the way the Government provides careers services.

I would like to thank the chair and members of the Education and Science Committee for their diligent consideration of the bill. I also want to thank the many organisations and individuals who made submissions on the bill, who took the opportunity to have their say and have their voices heard on the biggest update to education legislation in nearly 30 years. The committee received a large and diverse range of submissions with submitters particularly commenting on amendments relating to communities of online learning (COOLs), cohort entry, enduring objectives for the education system, a statement of national education and learning priorities, and improvements to school planning and reporting.

The committee has recommended a number of amendments to the bill. The most significant of these prohibit the use of seclusion in schools, early childhood services, and ngā kōhanga reo, and regulates the use of physical restraint. This bill gives us the opportunity to ensure that the Education Act 1989 is updated to best serve the needs of our children and young people. This includes making sure schools, early childhood services, and ngā kōhanga reo know how to deal with challenging behaviour in a safe way. We want parents and whānau to be confident that schools and our early learning services are safe places for their children. We want staff to prevent and be able to de-escalate potentially dangerous situations in ways that minimise the risk of hurting a student or of being hurt themselves.

I am pleased that the committee has agreed to make these amendments as this sends a clear signal to educators that in today’s world there is no situation where it is acceptable for children and young people to be held in seclusion. The bill will also make clear the limited situations that physical restraint can be used on children and young people by teachers and authorised staff members. This will mean that, in cases of violent or extremely disruptive behaviour, students and teachers will be protected from harm and learning can continue to happen.

I would like to express my thanks, once again, to the committee for seeking further submissions on Supplementary Order Paper 250. Thanks also to those who submitted on these important changes, some of whom shared very personal experiences with the committee. The committee, by majority, has recommended a number of other changes be made to the bill. These changes are not major, but they do address a number of details that will result in a more efficient and effective bill. I would now like to draw the House’s attention to some of the more noteworthy.

In response to concerns from submitters, the committee has recommended a change to the provisions around planning and reporting to make sure that the strategic document that schools will be required to prepare reflect their communities’ needs and aspirations. The Government is keen to ensure that the aspirations, vision, and values of communities are incorporated into their schools’ strategic planning. In fact, this bill reinstates a requirement to consult with the school community, which was removed from the requirements for the charter in 2001. The amendment recommended by the committee means boards of trustees will also be able to consult on their draft strategic plans with any other person, group, or organisation that they think they should consult with. This will allow boards to consult with parties that fall outside of the parameters initially set out in the bill such as the proprietor of a State integrated school. I am also pleased the committee has recommended a similar change to the provisions around combined boards with the Minister of Education now required to consult with the proprietor of a State integrated school before combining the boards of State integrated schools.

The committee has recommended some changes to the provisions that have been incorporated into the Education Act 1989 from the Private Schools Conditional Integration Act 1975. In particular, submitters were concerned that in some instances modernising the language and style of the transferred provisions had unintentionally changed their meaning. The instances where this has happened have been rectified. An example of this is a new section 422(1)(d) set out in clause 144 where the words “instruction and observances” were intended to cover the original wording of “practices, rights, and doctrines”. In making these changes, schools with a philosophical special character were unintentionally excluded. Part of what makes our education system unique and distinctive is the recognition of different abilities, religious beliefs, ethnic groups, income levels, and ideas about teaching and learning. The bill has been amended to ensure that schools can continue to teach according to their own special character.

We are keen to provide innovative and high-quality digital options to engage students, grow their digital fluency, and connect them even more to 21st century learning opportunities. COOLs offer that. The committee has also recommended a number of technical changes to the provisions around COOLs. One of the biggest changes is moving the commencement date out from 31 December 2017 to 31 December 2019. Moving the commencement date better aligns with the planned introduction of a new funding system for schools and early learning providers. It also provides more time to develop a robust accreditation and accountability regime to ensure COOLs meet the needs of our learners. The bill creates two types of COOLs, full and supplementary, which will provide tuition in different ways. A key change the committee has recommended is replacing the term “full COOL” with “enrolling COOL”. This will better reflect the fact that enrolling COOLs are the only ones that can enrol students as well as avoiding confusion with the term “fully accredited COOL”, which is also used in the bill.

The last set of recommendations from the committee that I would like to draw the House’s attention to is around cohort entry. A number of submitters wanted to change the consultation requirements for boards wanting to introduce cohort entry, including broadening the categories of those who must be consulted, and requiring their general acceptance. Boards will need to consult with school staff, parents of current and prospective students, and local early learning services before introducing cohort entry. There is nothing stopping them from consulting their wider community or community of learning (kāhui ako), or consulting more frequently if they so choose. The committee has recommended specifying in the bill that, when developing and seeking views on a proposed cohort entry policy, a board must also consider whether the policy is generally acceptable to those consulted. The committee has also recommended a 3 July 2017 commencement date for cohort entry. This will enable the system changes to be made and allow good guidance to be developed for effective transitions.

We are an ambitious Government determined to ensure the achievement of children and young people is at the heart of the education system, and we are putting in place the flexibility to respond to their current and future needs. We know that a good education is a passport to the future and that is why we are spending over $11 billion in education to make sure all our young people have the opportunity to secure that future. This year we have seen record rates in NCEA and we have seen record rates and participation in early learning. We are committed to modernising our education system to meet the challenges of the 21st century.

The changes recommended by the committee, some of which I have just discussed, will result in a safer learning environment and a more efficient and effective bill. Ultimately, this will ensure that the legislation provides an effective platform for lifting the achievement of all young New Zealanders. I am pleased that the committee has recommended, by majority, that the Education (Update) Amendment Bill be passed with these amendments. Once again, I would like to thank the chair and the members of the committee for their diligence and their work. I now commend the Education (Update) Amendment Bill to the House.

CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka): This is a sad day for education in New Zealand, as the National Government continues to dismantle our public education system, continues to treat learning as if it is a commodity to be bought and sold on a privatised open market, and continues to narrow the focus away from what is our world-leading curriculum and towards a narrow set of targets that can be manipulated and gamed. That is the narrowness of its vision, and it is continuing to reinforce a very low-trust approach to teaching New Zealand’s young people.

The Children’s Commissioner was absolutely right in his submission on this bill. This bill needs to be started again, from the very beginning. If this bill is designed to give purpose to our education system, if it is designed to put young people at the heart of the education system, then why have their voices not been more included in its development? If this is really about gearing up our education system for the needs of future generations, why are they being shut out of this debate?

We had, I think, a handful of young people submitting to the Education and Science Committee, and that was a great tragedy. But what was more concerning was that they were not involved in the development of the bill up until that point. They were not involved in the policy. Their voices were not present and were not heard. What a wasted opportunity. I think the Children’s Commissioner was right when he said we should start this again.

In her contribution, Hekia Parata said that she wanted to put students front and centre. I think those were the words that she used, and yet they have not been consulted. They have not been engaged in the development of any of these policies. Of course, sadly, they are not alone, because the voices of pretty much everybody who submitted to the Education and Science Committee have also been ignored. Time and time again, when sensible contributions were put forward by people working in education, the response came back “It is not Government policy to do this.”, and, therefore, simply—that was the response.

The select committee for this piece of legislation, I am sad to say, was more or less a waste of time. I sat through all of those submissions, and I was frustrated that, by majority, the vast bulk of amendments that could have arisen, if those submitters had been listened to, were blocked. This was a complete farce of a process. There were useful contributions from people who wanted to improve the legislation, who actually supported parts of the legislation that I do not, and they were ignored as well because the Government took the attitude that “We’ve got the numbers. We’re going to ram it through, and we’re not actually going to listen to the contributions from people who might have to implement it.” I think that is a great tragedy.

On the issue of seclusion—I want to deal with that one first because that is an area where I do agree with the Government. I think it is useful to get this part of the law clarified. We have certainly supported including that in the bill. However, the Minister said, in her contribution, that she wanted to “prevent and de-escalate dangerous situations”. I wrote that down because I wanted to remember those words—“prevent and de-escalate dangerous situations”—and yet last week she was in the House saying that schools that had violent pupils should immediately call the police. That is not de-escalation. I am not entirely sure on what planet calling the police on a 6-year-old could be described as de-escalating the situation. If schools are going to have to deal with children with challenging behaviours, and they do—all day, every day—then they need to be given the resourcing and the support. Those schools that are saying they have got a crisis when it comes to dealing with students with behavioural needs deserve to be listened to, and yet they are not.

So now I want to turn my attention to some of the more specific provisions in this education bill. The first is the goal in the bill to establish a clear set of purposes for education in New Zealand. I think that is a desirable and noble act. I think the Education Act would be improved by having a clear purpose clause—a purpose statement—within it. But what we heard from educators and what we hear around the country when it comes to debates on education is that people are worried that this will simply be used as a mechanism to, once again, narrow down the focus of the education system on a narrow band of targets.

The current Government has the attitude that the only learning that matters is learning that can be easily measured and plotted on a graph, and that the only measurements that matter are national standards and the National Certificate of Educational Achievement. The Government is absolutely wrong. It is not measuring student progress. It is not measuring students’ overall well-being and development. The Government is trying to narrow the focus of the whole system on to a very narrow range of schools, and all to meet these narrow targets that it has set.

So when this bill gives the Government the ability to establish a statement of national education and learning priorities, whilst at the same time establishing a set of national performance measures, we can understand why people in the education community are so nervous about that. I think a statement of national education and learning priorities could be a very valuable thing. It could be a powerful discussion for the education community to be engaged with, to play a role in agreeing what that might be, as it did with the development of The New Zealand Curriculum, which is so broadly embraced. And yet the consultation provision in that simply says the Minister has to consult with the people whom the Minister wants to consult with. There is no guarantee the Minister even has to consult with the people who are going to have to implement this national statement of education and learning priorities, so it is no wonder people are worried.

Education can be such an engaging and rewarding experience, and yet the current generation going through the education system now is being robbed of so many opportunities because schools, early childhood centres, and tertiary education providers are being told to focus their energies on this very narrow range of targets so that the Minister of Education, the Prime Minister, and whoever else in the Government can stand up and say: “Aren’t we great? We’re making progress on these measures.”

