Wednesday, 7 June 2017

WEDNESDAY, 7 JUNE 2017

WEDNESDAY, 7 JUNE 2017

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Points of Order

Select Committees—Membership, Members of the Executive

CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would like to ask you to give a considered ruling on the issue of members of the executive subbing on to parliamentary select committees when the select committee is considering a matter that that member of the executive has administrative responsibility for, or some delegated responsibility for, particularly when it comes to financial reviews and Estimates hearings. The purpose of those is for the non-executive members to hold the Government of the day to account and to scrutinise the actions of the Government. Whilst I accept that there are occasions when junior Ministers will sub on to a select committee to make up the numbers on the Government side, the idea that they would be substituted in on a debate on a topic that they have executive responsibility for does seem to me to undermine the basic principle that it is the non-executive members of Parliament’s job to scrutinise and hold to account members of the executive for their actions.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Leader of the House): Mr Speaker, I am sure you will give the member’s point thorough consideration. I would just simply make the very simple point that the junior members of the executive outside Cabinet are none the less members of Parliament, and actually, given their status, they may well be able to make—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! This is a point of order.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: They may be able to help inform the debates in those select committees. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Can I just remind members to my left that this is a point of order.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I may be able to assist in two regards, Mr Speaker. One is that the member is, clearly, referring to my appearance this morning on the Education and Science Committee, so I make the point that really what he is talking about is parliamentary under-secretaries. The Business Committee and you have considered where the delineations lie between parliamentary under-secretaries as members of Parliament and the executive, so I think your consideration, if I could suggest it, should consider it particularly in respect of parliamentary under-secretaries. Also, I draw to your attention that Mita Ririnui was a Minister and a select committee member permanently for a long period of time under the previous Government. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I thank all members for their contribution. It is an important matter that I will certainly have a look at, and I will come back to the House with a considered ruling.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can I also ask you to refer that decision to the Standing Orders Committee, which, without going into any detail of the consideration, is looking at related matters.

Mr SPEAKER: I will do so.

Battle of Messines, Centennial—Leave to Move Motion Without Notice

RON MARK (Deputy Leader—NZ First): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to move a motion without notice and without debate to mark the centennial of the Battle of Messines, fought 100 years ago today.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Building and Construction, Social Housing, and Transport, Ministers—Confidence

1. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Prime Minister: Does he still have confidence in all his Ministers; if so, why?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH (Prime Minister): Yes; because they are competent and hard-working. Despite that member’s extensive efforts over 9 years, he has not been able to persuade me otherwise. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! No, no, we do not need that first part.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: If he has confidence in his last two housing Ministers, who both made the same announcement 2 years apart regarding “34,000 new houses for Auckland”, did Nick Smith jump the gun in 2015 or did Amy Adams not find anything else new to say last month?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: They were, of course, different announcements. The Government has made so many announcements about new houses that I am not surprised that the member, who is not known for his grasp of detail, is a bit confused.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Of course, he knew all about the BNZ and the wine box, did he not?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. That is the second supplementary question—on both occasions, the member has taken a chance to make some comment that is unnecessary when he stood to take a supplementary question. I asked him the first time not to do it. I do not want to have to ask the member not to do it again.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It was the Prime Minister who thought he could attack me on a matter of detail, and I was putting him in his place.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. He will abide by the rules of this House. The member asked a very political question, and he got a relatively political answer back.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: If his Government believes families can live in a consent, can he enlighten us as to just how many houses were both physically built in Auckland in the first 10 months of 2016 and issued a code of compliance certificate confirming that the house had been built according to its consent?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I do not have all those details in front of me, but the member can be assured that there is more building of housing and infrastructure than there has been for a generation, and, because of a strong economy and a growing population and Kiwis staying at home, that building programme is going to continue for at least the next 4 or 5 years. In fact, in Auckland we have a 10-year $24 billion programme just for transport.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I seek leave to table a Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act request on code compliance certificates issued by Auckland Council, dated 27 January 2017, which shows 4,472 certificates were issued from January to October 2016.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that particular Official Information Act advice. Is there any objection to it being tabled? There is not. It can be tabled.