The reality is they are not making progress on what matters, which is giving kids a rich, deep, varied education that will allow them to achieve to their potential and that recognises that all children are different, with different strengths and weaknesses and abilities and passions. The education system needs to cater for all of that, and yet it is being told it has to focus on this narrow range of targets.

On communities of learning—everyone in the education system says they want to collaborate. Collaboration is something that they want to do, and what have we got from the Government? A heavy-handed, bureaucratic, managerial—

Todd Barclay: My schools love it.

CHRIS HIPKINS: —model called the communities of learning. They do not love it. Schools hate it, and yet they are doing it because it is the only way they can get their hands on the extra money. I will tell you, if it was so popular, why it is that of the $360 million that the Government has put into it, only about $20 million of that has been spent. It is because people do not like it and they do not want it.

But let us then turn to cohort entry. I am open to a debate about cohort entry, and yet the only justification put forward at the select committee for it was administrative efficiency. If it is better for kids’ education, let us have that debate. But no educational research was produced to demonstrate that cohort entry is the way to go. I am utterly opposed to the idea that 4-year-olds should be starting primary school. At 5 we already have one of the lowest school starting ages in the OECD. We do not need to go any lower than that.

But then, of course, we get to one of the really meaty issues in the debate on this bill, which is the establishment of communities of online learning, or COOLs, which is a privatisation by stealth method by the current Government, and, also, it is totally and utterly ill-defined and misguided. Very little detail has been provided by the Government about how this is actually going to work, and yet there is a plethora of international evidence, and evidence from in New Zealand, that if the Government gets this wrong, it will have hugely damaging impacts on the kids who will be involved.

A private pro-charter foundation in the United States—a group whose job it is to promote charter schools and promote these types of learning arrangements—did its own research. It found that students attending those schools—the online private charter schools—lost an average of about 72 days of learning in reading and 180 days of learning in maths during the course of a 180-day school year. In other words, they did not learn any maths at all, and they lost roughly half of their literacy learning as well. That is just wrong. Yet the Government wants to implement this model without working through and without defining how it is going to work.

“Just trust us.”, it says, “We’ll make it up as we go along.” I do not think that we should give the Government that level of flexibility when kids’ futures are at stake. I actually think it should front up and explain how it thinks this new model of COOLs is going to work.

I think there are provisions in the bill that the Labour Party would support, but nobody on this side of the House trusts that the National Government would do a good job of implementing them. As a result of that, and for all of the other reasons that we will debate during the Committee of the whole House stage, the Labour Party will be vehemently opposing this legislation.

Dr JIAN YANG (National): The world has changed dramatically in the past 30 years. Accordingly, we have made numerous legal changes relating to various parts of the Government, business, society, etc. But, in terms of New Zealand education, we have not made substantial updates or changes in the past 30 years. It is against this background that we are now considering the Education (Update) Amendment Bill. This is the most significant and substantial bill that will have a fundamental impact on our education system.

The 1989 Education Act focuses on how we run schools, and this bill will enable schools and early childhood education centres to provide a more flexible, 21st century education that focuses on the achievement of every young New Zealander. The Minister of Education, the Hon Hekia Parata, just announced that we now have 197 communities of learning, covering well over half a million young people, and that is great news. It is recognised that teaching and learning would benefit from the collaboration of education providers. Such collaboration would benefit the students, would help students to transition, and would also be good for their well-being. Teaching will also benefit from such collaboration because teachers will be able to share good ideas, good practice, professional development, and even resources. This bill will provide for new statutory mechanisms relating to communities of learning. In that sense, this bill will enhance collaboration between education providers.

One major challenge to today’s education is the advance of technology. These days people can learn anywhere at any time, through a wide range of delivery modes that specifically meet their education needs. It is now very common for schools to provide some kind of online learning, and that is common in traditional face-to-face schools. The 1989 Education Act is outdated because it did not expect the growth of online learning. This bill aims to address some restrictions in that 1989 Education Act that might well limit the potential of best and new innovative practices. This bill will try to set up a future-focused regulatory system.

One concern that was often raised in the hearings was the quality control of the communities of online learning, or COOLs. That concern is understandable. However, we have a very robust accreditation system, or process, also there will be ongoing monitoring from the Ministry of Education, and all COOLs will be reviewed by the Education Review Office. The National-led Government is committed to modernising our education system into one that will meet the challenges of the 21st century.

JENNY SALESA (Labour—Manukau East): Thank you for this call on the Education (Update) Amendment Bill. This is a deeply concerning bill to us. This legislation would, amongst other things, see the sci-fi scenario of Kiwi children as young as 4 years old plonked in front of the computer screens, alone, for all of their learning. It was bad enough allowing charter schools to be established with no involvement of registered qualified teachers, but this legislation will take it one step further. It will allow our children as young as 4 years of age to be taught not by human beings and not by fully qualified registered teachers, but it will allow our children to be taught without any teachers whatsoever.

I am sure many of us, as members of this House, would probably think back and remember that some of the most influential people in our lives have been teachers—most of them registered qualified teachers. Another of the concerns that we have—Labour, New Zealand First, and the Greens—is that we sat through the Education and Science Committee hearings and heard hundreds of submissions from a lot of key leaders—from teachers, from professionals, from the Children’s Commissioner, and from principals. A lot of these submissions, though—hardly any of them have been taken into account. When you look at the bill now and you read this current bill that we have in front of us—after the select committee it has hardly changed, and it certainly has not taken a lot of those submissions into account.

The Education (Update) Amendment Bill refines the education system. We have a world-class education system. It was well suited, though, for the 20th century. We had a lot of hopes for this Education (Update) Amendment Bill. We had hoped that it would bring our education system into the 21st century, but the bill that we have in front of us does little to bring the education system into the 21st century.

We believe that the Government should be focused on ensuring that every child, that every student, in Aotearoa New Zealand attends a school, a great school, preferably their local school, and that every student achieves to the best of their ability—that they can actually realise their full potential. Unfortunately, this is not currently happening right now in Aotearoa New Zealand. I can tell you that what this new system that we have would mean, especially if the bill is to be passed and we indeed see a lot more of our students from age 4 upwards not even needing a teacher, is that a lot of our students would need to know how to read. They should be able to read so that they can learn themselves when they are looking at these computer screens.

Can I tell you just a very short story from South Auckland. One of the things I do when I go around my local schools is I talk to principals, I talk to teachers, and I ask many of them the same question: when 5-year-olds enter your school, what kinds of skills do they bring in with them? The consistent answer I hear from our teachers and our principals is that many of these students that come do not know what their colours are. They do not know A to Z, most of them—many of them—and many of them do not even have vocabulary.

But what really hits home for me is when they tell me that many of these kids do not even know how to speak one language. What I mean is if these kids are Tongan, born here, many of them come into school and they do not speak Tongan fluently and they do not speak English fluently—similarly if they are Samoan and similarly if they are Māori or Cook Islanders. For a lot of our Indian kids, unfortunately, it is the same thing. What the teachers tell us is that it makes it so much more challenging for them to teach these young 5-year-olds when they do not have a core language to teach from. Our kids need to be literate. If we are to expect our children to be able to teach themselves from computers, as this legislation would allow, with the COOL—community of online learning—how are we going to expect many of our kids who do not even speak one whole language to be able to succeed like other 5-year-olds?

Cohort learning—having our children start school as early as age 4 was one of the issues that teachers and parents said they did not agree with. When we look at other developed countries, many of them do not even start school until kids are 6 years old or 7 years old, and yet New Zealand is proposing that we should allow our children to start as early as 4 years old. When we asked the officials to please explain why it is that we are looking at allowing our children to start that early, it seemed to us on the committee that the explanation was that it would be a cost-saving measure. Saving costs and cutting costs should not be a good enough reason for having our children start school as early as 4 years of age.

Another of the issues that came up was from rural communities. Teachers from the rural communities, as well as Rural Women New Zealand—what they told us was that they are “very disappointed that there is no mention in this [Education (Update) Amendment Bill that it will be] addressing inequalities in the current education system and the issues … facing low decile rural schools.” in rural communities. They asked why we do not address those issues first, before we go addressing allowing communities of online learning to be a feature of the future. They also told us that when online learning schools were allowed, they saw them—rural schools—being affected. They told us that in the last 15 years, so many of the schools in rural communities have already closed, and they saw that communities of online learning would affect them, because when you actually have a decrease of 20 students per school, that is one whole teacher whom they see going. They see even more of the rural schools being closed down because of the availability of these communities of online learning.

As I said earlier on, the Labour Party, New Zealand First, and the Greens, as well as hundreds of our parents and our teachers, and our community leaders and educational experts and advisers, are very concerned about the passage of this education bill. Labour strongly opposes this bill. I know that the Minister of Education, the Hon Hekia Parata, is about to leave in the next few weeks, but that should not be the reason why we are rushing through the passing of this legislation.

Similar to what my colleague Chris Hipkins said earlier on, when the Children’s Commissioner came to present to us, he actually put up a stop sign—a red stop sign. He said to the Education and Science Committee that we should stop this education amendment bill, and what we should do is go and consult with the people whom it would affect the most—meaning the children. It is our children who will be affected the most by this education amendment bill. We have not even had a full consultation with our children to ask them for their opinion on how this education amendment bill is going to influence and affect them in the long term. We are strongly, strongly opposed to this education amendment bill. Thank you so much.

TODD BARCLAY (National—Clutha-Southland): It is a pleasure to rise in support of this bill. I think we need to not lose sight of the fact that New Zealand has a world-performing, top-class education system. We are among the top performers in the OECD, and what this bill sets out to achieve is to make us even better and even more futureproofed.

This is the biggest update in nearly 30 years. The Education and Science Committee ran a robust process, and I had the privilege of joining it about halfway through. Before that process was run by the committee, where there were hundreds of people who came in to provide submissions, right from the unions to sector professionals and to other interested parties, the Ministry of Education did a phenomenal job of collating all of the submissions and providing advice and feedback to our committee on them, not to mention the amount of work that the Minister of Education has put in through the Ministerial Cross-Sector Forum on Raising Achievement and her individual engagements, working across schools and with other sector representatives across a large number of years. So for the Labour Party to suggest that this is some form of rushed job that has been ill-thought-out, that could not be further from the truth.

I want to acknowledge the Minister for all the work that she has put in over the last 6 years in the role. I am pleased that we can be debating this bill in her final months as Minister of Education.

Schools are complex and, at times, challenging environments, but they are also unique and innovative environments. They are also largely driven on success that is born out of strong relationships. I think a fundamental flaw—and it was not a flaw at the time it was written in 1989, but it is certainly a flaw that we are noticing now in the 21st century—was that the Education Act 1989 was largely written in a prescriptive manner targeted around how schools are administered and how they are run, whereas they need to be much more nimble and much more accommodating to the individual requests of the 2,529 schools across New Zealand and the unique nuances of how they operate and the unique nuances of how their staff and parent community operates within the school as well—the individual attributes that the parent community and the community associated with these schools want to see brought forward through its school.

That is one of the things that this Government is focused on. We are focused on ensuring that every kid gets the best possible opportunities in our education system. The needs of every child and young person are very much at the centre of that—not the needs of how a system is run but the needs of the individual children. That is why it is a pleasure to be able to support this bill, and I look forward to progressing the debate.

CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. Kia ora koutou katoa. Tonight we examine a bill that I looked at and thought: “Oh, this can’t be the one that they talked about being about re-examining the purpose of education—the one where there was going to be the conversation, the one where we really look deeply into the meaning of education for our country’s future.” I thought I must have just mistaken this update bill—this is just a minor mishmash of confused endeavours, as we have seen throughout the last 8 years I have been on the Education and Science Committee—because we have been sold a pup. We were told that this was going to be a magnificent discussion of purpose, but it actually exemplifies everything that we are losing: the narrowing, the technocratic, and the testing, testing, testing, which is not 21st century; it is actually 20th or maybe even 19th century learning. I have had the privilege of talking to some fantastic modern educators, and none of them—including the Singaporeans—believes that testing, testing, testing is the answer any more. So, as usual, the Government is lagging behind and is trying to enforce a failed idea.

The Green Party, in terms of this bill and the seclusion rooms—I was very active in bringing this issue to Parliament, because I have been working very hard with families whose children have been experiencing some of the failures of a broken system. We support the end to the legal right to use those rooms, but, as the families told us, what will change if there is not serious professional development and funding support for schools? Just closing the rooms does not solve the problem. The problem is that schools do not know what to do with children with high needs. Some schools do, but very few reach the standards that I have seen in the best of schools—and those are not the “best” schools: the rich schools, the private schools, and all of that; they are the schools where inclusion is deeply understood. I am talking about places like Berhampore, where the school is very, very shabby on one level and a stellar environment on another. That is why we need to do more than ban a practice; we need to replace that practice with a genuine and deep support for teachers, who have one of the hardest jobs in the world—that of dealing with the diversity of student needs. Just banning the seclusion room is not enough.

However, back to the rest of the bill. Hmm, hmm, hmm! Just imagine if we had really done it, if we had really had that conversation—that brilliant, deep, cross-sectoral conversation about education. If we had done it, we would be like other countries where they have been able to develop real consensus and actually make genuine progress. But we did not do it. This is not it. This bill is just another little mishmash of privatisation, anomalous and confused in ideas, many of which have got no policy behind them and no developmental work—so I actually think it is a lazy bill.

The Government put up calls and things, with no justification. There was no evidence presented at the select committee on many of the changes. We were supposed to take it all on faith, and the submitters did not. We had extraordinary submissions. The Ombudsman was very, very clear that we had actually created enormous risk for children, who could be dumped in communities of learning (COLs) because it is the easier place to put them than to have them in schools. How serious is that? The Ombudsman said to us: “I never come before you lightly. I come before you with a deep concern.” The Children’s Commissioner came and said we were in breach of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, because we had ignored the requirement of a modern legislative framework to consult with children.

Again, the bill should have stopped right there and we should have done the work properly. But no, the Government was not interested in that, because it is not about the rights of the child, it is not about children, it is not about education; it is about playing with some ideas that, actually, there is no great demand for. We heard that clearly, especially with COLs. We heard from the blended learners that this was not what they wanted. They actually just wanted to be able to work with schools, not instead of them—in an unregulated market place with no proper pastoral care.

The National Education and Learning Priorities—this could have been a wonderful conversation about creating equity, vision, and lifelong learning. We could have stepped up to the Greens’ great policy on universal core curriculum Te Reo in schools. There were so many things that could have been in the conversation. Fundamental to that conversation, and at the heart of my most profound objection, which is supported by the Children’s Commissioner and others, like UNICEF—what would they know about children, UNICEF and the Children’s Commissioner—is that we have failed in this bill to acknowledge what other countries do. That is, to put instruments such as the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, the rights for gender equity, the New Zealand Disability Strategy—all of those things should be at the heart of this legislation, so that we have an Education Act against which people can test whether the system is actually delivering on its promise to protect our children’s right to a quality education.

But there was no interest in that. There was no interest from the Government in protecting those rights in a modern, convention-based piece of law that would provide for everybody, let alone provide an opportunity to appeal when the system breaks down and fails your children. Time and time again submitters came, and they talked, again—it was like going through the whole inquiry into dyslexia and dyspraxia and autism again, because so many families came back and said: “No, this is not it. Please protect our children’s right. Make inclusion real. Do the hard work, and put it into law so that there is somewhere to test it.” But no, the Government just flatly refused to do that. It just flatly refused to listen to the Ombudsman, the Children’s Commissioner, UNICEF, the endless families who gave evidence, and the organisations that specialise in education.

It is hard to sit on the committee, after 8 years and in my last term of Parliament, and not feel a sense of shame that every time the people come before us with detailed, passionate expertise and human stories, we are not interested in either of those. We are not interested in the human story or the legal conventions that our country is signed up to, to protect our children’s right to a quality education. All that the bill talks about is COLs and targets and achievement data, which are outdated and fail to create a holistic and effective education system. It is very disappointing.

And then you can talk about all the small, weird stuff. The cohort entry—no one wanted it. The teachers did not think it would be more efficient. The parents did not want it. It was not about a demand. Efficiency is what you do with widgets, not what you do with children, because—read my lips—they all learn at a different rate and they all are ready at a different time, and their birthday is enough. We need to listen to what we were told on that issue.

The COLs—you know, people are struggling with the COLs, and in this law they are going to struggle more because the Government, the Minister, will now have power to sign off their learning agreements. The COLs were sold to the schools as being able to identify in their groups their learning priorities, but this bill says: “No, the Minister has to sign off your priorities.” That is a shift. That is not how the communities of learning were told they would be able to operate. It was going to be responsive. It was going to be “The schools will decide.” If we really believe in the capability of our educators and our education communities, what is wrong with that? Why cannot the schools decide? That could have been visionary.

There are things that are so deeply disappointing about this piece of legislation. It is really sad. The purpose of education is not advanced by this bill. The opportunity for child consultation, the opportunity to create a set of learning priorities that are modern, holistic, and genuine around inclusion and equity and fairness and rights—completely ignored. We have been told that a few bad ideas, such as the COLs, will work. But I met a young woman, who came and talked to us. She said: “I would have loved a COL. I could have then hidden away for the rest of my life in my room. But it was a school that saved my life. Do not allow young people like myself to hide away in our rooms, playing on our computers, avoiding the world because that is easier. Support our schools to support us.” She was a passionate young woman to whom I wish the Government was prepared to listen.

There will be some Supplementary Order Papers, there will be some challenges on this bill, because it is not what it was promised to be. We have got some great educators and some wonderful ideas, and there are international educators who share with us modern practice. But this is another small, privatising, minimalist, disappointing, and actually quite abusive piece of legislation for what it fails to do. It could have been something great, it could have been the chance to come together, and it could have been about education, but, regrettably, it is not. We cannot support it. Kia ora.

TRACEY MARTIN (NZ First): Kia ora, Mr Deputy Speaker. Hekia Parata should thank the chair and the majority of the Education and Science Committee. When I came to this Parliament in the last term of Parliament, one of the things I was most proud of was that the first delegation from overseas that came here was from the United Kingdom, and it came here to look at our select committee process because it provided the voice of the people inside legislation. It provided real-life examples of what may be wrong or what could right about legislation that we wrote here. The chair of the Education and Science Committee at that time was Nikki Kaye, followed by Cam Calder. The Education and Science Committee was balanced, with members of the Government and members of the Opposition, and so real legislation, with real conversation and real negotiation, took place to provide legislation that has stood the test of time.

This is not what is happening now. I agree with Catherine Delahunty. I am ashamed to have to stand before the community and the public of New Zealand and try to tell them that it is still worthwhile to come to the Education and Science Committee, because the Government has a majority and in the last year we have become a dumping ground for ex-Ministers who have followed the Minister’s decisions, regardless of any information that has come from the sector or from any member of the public. It is an embarrassment to the New Zealand public what is going on at the Education and Science Committee, and this bill is an example of it. So certainly the Minister should stand up and thank the chair of the Education and Science Committee and the majority, and I want to make it very, very clear that it is the National Government that holds a majority on the Education and Science Committee.

I encourage people to go and read the minority views that are there, because the Opposition certainly does not agree with the Government on this bill. The Opposition certainly heard and listened to the people who submitted on this bill, and I say to them please do not give up on democracy. Please do not give up on putting your voice into the select committee process, because it is now on the record. When this Government goes on 23 September of this year, we will be able to take the evidence and the submissions that you gave us and we will be able to create legislation—particularly for education—that will be for the benefit of New Zealand, not for the benefit of a few who will make money.

Catherine Delahunty is right. The national education and learning priorities were an opportunity to have a nationwide conversation and decide what success looks like for Kiwi kids in New Zealand—not what it looks like in the UK and not what it looks like in America, but what it looks like here. The national education and learning priorities could have been a conversation for New Zealand to set a 30-year direction that would have got politicians out of the classroom. Our job is to fund education, not to deliver education, but this bill is the last piece in Hekia Parata’s puzzle that actually ties up schools from what they were originally supposed to do under Tomorrow’s Schools—that is, to represent their communities and deliver the New Zealand Curriculum.