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

Rt Hon Winston Peters: How can he have confidence in Ministers of housing when meeting the “housing challenge”—those are John Key’s words, last year—will supposedly deliver 12,421 new houses, at 11 houses a day, at a cost of $2.23 billion; is he really telling Aucklanders that the average cost is just over $185,000?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I have every confidence in the announcement made recently that the Government plans to build 34,000 houses in Auckland. There will be revolving funding relevant to that, and we are working right now with Auckland Council on the infrastructure of roads and water pipes that will be required to support those houses. It is a realistic plan and it will be executed.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: If ANZ economists advised Treasury late last year that there is a shortage of 60,000 houses nationwide and Auckland is lagging behind the 13,000 homes required to meet population growth per annum, why does he not just put Nick Smith out of his misery and save him the embarrassment of constantly being ridiculed about his failing housing policy?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I would rather put that member out of his misery, because he is constantly ridiculed for not turning up in his electorate in Northland—but it is really up to the voters to do that.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! This is a point of order and it will be heard in silence.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: We are not going to stand by while the Prime Minister and his colleagues repeat a falsehood in this House—in their case, knowingly. We are not going to put up with that at all.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have dealt with this matter before. Can I refer the member to Standing Order 359 if he feels there has been a case of misrepresentation. He may well have a case. If he writes to me we will investigate it from there.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: If Minister Simon Bridges, who announced—

Hon Simon Bridges: Oh, whoa, whoa, whoa!

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Yes, woe is you, all right. Ha, ha! If Minister Simon Bridges announced $69 million for 10 bridges during the Northland by-election in March 2015, why has the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) already allocated $62 million of that $69 million to just four bridges, with the remaining six in limbo, and how can he still have confidence in a Minister called “Simple Simon”, who simply cannot count?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well, I am pleased to hear progress on the bridges, because the member has been saying up until quite recently that none of them would be built. Now he seems to be complaining that four of them are going to be built properly. I have every confidence in NZTA to meet the undertakings made by the Government.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. In the interest of detail I seek leave to table a question for written answer, not publicly available yet, dated 7 June 2017, which shows over $62 million will be spent on just four of the 10 bridges—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member has described it enough. Leave is sought to table the answer to a written question that is not yet published. Is there any objection to it being tabled? There is not. It can be tabled.

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

Economy—Export Sector Performance and Government Financial Position

2. JOANNE HAYES (National) to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on the success of New Zealand’s exporters?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Finance): The exporters are doing well on the world stage. Last Friday figures were released showing that our exporters sold $70.4 billion of goods and services in the last 12 months, which is a $3 billion surplus for the year to March. Also, our terms of trade are out now and they are the strongest they have been for 44 years. The figures released record a 5.1 percent increase in the March quarter and are up 7.8 percent on a year ago. That is good news because the terms of trade are, of course, the price that we achieve for our exports. There is a strong and broad upswing in export prices and also export opportunities for New Zealand firms.

Joanne Hayes: What is New Zealand’s current account deficit, and how does this compare with the normal economic cycle?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: New Zealand’s current account deficit is currently $1.6 billion for the latest quarter. It is a $420 million improvement over the previous result. This means we have the lowest current account deficit since March 2014. The services component alone recorded a $1.2 billion surplus. This is partly driven by New Zealand’s increasingly successful tourism industry, alongside the education sector and business services. Given that New Zealand’s economy has grown in all but one quarter over the last 6 years, these results show the contribution our exporters are making to increase this country’s wealth.

Joanne Hayes: How is the Government improving the ability of New Zealand’s exporters to sell their goods and services overseas?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Under the Government’s strong economic leadership, New Zealand is shaping globalisation to its advantage. We have embraced increased trade, new technologies, innovation, and investment. For example, Minister McClay is ensuring work on Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) 11 continues. It stands to improve access for New Zealand exporters and lower tariffs around the Asia-Pacific region, including in Japan—the world’s third-largest economy. Successfully implementing TPP 11 would generate tariff savings of $222 million to New Zealand goods exporters each year, once the agreement is fully in force.

Joanne Hayes: What else is the Government doing to assist growing and exporting companies?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Earlier this year the Prime Minister launched our Trade Agenda 2030 strategy. It aims to get 90 percent of our exports covered by free-trade agreements by 2030. We are increasing our focus on services and investment, digital innovation, and tackling non-tariff barriers. We have backed this up with a new $91 million investment in trade policy. Under this Government’s consistent economic plan our exporters are expanding, hiring more staff, and successfully taking on the world. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Can the interchange between Dr David Clark and the Hon Steven Joyce cease immediately. If they want to have a discussion or a friendly chat, go to the lobbies to do so.