Dr Jian Yang seems to not know that the New Zealand Curriculum, which was developed with this sector with massive conversation across this country and is world recognised, was developed in 2008, not 1989. It is that sort of ignorance that frustrates the members of the Opposition when we talk about education. How dare people who do not upskill themselves decide that they will put this thing upon our children and upon our future.

Let us talk about the communities of online learning. The reality is that e-learning has been taking part across New Zealand for the last 20 years. Schools are so far ahead of this Government that it is not worth talking about; what they did not have was the funding. The only thing that stands in the way of e-learning—so, therefore, students in a face-to-face school being able to Skype out into courses that cannot be delivered inside that school environment due to low numbers or lack of a skilled teacher—is funding. It is not necessary to create bodies corporate to deliver it.

The virtual learning network and other e-networks across the country already take place; it is just that schools have to take it from their operations grant or from their staffing. If only the Government members had listened at the select committee, instead of shutting themselves down and delivering what the Minister had decided was right. These members are intelligent members. It is such a shame that in the final days of this National Government they have decided to not participate.

The cohort entry—that is a diversion. Schools have been able to do cohort entry since 1989. Any board of trustees can consult with their community and decide that they will participate in a cohort entry for their students; the thing was that it was after the age of five. What is so important about the age of 4 years, 8 months? Here we go—in the briefing papers to Cabinet the ministry modelled the cost of all schools operating a cohort entry. In that case there would be an overall reduction of funding to early childhood education (ECE) of $11.2 million. This is what 4 years, 10 months is about—$11.2 million a year. It is nothing to do with the education of students. So why, why, did the Government members not accept that we could just change the wording to a cohort entry “after your fifth birthday”, as opposed to “before your fifth birthday”—4 years, 10 months?

Perhaps one of the members from the Government benches could stand up and justify it, but they will not. They will not because they do not know why, because at no stage have they been able to articulate why these changes should take place. They have accepted them, along with their salaries, on face value, rather than looking into the real reasons and the real effect of what this is going to do.

So cohort entry is not new. What is new is the fact that 5-year-olds, or 4-year-and-10-month-olds, can now be placed in the truancy process. That is what is new. Now, if a child—and let us remember the pressure is on, with the Government subsidising ECE for only 20 hours, and then those parents who are in 30 hours to 40 hours of employment have got to pay the rest of that money and can see an opportunity here to actually place their children in school and pay for no ECE. If their child, once it has been enrolled in a school, in a cohort entry at 4 years, 10 months—if it is not actually working out for the child, too bad. If you do not show up to school, you will be placed with the truancy service. That is what is different here.

I really wish that the media and people would get their heads around it. It is not cohort entry; it is truancy for 4-year-and-10-month-olds—all right? Let us get real as to what is actually happening here.

The Minister stood up and said that changing from having national education and learning priorities to having charters has introduced a situation whereby boards of trustees now need to consult with their communities, because she made a statement that they have not had to do so since 2002. I was elected to the board of trustees of Warkworth Primary School in 2004, and every 3 years it was a requirement to consult with your community on the charter that was taking place in that school. So I would be interested to hear from the School Trustees Association—which I guarantee will be listening—who is right. Is the Minister correct, or are all schools that have been consulting their communities on the charters correct?

The difference is—with the national education and learning priorities to the strategic plan that the Minister now wants—that it is not the communities’ vision that is going to inform the strategic plan; it is the Minister’s. Once upon a time we had a Department of Education, which was here to service schools. Now we have a Ministry of Education, which is here to service the Minister. This has gone too far down the track.

I will be introducing a raft of Supplementary Order Papers to this bill in the Committee stage. There are so many things wrong with this bill. It is the last nail in the coffin of New Zealand education.

Thank goodness there is an election on 23 September. Thank goodness that none of this can be implemented except by a signature of the Minister of Education, and I hope—I believe—that there will be a different Minister of Education who will not sign a damned thing that is in this bill, and then we have got an opportunity to turn it back. Kia ora.

TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): It gives me great pleasure to rise and take a short call on the Education (Update) Amendment Bill. If there is one thing that I can agree with Tracey Martin, it is that what she has done in the last 10 minutes is given voice to the clear gulf of perspectives that has existed around this bill from the moment that it has been introduced into the House and into the select committee.

Where we on this side see the opportunity through this legislation to modernise the sector, members in Opposition see change to be resisted at every turn. When we argue, as I think we have very coherently through this entire bill that we put children at the centre of our thinking and of our approach in education, they see it in terms of us having an obsession in testing and achievement data—as if somehow that is something to be avoided. The world is changing fast. We put forward the communities of online learning as part of this bill; they see it as somehow forcing schools to go down a path. They have never appreciated that there is flexibility implicit in this piece of legislation. When we talk about national education learning priorities objectives, they somehow think this is going to morph into aggressive targets.

At the core of this legislation is a philosophical belief on this side that if you put children at the centre of your legislative framework, if you bake into the system the ability to breathe and be flexible—because the reality is we are part of a world that is changing very dynamically and we have to ensure that our children are fit for purpose, and we need a framework that can breathe, that is not caught in an historical lens. All we have heard over the last half an hour—and no doubt we will hear in the next half an hour—is more echoing of the same tired, lost-in-the-past rhetoric. I look forward to the Committee of the whole House debate, where we can debate those philosophical positions, as I am sure we will. Thank you very much.

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

GARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora, Mr Deputy Speaker. Ngā mihi ki a koutou, kia ora. Look, as a father, I take offence to that. My kids are not “fit for purpose”. Nobody’s kids in New Zealand are “fit for purpose”. What a horrible way to talk about our kids and our education system. I want to stand here in Parliament and congratulate our teachers, congratulate our principals, congratulate our schools, congratulate the boards of trustees, and congratulate the thousands of Kiwis who are putting thousands of hours in for a great education system.

The fact is that when the Government was introducing this legislation it described it as the biggest update to education in New Zealand in 30 years. I would call it the biggest risk and experimentation with our education sector in 30 years. Firstly, when we look at the changes to careers advice, putting the responsibility on to the Tertiary Education Commission, you see the ideology where you see slogans such as “fit for purpose” and “flexibility” being used.

Everyone in this Parliament and, I believe, every party agrees that we need to modernise our careers advice, but my fear is that this mantra of “flexibility” and “fit for purpose” is going to suit one particular part of New Zealand, which is a small section of employers who want to get the skills they want, and that is exactly what the New Zealand University Students Association has told the committee. I think we could have actually had a bipartisan process that modernised and improved our careers advice.

But let us talk about the substantive part of this legislation, which is the so-called COOL slogan—the communities of online learning. As a father to two young kids in the current public education sector, I want to point out that I am a great supporter of seeing technology in our classrooms. I think that in the right place at the right time it can be an incredibly powerful tool. I see it at home, with homework, and I see it when my kids come back with reports from school. I would also point out that the Post Primary Teachers’ Association president, Angela Roberts, says that learning online is already here. Ask any parent with children at school. What this legislation does is, essentially, take it one step further from charter schools.

The Government that brought us charter schools is now bringing us online charter schools with these communities of online learning. Look, I cannot put it much better, more forcefully or comprehensively, than Catherine Delahunty and Tracey Martin, who gave incredibly powerful speeches. This is terrible legislation. We saw an absolute flood of submissions in opposition to this in the Education and Science Committee.

In my three terms in the House I have never come across the Ombudsmen making a submission to a select committee. The fact that they were joined by the Children’s Commissioner as well should be an incredible warning to the Government not to gamble, not to take risks, and not to experiment with our kids’ future learning.

Let us support our State sector. Let us support those great teachers already using those great online tools. Let us work together, the parties in this House, to build cross-party, bipartisan support for modernising careers advice. Look, I am really proud to oppose this legislation, as a Green MP, but, more importantly, as a father.

RAYMOND HUO (Labour): Colleagues who spoke before me have outlined the major points of objection to this bill. There are two main concerns I feel very strongly about, which are, first of all, the low-trust, compliance-based mentality that is doing so much damage to the current education system, and, secondly, that it appears that the current Government has taken the attitude that the only learning that matters is the learning that can be easily measured or rated. That reminds me of the everlasting debate among Chinese scholars, Chinese parents, and, most importantly, Chinese teachers that asks, rather cruelly, whether the Chinese education system is a poison or remedy.

I am not sure when it got started, but it seems that is an accepted norm in China now that the most efficient way to manage the delivery of education, or, as a matter of fact, the management of school children in China, is by testing, measuring, categorising, and grading them. As a result, the Chinese education system is becoming, essentially, a test-based, elite education system. Students who excel in school are awarded with praise and encouragements, but struggling students are eventually abandoned, because everyone is struggling for measuring and grading. Creativity and critical thinking have been gradually ignored. The Chinese education system has become one that produces millions of test-taking experts. What would otherwise be happy schooling has been replaced with a daily routine that puts students to tests and fits them with the so-called correct answers, whereas schools compete against each other for higher ratings, and so on and so forth.

Do we need that in New Zealand? Many Chinese parents have no choice but to send their kids to be educated in New Zealand, but in New Zealand, which direction should we take in terms of how to manage the delivery of education for the 21st century? Do we want to abandon extracurricular activities in order to devote more time to tests, exams, and all sorts of different kinds of measurements? What this bill will do is make that kind of measurement a new normal. If that becomes a reality, New Zealand schools will certainly follow what is happening in China—default to testing as a reliable indicator of competence.

I am not against testing or measurements per se. What we are concerned about is that this National Government is narrowing the focus of the education system, focusing on a small set of measurable targets to the exclusion of a broad and balanced curriculum. That is not working. New Zealand’s international rankings are going backwards under this National Government. New Zealand’s Programme for International Student Assessment results for reading, maths, and science have all declined in recent years. Thank you.

BRETT HUDSON (National): It is an absolute pleasure to rise in support of the Education (Update) Amendment Bill. I am astounded, actually, that a previous speaker in this debate does not seem to know the difference between a system that is fit for purpose and the idea of a person who is fit for purpose. The reason we want a system that is fit for purpose is that I actually believe that all members around the House want the very best education outcomes for our children.

We know that education is the bedrock of their future success. The world changes around us, and it is a good thing it does, and the best thing we can do, not only as legislators but, for many of us, as parents, is to help our children to prepare for the world that they will grow into and will work in. This bill is all about doing just that. It is about ensuring that the education system—the curriculum, the content, the things that our children will experience in the education system—and the things they will learn are preparing them for the workforce that they will enter. I commend this bill to the House.

ADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour—Te Tai Hauāuru): Tēnā koe, Te Māngai o Te Whare, otirā, tēnā tātau katoa e huitahi nei i tēnei pō.

[My appreciation to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and, at the same time, my acknowledgments to all of us assembled here together this evening.]

I stand in opposition to this bill. I asked myself whether this bill transforms education in New Zealand, and I say no, it does not. I support the contributions from colleagues on this side of the House on that. I too want comment on the comment that was made by one of the members opposite, Todd Muller, about children being fit for purpose. Well, it is not the child who needs to be fit for purpose; it is this bill that ought to be fit for purpose, and I can tell you, it is not. It is, in fact, a missed opportunity. It is a missed opportunity to have had the voice of rangatahi, of tamariki, heard on this bill. They are supposedly front and centre on this bill, and yet their voice is virtually lost.

I am thankful that a year 9 student made this submission. “I am a year 9 student. I am diagnosed as being on the Autism spectrum as well as having tested as academically gifted and am working above my year level. I am fluent in te reo Māori and English. However I have not experienced success in school …”. That is the voice that we need to be listening to, but was his voice heard in what we have in front of us on this table? No, it was not heard. That is the voice, along with others, that I am sure the Children’s Commissioner was speaking about. He was right to put up a stop sign to say “Stop. You’ve got this process wrong.”, and I stand in support of what he said, as well as what this young man who took the time to make a submission said, knowing full well that this bill is not for him.

I also want to mention another group of rangatahi, who are part of a group called Te Mata Rangatira, which means “the face of leadership”. They came to the Education and Science Committee and they not only presented to the select committee, they also sang for us, actually. Their voice, fortunately, was heard by the select committee, but again, really, the select committee has not taken notice by voting in majority for the things that they wanted changed in the bill. They talked mainly about communities of online learning. They were terribly disappointed by what they thought were the goals of that policy. They had real concerns about how it would impact on Māori and Pasifika students in particular. This was a group of Māori rangatahi who took the time to come to the select committee and have their voices heard. I commend them for taking that time. I am disappointed that their voices are not going to be heard.

I also want to refer to another submission—and before I do I want to thank all of those who made submissions. This particular submission is from Dr Mere Skerrett and Associate Professor Jenny Ritchie. They were disappointed and, again, it is a lost opportunity, or a missed opportunity, because they pointed out and wanted a change to Part 1AA, clause 1A(3)(c). They felt that—well, I will read exactly what they said. They said that that particular part falls short “of the recognition needed … We recommend an additional point in section 3 to promote the learning and through Te Reo for each child and young person.” That was a missed opportunity. That does not actually say that Te Reo Māori should be compulsory in schools, but it is certainly a level above the statement that is actually made in this bill. Those kinds of statements become quite meaningless.

I will read that statement out to the House. In the submission, it says: “Te Reo Māori within the objectives should be strengthened.” Instead, it has got in the bill: “to instil in each child and young person an appreciation of the importance of … the Treaty of Waitangi and te reo Māori.”—an appreciation of the importance of the Treaty and Te Reo. That is not a high enough level to give the importance that Te Reo Māori deserves. This House and this Parliament passed the Māori Language Bill. Is this statement consistent with that Act, which the House has already passed? No, it is not. It definitely is not. That is one where—without saying that Te Reo Māori will be compulsory in schools—if the wording of that clause was changed slightly it would elevate the importance of both the Treaty and Te Reo Māori. What is wrong with that? I do not understand why the Education and Science Committee would not agree to that. I do not understand why this House would not agree to that. I believe that we should support what Dr Mere Skerrett and Associate Professor Jenny Ritchie have said.

I endorse the words around the communities of learning. From my perspective, and particularly for all of those kura kaupapa—kura Māori—who operate under a kaupapa Māori base, a community of learning should also be kaupapa Māori - based, and yet, under this legislation, it will not necessarily be the case. I think it is a far better thing that we have a cooperative model, a model that is not forced upon schools—to interact with other schools, rather than developing their own relationships. I think that would be a better model.

Regarding the communities of online learning, again, I want to thank the submitters who provided a lot of information—valuable information—that, in the end, was not taken up by the select committee, and, in particular, the evidence provided by Dr Michael Barbour, who provided a 16-page submission that went into some depth around what the issues were with communities of online learning. I worry about our tamariki who are not achieving in schools now, let alone, in some instances—because I am not convinced that students are not going to be forced into enrolling in online schools. That is not a good model for our tamariki, and it is not a good model for the future of education in New Zealand. I think, again, this has been a missed opportunity.

I think back to when the last major change in education was made through the policy known as Tomorrow’s Schools. It has endured to now. Does this transform education in the way that that policy did? No, it does not. Thank you.

The question was put that the amendments recommended by the Education and Science Committee by majority be agreed to.

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

Ayes 63

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

Noes 58

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.

Question agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Education (Update) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 63

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

Noes 58

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Fire and Emergency New Zealand Bill

In Committee

Debate resumed from 14 March.

Part 3 Levy (continued)

CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): I will just quickly recap, because it has been a week, or 2 weeks. This is addressing Part 3, clauses 69 to 72, and perhaps beyond. This bill introduces a new insurance levy payment system, which will fund the new Fire and Emergency New Zealand, so this is a pretty important part of the bill. I was acknowledging, and Labour acknowledges, the concerns raised by significant stakeholders about that new levy system and the impact it would have on them.

Serious concerns were raised by museums throughout the country. I think I was focusing on the Otago Museum, which gave quite a powerful submission.

Hon Ruth Dyson: Why is that? Why would you be doing that?

CLARE CURRAN: Because it is one of the best—if not the best—museums in the country. I am not just being parochial here, for a minute. The key point that it made in its submission was that if this bill remained in the form that went to the select committee, its levy would increase by 300 percent. With its insurance costs already at 3 to 6 percent of operating expenditure, such an increase would have a significant impact on the overall operations of the museum. I do not think we should just look at the Otago Museum; we should also consider other museums and what the other museums said. Museums Aotearoa also appeared before the select committee. One of its comments was that an increased levy was likely to impose significant financial hardship generally on museums and galleries, which would need to be passed on to the communities of support. This provided an incentive to declare a low value and could lead to underinsurance. That is a really significant phrase, really, for us to consider as a country about our cultural heritage. It would also make the option of no insurance or self-insurance more tempting, especially in the case of volunteer organisations.

There are many more things I could point out about these submissions, but, thankfully, the select committee did take this seriously. There were amending clauses and there was an acknowledgment of concerns about the levy. I do have a question for the Minister, so I will get to it as quickly as possible. The committee said: “We were aware of concerns about the levy being broadened to cover insurance on physical loss or damage.” Those concerns included the relationship between FENZ services and the types of risk covered, the levy payable and resulting costs, and disproportionate increases in levy costs relative to risks. “Under the bill, the levy cost based on a fully insured collection could increase substantially. The increased cost of the levy would seem disproportionate to some policyholders’ need to call on FENZ services, their potential to benefit from the services, or their ability to fund the higher cost. It has suggested that the levy could be waived or capped in the case of public gallery or museum collections, but could apply to their buildings or other property. We would like to see consideration given to this approach in the regulations proposed to be developed under this legislation.” Then it noted under clause 106 of the bill, which is in Part 3, “for FENZ to publicly consult on the making of levy exemptions, and we consider that this would facilitate better public understanding of the potential benefits and consequences of the new levy regime.”

I have a question for the Minister. On 29 March the Minister released a media release on the levy rates for fire and emergency services. He was talking about the public consultation that had been undertaken in November 2016. He used a phrase, and then he announced a range of levy rates that would come into effect from 1 July this year. He said: “Some commercial and public entities will face larger increases, though the new legislation will allow for certain measures to address affordability and fairness concerns that were raised during the consultation process.” I just want to know what that means. It sort of feels like code for something.

I also note that I have seen a questionnaire that was sent to various entities, museum collections, and heritage buildings regarding the levy payments and asking their views on how that should work. They were asked whether they preferred a formula-based approach or a “by agreement” approach to determine the amount of relief for individual policyholders. The response that I have seen here—and I understand that that reflects a number of responses by entities—was that they preferred a “by agreement” approach. I guess I am asking the Minister what that phrase meant, how he sees that playing out, and is this comfort for the museum collections around the country that they are not going to be forced into a situation in which they underinsure or not insure at all as a result of this legislation? I know that they seem to think that the committee has listened to them. The commentary on this bill seems to reflect that, but it still seems a little bit insubstantial in terms of what that actually means. I hope the Minister can clear that up for us tonight.

CLAYTON MITCHELL (NZ First): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak to Part 3 of the proposed Fire and Emergency New Zealand Bill being rushed through at some pace to make sure that it is implemented by 1 July this year. It gives me a certain amount of pride, if you like, to be part of the only party that is actually opposing it. I have to say it is a bit of a surprise, particularly because after 17 reviews in 24 years, that this is the best that we can actually come up with as a Government to make changes to what is very widely considered outdated, clunky, and not fit for purpose legislation. The amalgamation of the fire and emergency rural volunteers and urban fire service is one thing, but the funding model that was implemented in 1993 to implement a levy charge was only ever introduced as a temporary measure. Yet here we are now in 2017, and where the world has moved away from levy charges, we have put levy charges in on steroids. I can see the Minister checking to see whether it was actually implemented in 1993. It looks like he is getting the nod of approval; it was, in fact, 1993.

The first of a number of questions we have for the Minister asks what consideration the Minister and the department have actually given to the 96 percent of submissions that have come out strongly opposing this levy the way it has been proposed in this bill. Question No. 2 asks what other funding models were actually considered, as opposed to a levy on the Fire Service, other than collecting a levy on insurers themselves. Question 3 asks why the Minister did not opt out for funding from the general fund, as strongly proposed by a number of those submissions, because that makes more sense than what is actually being proposed currently.

The Fire Service plays an incredibly important role in our communities for the volunteer sectors and for the goodwill that it does but, as part of this bill, as I turn to page 60 and clause 75, it is now intended that the Fire Service will be a collection agency. If it is a collection agency that is trying to collect money from people, and resources are being taken away from the operation that it is designed to do for public service and public good—to put out fires, to go to car crashes, and to attend emergencies—why is it now being imposed upon to collect funds? We have a department called Inland Revenue to collect funds. Why are we not putting the ownership of collection into the organisation that has been set up purely to collect those funds? It does not make any sense that we are putting a charge on to a public good organisation to collect those funds. If time, money, and resource have to be put into collecting funds from some of those people and they do not pay up, what is its alternative? Will it not give the service? It does not make sense to make the Fire Service a collection agency for those people who refuse to pay those levies. That is point No. 1.

The major point is: how is charging a levy, unrestricted on certain sectors—and I am talking about the commercial sector—going to be a fair and equitable approach when it comes to funding the Fire Service model? There are clearly a number of areas within our communities and society that will not be paying insurance and will underfund themselves for insurance for the purposes of negating, or minimising, their input of costs to the fire levy department. Where does that leave the Fire Service if you have got situations where buildings are underfunded? How is the Minister justifying a fire levy, uncapped for the commercial sector, for an example, that is going to benefit the service and the businesses themselves?

In Part 3, clause 69, the purpose of this part is (a) “a stable source of funding”. If you are expecting people to pay a levy, and call that stable in so far as they will be doing everything that they possibly can to minimise the payments that they have, then surely that would create some instability with the very thing that they are trying to achieve in clause 69(a): “a stable source of funding to support FENZ”. That undermines the very first statement. In 69(b), the “universal, so that FENZ’s costs are generally shared among all”, but we know there are a number of people who will use the services of the Fire Service, and, particularly—I mean, we have seen it right now in Edgecumbe, where the Fire Service is still pumping out water, looking after the streets. Who is paying for its services? What happens when we have a weather system come through and we have got trees that fall on to power lines and, of course, we have got to send in the Fire Service to sort it out? We have got people who need to be picked up and put in the back of ambulances who are over 150 kilograms. Of course, we call the Fire Service. Who is paying for that? This absolutely undermines the universal approach that they are trying to create.

Of course, in clause 69(c) we talk about equitability, “so that policyholders should generally pay a levy at a level commensurate with their use of” the service. Part 3 also goes on to talk about predictability, and in paragraph (d) of clause 69 it says “so that policyholders and levy payers are able to predict the amounts that they will need to pay” to Fire and Emergency New Zealand (FENZ). With the property prices skyrocketing at the moment, those property prices are going through the roof, and insurances uncapped in the commercial sector will obviously follow the same suit and will be expected to be passed on without any cap.

If you look at the funding model, which is completely flawed in this, it comes back to why we are not funding out of the general pool. Why are we going down this levy, user-pays—some users pay, because not all users will pay, of course—way of thinking? If you look at the commercial sector that will pay over half of the entire amount that will be collected, with a 40 percent increase in the total income coming in from the levy service, this does not make any sense, and we are very stunned to be the only party that is strongly opposing this. Many of the parties are generally, and genuinely, giving lip service to a policy that is absolutely flawed.

We at New Zealand First were very excited at the prospect of an overhaul of the Fire Service in New Zealand, and we are extremely disappointed in a number of aspects of this bill—these are just two that we have pointed out. In recap, if we could get some questions answered in regard to the amount of effort and energy that the Minister of Internal Affairs gave to the submitters, with their strong opposition to this funding model—that is point No. 1; what other funding models were considered, and why the general fund for the funding of this Fire Service was not put as a priority, because it does not look like it ever was, in any readings that we have done; and why the Minister did not opt for that fund as a priority for this. If we could get some answers on that and give some clarity to New Zealanders who are paying close attention to this bill, then that might actually allay some of our fears. However, where it sits at the moment, we are very concerned as this moves through the House. We are very concerned that it is being fully supported by all parties in this House, except for New Zealand First, and unless something can change drastically, we would have some opposition to it.

We have put a Supplementary Order Paper in to make some amendments. With this going through, we hope that they get some support. They are very minor and slightly technical, but they will make a difference to some of those people who are captured in this levy service. This is in particular to Supplementary Order Paper 265 and clause 70, and it is talking about removing the liability insurance, the bailee insurance, and the contract of travel insurance. In the event that you get some travel insurance and you are going off overseas, the only very small window in which you may require the Fire Service is while catching a taxi from your house to the airport, because the rest of the time your travel insurance is covering you while you are overseas. To be paying the levy in that period does not make any sense; neither does it make sense with the bailee insurance or with the liability insurance. We would hope that that would get the support in the Committee to go through. Thank you.

JACINDA ARDERN (Deputy Leader—Labour): I want to take this opportunity, while the Minister of Internal Affairs is in the chair, to ask a few questions around an element of the bill that has, essentially, been left via the proposed Act between consultation between the Minister and those affected by the transitional levy. In particular, I will be coming at these questions from the perspective of those who are in the museum or the gallery space, who have made strong representations around elements of this legislation, and for good reason. I am sure that there has been, to a certain degree, a shared view across this House around not wishing to unduly impact on those bodies, but, to a certain extent, once this legislation is passed we lose the ability to have oversight over some of those elements of the legislation, because it will be left to a consultation process.

So I want to take this opportunity to ask some questions of the Minister, because I know organisations have been asked around, for instance, who should qualify for transitional levy relief and what kind of formula should apply to them. The question I want to ask is: will there be a discretionary element to the formula that has been proposed for the transitional levy? If so, will we use that opportunity to take into account whether the insured party is a public or private entity, or, rather, whether or not those entities’ sources of funding are public sources of funding? Will we be using that formula to differentiate between those entities that might, for instance, receive council or Government funding—because, otherwise, we may be creating a money-go-round of sorts in dealing with those organisations.

The other question I have is whether or not the qualification for relief will be the very high threshold that has been set out in the consultation that has gone out, because, if so, who are we actually intending would be covered by that, given how high the threshold is?

My next question is: if there is some discretion in the way that the formula will be applied, would a publicly funded entity that may be captured by this levy be able to have the ability to catch up in its public funding in order to cover the cost of the levy? The reason I ask that is that if you take an organisation like, for instance, the Museum of Transport and Technology (MOTAT), its funding formula means that it might be hit with a levy before it is even able to make application for its public funding to catch up with the cost of that levy. Will that be built into the application—or the timing, at least, of the way that levy will apply to it? Better yet, could we actually just factor in that it is a publicly funded organisation and apply the rules differently to it? A strong sense I get from those organisations that will be in a similar boat to MOTAT is whether or not we could focus on a by-agreement approach rather than a much more strict formulaic approach.

I would also like to hear from the Minister whether or not he is considering the exemption of publicly funded buildings of national significance more generally, or heritage buildings more generally, as well. I know museum collections have been discussed.

Those are some of the questions that I wanted to ask. We do already have transparency, and I thank the Minister for that, around levy rates for house and contents and car insurance, but for commercial and public entities that are facing larger increases, we still do not have enough certainty, necessarily, around them. I would really like to take this opportunity to put those questions to the Minister, because I know he has approached this absolutely with good faith, as have the organisations that have come before the select committee, but they are in a period of flux at the moment. It would be good to use this opportunity.

ADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour—Te Tai Hauāuru): In Part 3, about the levy, I thought I would start off by just commenting on some of the other contributions if I can. It is my understanding that we have got to the point of having a system of levies because Cabinet made a decision around what, I understand, was advice that it should come out of general taxation funding, and that that was not an option. So they landed on having a system of levies.

I want to refer to the submission made by the Insurance Council of New Zealand. It had a number of concerns. In particular it had concerns around the complexities of collecting this levy. It had issues around the compliance costs to the insurer. The council had issues around the fact that, in its view, Fire and Emergency New Zealand lacked independence and is potentially conflicted because it is responsible for the collection of the levy and then it is spending the levy. It would be like a Government department collecting its own taxation so it can spend it directly. Of course, we do not allow that to happen. I felt the issues that the insurance companies and the Insurance Council of New Zealand raised on behalf of its members were valid arguments. So I think it is important for me to express in this debate what their point of view was.

I also reflect upon the many submissions that were made by museums in particular, and my colleagues have already expressed that. I wanted to draw that further and include also a group that we did not get submissions from, and that is marae. A lot of marae have within them valuable taonga, and they have valuable carvings—irreplaceable carvings. So if a museum had to pay a levy based on the value of its collection, a marae, in the same way, would have to pay a levy based on the valuation of its contents. I would also bring in Churches as well. I think there are a number of areas that we probably did not explore widely enough through the select committee process.

I give credit to museums that throughout the country put forward their point of view around the impact high levies would have on their ability to provide the service that they provide. They made some, I thought, compelling arguments, saying things like: “Well, it costs the same amount of money to put out a painting that is on fire that has a multimillion-dollar value as it does for one that is of lesser value.” How do you reconcile that? So we were pleased that there is within the bill a regime of exemptions. I think that there will be some nervousness out there around whether those particular museums and others like them, as I have already stated—

Hon PETER DUNNE (Minister of Internal Affairs): I feel I should take this opportunity to respond to a number of the questions that have been raised. Some are of considerably more substance and knowledge than others, but I will endeavour to cover the full sweep.

My starting point is to go back to the fact that the Fire Service, as currently constituted, has been funded by an insurance levy for time immemorial. When we took the proposals before Cabinet a couple of years ago I actually put three options to Cabinet at that stage: one was to continue with the current system, one was to shift it to local body rates, and the other was general taxation. Cabinet chose to stick with the status quo. I would just say that, given that the levy that we foreshadowed a couple of weeks ago will raise about $534 million, it would be a very brave Government of any stripe that would say: “We are going to take another $534 million on to the taxpayer’s direct account to fund fire and emergency services.” I welcome anyone running that political argument.

Starting from there and bearing in mind also that a couple of years ago there was a Supreme Court decision about levy avoidance and evasion and the need for some clarification in the legislation, the construction of the provisions that are contained in Part 3 started to take shape. Over the period, both through the select committee process and through the process leading to the setting of the levy for 2017-18, there has been a substantial range of consultation, and that will continue. We have worked closely with the Insurance Council even though we have a disagreement on the policy principle, but we have worked closely with it regarding the implementation.

The messages that members have raised regarding the museums and galleries sector and other entities that face a substantial increase in levy payments—we are working our way through. There will be a further round of consultation when it comes to setting the levy rate beyond 2017-18. I am sure members would understand that it is not really appropriate for me tonight to go into details about what might happen while we are still working our way through a process. I do not want to give institutions unfair or false hope that somehow all this is going to be resolved for them. Because the other side of the question is that we are changing the nature of the funding arrangement. At the moment the fire service levy funds fire. This is shifting the whole basis of the funding of the operation to funding material loss, because it is a fire and emergency service. So the breadth of cover is increasing, and we need to work our way very carefully through that.

Can I simply say that the suggestion that Fire and Emergency New Zealand will be turned into a collection agency is blatantly wrong. The levy system sees the levy collected by the insurance companies and that will continue.

Can I also say with regard to Mr Clayton Mitchell’s amendment, Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 265, that there is actually no need for this amendment, because if a contract of insurance of the type that his SOP describes does not insure property then it will not be subject to a levy, therefore no exemption will be necessary. In fact, the situation that he described is dealt with through clause 104 of the bill, where types of insurance can be exempted through regulation if that is deemed to be appropriate. So SOP 265 is unnecessary because the provision is already contained in clause 104 of the bill.

Can I indicate again to the Committee that this is a process where we are listening very carefully. We are funding a new service. We are trying to fund it as equitably as possible. I heard a suggestion earlier on with regard to the civil emergency currently occurring in the Bay of Plenty that a number of people were getting assistance that they might not be otherwise entitled to. I doubt there would be any member in this Chamber who would really be prepared to go out there and say—because effectively what was being argued was that we need to have a user-pays fire and emergency service. It works on a universal basis and that has been the principle ever since fire services were established in New Zealand on a metropolitan basis back in the 1880s, and it will continue to be the principle into the future.

Can I just conclude by saying that we are cognisant of the issues that have been raised. We are working our way through them. But because this is a broader service, in terms of its coverage, than is currently the case, there will be some increases. We are seeking to mitigate the impact of those to the greatest extent possible, while ensuring that we provide the range of coverage that is going to be needed.

CLAYTON MITCHELL (NZ First): I just wanted a chance to reply to the Minister’s comments with regard to some of the questions that have been outlined today, and, really, the lack of an assurance that we have just been given in terms of a reason for, or even an answer to, some of the questions that have been asked by Adrian Rurawhe and by New Zealand First.

The fact that the Minister has just said that the levy for the Fire Service is collected on a universal basis, as opposed to user-pays, does not stack up, because the funding is being collected as a user-pays service. The fact is that if you are getting insurance, and that money that you are going to be paying as a levy, as part of that insurance, is going towards funding the operation, then that is clearly supporting the user-pays service. To suggest that the insurance companies themselves will be collecting on behalf of the Fire Service—and yet in clause 75 it is being set up primarily to make sure that those people within the Fire Service are making sure that money is coming in. It means they are creating a new tranche, a new branch, within the Fire Service to collect those funds and make sure those funds are paid.

There is no credible answer that the Minister has given us that gives New Zealand First any comfort, moving forward with this bill. The fact that he talks about clause 104, which would somehow exempt our Supplementary Order Paper 265 (SOP) from being implemented, does not stack up either. In fact there have been a number of media examples of this, and I can probably pull something out—a rabbit out of a hat, as it is sometimes referred to. Last week the New Zealand Herald stated: “Anyone with insurance may end up paying more tax to help fund New Zealand’s emergency services, including people paying for travel insurance, despite there being no direct benefit, an insurance group has warned.”

This is from the Insurance Council of New Zealand, and a number of other groups are seriously concerned about this. This SOP that we are putting forward specifically ensures that people who get bailee insurance, public liability insurance, and travel insurance will not somehow be captured by this. Whether clause 104 may or may not exempt them from paying that, the fact is this ensures that they do not.

We do not support this bill. I can say that strongly because I do not think the full consideration of international standards that we have looked at, of reports that are talking about the problems of dealing with this situation—using a levy system to fund an emergency service provider does not work. We would hope that in the twelfth hour of this bill going through the House we would see other parties opposing this bill, because it does not do what it sets out to do. There is more than enough evidence suggesting that.

We hope that we get support for our SOP. I think it is a very small token of effort by the Opposition to say: “Well, let’s at least not make the levy payable by those bailees, public liability insurance, and travel insurance.” It is very small in the scheme of things. But the reality is that what this funding model is going to create is an imbalance of funding coming from a certain sector, the levy-paying sector. I am specifically talking about the uncapped commercial levies. You have got caps on all the other sectors—residential, and all your contents insurance, and your cars—but no cap on your commercial levies. They are going to be fitting the bill for this, and it is going to be a user-pays system that will be transferred on to those people leasing those premises. It is completely inequitable.

In thinking about driving this, the answer the Minister has given, that he was steered strongly by Cabinet to suggest it wants to keep it as a levy-based system—we are not suggesting in any one moment that this should be levied on to a new taxation. But why is the Government not standing up and putting it into the general taxation fund, as opposed to this nonsense, which is a levy-based system? Thank you.

PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): I move, That the question be now put.

Motion agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 262 in the name of the Hon Peter Dunne, and the following amendment in his name, to Part 3 be agreed to:

in clause 84(1), after “entered”, insert “into”.

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

Ayes 109

New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Noes 12

New Zealand First 12.

Amendments agreed to.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): We move to Adrian Rurawhe’s consequential amendments to Part 3, inserting “Services” and changing the name “FENZ” to “FESENZ”. These are out of order as they are contingent on an amendment already negatived.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 265 in the name of Clayton Mitchell to clause 70 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 26

Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.

Noes 95

New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 32; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Amendment not agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 3 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 109

New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Noes 12

New Zealand First 12.

Part 3 as amended agreed to.

Part 4 Miscellaneous and enforcement provisions

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Members, we now move to Part 4, and this is debate on clauses 107 to 161 and schedule 2.

KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana): Can I thank, hopefully—in anticipation of Minister Peter Dunne answering a question around clauses 132 and 133 in Part 4 of the bill. I think these go to questions around times where Fire and Emergency New Zealand (FENZ) inspectors can enter properties. In a previous piece of legislation before the House—I think it was the Intelligence and Security Bill, which was passed recently—marae were singled out, and for a very good reason. But I just think that question again needs to be put on the record to clarify that, for the same reason, under clause 133, marae are singled out as separate from any old dwelling, as to consent from occupiers to, under a warrant, enter that land or building.

Clause 133(4) also goes to that, so that when a warrant is exercised on a marae, “so far as practicable” the fire and emergency service staff must take into account the kawa or protocol of a particular marae. So my first question is: is this being singled out because we designate them as special, as it was in the Intelligence and Security Bill? The second question is, I guess, an assurance that communication will be sent to FENZ officers that the protocol of the marae must be adhered to in reasonable circumstances, because I think that is a very important part of the legislation—to make sure that we get that right.

I am assuming these clauses are for a good reason, and that we are respectful of what happens on marae and of the protocols around the marae. This was just a very short call to the Minister to put on the record that we are singling them out for a positive reason, and not a negative one.

Hon PETER DUNNE (Minister of Internal Affairs): In the absence of any other speaker, I am happy to give the member Kris Faafoi that assurance. This does dovetail with the earlier legislation that he referred to. I can also assure him that the Fire and Emergency New Zealand transition team, which is quite comprehensive, is well in tune with these sorts of nuances and relationships, and is working quite closely to ensure that we get the message out to the people on the ground about what the provisions of the bill say and how we expect them to be honoured in practice. I think there has been quite a level of cooperation and agreement between marae and iwi interests and the transition team in terms of that process. I am happy to give the member that assurance.

ADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour—Te Tai Hauāuru): I too want to speak to Part 4 of the Fire and Emergency New Zealand Bill. I endorse the words that my colleague Kris Faafoi has said—I sort of jumped up earlier. But one of the issues around that is not having a proper interpretation of what kawa is, because it can mean different things in different places, and I just wanted to note that.

I wanted to speak around the inspectors in investigations. One of the issues that was raised by submitters was that Fire and Emergency New Zealand (FENZ) would not, seemingly, have independent, or its own, investigators. That seemed to be something that was lacking within the FENZ structure. So I just wanted to ask Minister Dunne to comment on that, and ask whether he thought that that was something that diminished the role of FENZ or gave it some weakness around its potential operations around carrying out investigations.

PEENI HENARE (Labour—Tāmaki Makaurau): I want to follow along some of the contributions with regard to tikanga. I accept the response given by Minister Dunne about the capabilities of the Fire Service, and I know some of the iwi liaison officers—for want of a better term—work very closely with their particular communities. In this particular clause 133, it talks about the power to enter homes, and I understand that and I take on board the comment made by the Minister but I wonder whether, in the Minister’s experience—or, certainly, in his communications with the Fire Service—they have talked about what happens post the actual event.

I think that is an important thing because, in my experience, where there has been an emergency on a marae and the Fire Service has come in and done a great job, quite often there is a very, very clear ceremony that, I guess—in the true respect of the proverb: “Ka mate kāinga tahi, ka ora kāinga rua”—one house burns down, or dies, and another one rises—goes with that. In my experience with that particular incident in Whakapara in the Far North, the marae at Whakapara—recently, actually, when that fire took place—the communications from the Fire Service were excellent from the outset. It was a sad and tragic occasion, and they did the best that they could do at that particular point in time.

But post—post is where I am getting to, in regard to my question on tikanga—the particular incident, I wonder, can the Minister give us any assurances, or, certainly, make a commitment to make sure that that post process of an emergency event, like the one that happened in Whakapara and out in Mōkau, out in Ngātiwai, as well, takes place; to make sure that, no matter where those particular incidents take place, there is the follow-up and things are not just focused on the actual event itself.

PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): I move, That the question be now put.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): I have just got a small contribution in relation to Part 4. Subpart 5 of Part 4 covers the dispute resolution process, and I think that it is a very good process that has been outlined in that subpart. But I want to alert the Minister to a piece of work that I hope he is interested in and gets started this side of the election—he or somebody else can pick it up on the other side of the election—and that is looking at whether there is a need for an organisation such as the Independent Police Conduct Authority has, particularly now that Fire and Emergency New Zealand (FENZ) covers the whole raft of firefighters and tends to be quite an internally focused organisation.

We did not have a lot of concern raised at the Government Administration Committee about this, but we did have enough concern raised about the lack of transparency and independence—so even though it might be independent, it is not seen to be independent—of the dispute resolution process currently. I think it is particularly the case with volunteer brigades at the moment. Nobody has tabled an amendment or a Supplementary Order Paper on this point, and I do not think it is necessary, but I do think that it is a point that would be well worth considering for the future—to have some investigation into it.

The second point I want to make is in relation to clause 128. Inspectors are mentioned throughout the bill, but at this point, in particular, is one of the few parts of the bill where the officials had a quite significant difference of opinion with the chair of the committee. Of course, given my position on that committee, I think the officials were wrong in this instance. I was of the view that we should have a requirement for FENZ to appoint investigators. In Australia, if you look at the investigation role there, they have a dedicated team of investigators, who are required to travel to various parts of their jurisdiction, state-wide. They have a high level of qualification, and that is their only role.

We have investigators in New Zealand at the moment. They are not trained to the same standard as they are in Australia, and we no longer have a requirement for them to be part of FENZ. I think we are moving in the wrong direction. There is a risk that the only investigators who are qualified will be the investigators employed by the insurance company. That cannot be seen as robust and independent. In some situations we will be talking about investigations, the results of which may later be used in a murder prosecution in court because of a fatality in a fire, so this is not a small issue; this could turn out to be a very big issue.

I indicated that I was quite interested in pursuing it. It was clear that the avenue for that to be included in the bill was not open, so it is something that I will be keeping a very close eye on, to see what tensions there are between, particularly, insurance-employed investigators and the FENZ inspectors. The FENZ inspectors in clause 128 do not have a lot of power. They do not have the training and the qualifications that investigators need, and I think that our fire investigations, as a result of that, will be of poorer quality than they should be, particularly if you think of that leading to evidence in a murder trial.

Those were the only two points I wanted to make. The rest of the bill is, I think, working very well.

Hon PETER DUNNE (Minister of Internal Affairs): I will take just a chance to reply to a number of the points that have been made. I go back to Mr Henare’s comment. I think he made a very valid point about post-event contact and relationships. At one level it is easy to say “Well, after every significant event, the Fire Service conducts an operational review of what happened.”, but I think the member is talking more about a community, and almost a spiritual, relationship, in terms of working with the people who are adversely affected and who are seeking to both gain recovery but also restore their confidence and their esprit de corps. That is really, I think, a critical function. It is certainly something that the new organisation will be focusing its attention on, because this is a very strongly community-based and community-oriented organisation now, and I think that the member does make some very good points in respect of that.

In regard to the issue that the Government Administration Committee chair raised about the need for an independent investigation authority, because the nature of the disciplinary powers are shifting from a pretty prescriptive arrangement in the current Act to the arrangements contained in this bill, I have asked the board of Fire and Emergency New Zealand—technically, the current commission—to look at how it is going to give effect to those and, within that, particularly the capacity to look at situations that could come under some form of independent investigation. So there is nothing specific to report at this stage other than that it is something we are cognisant of, and I have asked the board to take it into account as it plans the nature of the procedures that it will apply after 1 July.

With regard to the issue of inspectors, if members look at clause 128—particularly, clause 128(1)—it sets out a range of people who might be eligible for appointment as an inspector. The point here is to try to ensure that we get a range of adequately trained and qualified people who can exercise the power of being an inspector. I certainly do not want to see a situation where we are reliant solely on people put up by the insurance industry, for example. There needs to be some autonomy and some independence there, and what we are seeking to do in the provisions of the bill is create that framework. But, again, given that come 1 July, when the new entity takes effect, there is quite a process of transition to be worked through; a number of these will be details that will be finalised in the working environment post 1 July, given the overall flavour of the bill.

I said at the commencement of the Committee stage the other night that the important thing to remember about this legislation is that it is essentially permissive. It is moving away from an old prescriptive environment, where we dotted every “i” and crossed every “t” and we were hidebound by our inflexibility thereafter. So this is a more fluid arrangement, quite deliberately so. It does place a lot of responsibility on the part of the board and the senior management of the service when it is up and running. There will be challenges for them to ensure that the flavour or, if you like—from that wonderful Australian film—the vibe is given effect to as proceedings follow. So I can give members those assurances this evening.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 262 in the name of the Hon Peter Dunne to Part 4, and the following amendment in his name to clause 151, be agreed to:

New clause 151(5)

After clause 151(4) (page 109, after line 19), insert:

“(5) FENZ may require a person who has applied for a permit to supply further relevant information before determining whether or not to grant the permit.”

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

Ayes 109

New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Noes 12

New Zealand First 12.

Amendments agreed to.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): We move to Adrian Rurawhe’s consequential amendments to Part 4 inserting “Services” and changing the name of FENZ to FESNZ. They are out of order as contingent on an amendment already negatived.

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

Ayes 109

New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Noes 12

New Zealand First 12.

Part 4 as amended agreed to.

Schedule 1

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 262 in the name of the Hon Peter Dunne to schedule 1 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 109

New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Noes 12

New Zealand First 12.

Amendments agreed to.

Schedule 1 as amended agreed to.

Schedule 2

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): We have Adrian Rurawhe’s consequential amendments to schedule 2 changing the name of FENZ, which are out of order as contingent on an amendment already negatived.

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

Ayes 109

New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Noes 12

New Zealand First 12.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Clauses 1 and 2

ADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour—Te Tai Hauāuru): I am proud to stand on behalf of the Labour Party to say that we support this bill. I think it is important that we recognise the Government Administration Committee and the role that it played in this bill, and I want to thank the chair and all of the members of the select committee for the good work that was done on this. I think the process means that we have got a better bill.

Of course, I am disappointed that we did not get the name of the organisation changed to include the word “Service”, but we accept that. Just to reiterate the point, I think it was very clear that the people who are going to be working for the new organisation see that as part of who they are and their brand. So, without further ado, I think we should pass this bill, and I commend it to the House. Kia ora.

CLAYTON MITCHELL (NZ First): Not before we have the last call. If you would like to see, I do not know whether there are too many other people wanting to take a call on this bill this evening.

It is actually quite a good feeling, standing here and being with New Zealand First strongly opposing this bill right the way through the House, although we did actually support Kris Faafoi’s Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 263. Not that it was going to be a game changer by any stretch of the imagination, but I think a better title for this bill would be “Is This Going to be as Good as it is Going to Get under this Government’s Amendment Bill for the Fire Service?”. It might be more appropriate, because it certainly falls well short of the expectations of the Fire Service and people within the organisation, the volunteers, the rural, the urban, and of course all the taxpayers who are going to be funding this through their levy.

I think there are a number of areas within this bill that are actually applaudable. You clap and go “Well done, you’ve given it some consideration.”, but I do not think anywhere near enough consideration has been given to the people, the submitters, who have actually come in and given up their time to come and submit to the select committee, and basically their submissions have fallen completely and utterly on deaf ears.

This bill is being heroed by the Minister as a game changer, as a new way forward, as the pièce de résistance, if you like, moving forward with the Fire Service. Yet despite this being the 17th review in 22-odd years, straight after—it must have been about a month later—he then comes out suggesting that perhaps, as he scratches his head, it might have been a good consideration to include civil defence in this bill and perhaps we should have also included St John’s. It just goes to show how out of touch this bill is that at the 12th hour those such things could actually be included. To not look at the SOPs and the minor but very important change that they could make—charging a levy to those people, particularly those people jumping on a plane to get travel insurance who are spending their holidays over in Europe or in America or Australia, who have got themselves cover, and they are paying 7c in every $100 to make sure that they have got cover for the fire and emergency service in New Zealand—is absolutely, profoundly stupid. We have fallen into this claptrap so that we are going along like bobbleheads, just saying “Yes, OK, it’s a good idea because we’ve been told it’s a good idea.”—it does not make any sense at all.

When you look at the fire levy in its entirety, and you look at who is actually going to be funding the Fire Service—that is going to fall directly and largely into the hands of those commercial building owners and the residential and the people who are going to get insurance, with a touch-up with the car insurance. Yet there are going to be so many other people who use the Fire Service on a daily basis in our communities who will not be paying their fair share and funding it.

This service is a critical service, and if the Labour Party thinks the most important thing that it can put forward is changing the name and putting “Services” into Fire and Emergency New Zealand, or some description, then they too have got rocks in their head and got their priorities in the wrong place. That is far from what is needed with this bill. This is absolutely a million miles away. Just talk to your constituents. Talk to the people inside the organisation. Talk to the people who have got commercial properties. Talk to the landowners who are going to be marginalised in the rural parts of New Zealand. Their funding will not trickle down with this neo-liberal idea of an amalgamated regime.

Look at all the reports and the reviews that have come out—the Malone report, the Ferguson report, and “Forest Fires: causes and contributing factors in Europe”—all saying exactly what we are saying. We have not pulled our ideas out of thin air. We have researched it. We have looked at international situations that are proving and will prove that this bill is a dog’s breakfast.

Progress to be reported presently.

House resumed.

The Chairperson reported progress on the Fire and Emergency New Zealand Bill, no progress on the Māori Purposes Bill, and no progress on the Land Transfer Bill.

Report adopted.

The House adjourned at 9.56 p.m.