Auckland—Teacher Supply, Housing Costs and Conditions, and Traffic Congestion

3. ANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Has his Government done all it needs to for Auckland, given schools are struggling to find teachers who can afford the city’s housing costs, congestion is the worst in Australasia, and people are living in squalid illegal boarding houses?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH (Prime Minister): Yes. The Government has done an awful lot, working with the Auckland Council—for instance, a 10-year transport plan, which will cost $24 billion, of which $20 billion is funded, and that is after the $1.4 billion Waterview Connection, widening the Northwestern Motorway, more lanes on the Southwestern Motorway, extending the airport motorway link, and funding a large part of the City Rail Link, as well as a major building programme. Auckland is a strong economy, generating thousands of jobs, and we believe we can deal with the challenges of growth, while that member believes you should shut growth down because it is all too hard.

Andrew Little: Moving beyond the Prime Minister’s world of fantasy, after 9 years of the National Government—[Interruption] Oh, you cannot take it—no, you cannot take it.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Just continue with the question.

Andrew Little: After 9 years—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have asked for assistance to my right, on one occasion. I do not want to have to do it again. We will now have the question—repeat it.

Andrew Little: After 9 years of the National Government, why is there a growing relief-teacher shortage in Auckland, meaning that families now face the prospect of being forced to keep their kids at home this winter when their regular teachers get sick?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: Some of those teachers in Auckland, I am sure, would have welcomed the opportunity to move into a house in the Three Kings development, which the Labour Party has held up for 5 years. It means that thousands of affordable houses have not yet been able to be built because the Labour Party in that community is stopping the development happening.

Andrew Little: Putting aside the fact that the entirety of Auckland’s teacher population does not live in Point England, why did his Government cut New Zealand Transport Agency’s Auckland funding by $3 million last year, while at the same time Auckland’s gridlock worsened by 800 cars a week, and is it not time for a fresh approach?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: In fact, the Government has been topping up the standard transport formula in Auckland with billions of dollars of taxpayer funding from the rest of New Zealand, through large projects like the central rail link, which is half taxpayer-funded, and through the Housing Infrastructure Fund, which is a billion dollars of taxpayers’ funding from all of New Zealand, the largest part of which will be spent in Auckland.

Andrew Little: After 9 years in Government, does he take any responsibility for the worsening housing crisis and infrastructure deficit in our largest city; if not, whose fault has it all been these last 9 years?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: We are quite happy to take responsibility for the growing economy, the growing population, and the 40,000 Kiwis who used to leave every year who are staying at home. We are quite happy to take responsibility for the massive investment in schools and in roads, the 34,000 houses the Government is going to build, and the massive investment in broadband. These are all great things in a country that is going somewhere on the back of a growing economy.

Andrew Little: After deciding at the end of his 9 years to spend $2 billion a year on tax cuts, how much infrastructure, like light rail, could be built to get Auckland moving and how many State and affordable houses could be built for Auckland families with that money?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member is up to the old Opposition trick of comparing whatever you do with whatever is on his mind that day. Last week the $2 billion of support for families was meant to go on health and education; this week he wants to spend it all on infrastructure. The fact is that this Government is overseeing strong economic growth, which gives us the opportunity to invest in infrastructure, support family incomes, and lift our public services—all positive choices for a growing New Zealand.

Andrew Little: Given his accomplished former housing Minister, Nick Smith, said in 2014 that “Where there are rat-infested, mouldy dives that are unfit for human habitation, I want them eliminated.”, why, 3 years later, do we have toddlers like 18-month-old Julia Alatina living in these Auckland slums with rats and cockroaches and violence?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: If someone is living in those circumstances, the council has the legal capacity—

Hon Members: Oh!

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: OK. So if the Opposition does not want the solutions—they would prefer to have the misery go on so that they can feed off it. But, in fact, the council has the power to shut down residences that are dangerous to the health of the occupants of them. I would suggest the member take that case to the council and tell them they should shut it down. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! Again, there is too much interjection from both front benches.

Andrew Little: How can the Prime Minister give himself a tax cut, while children like little Julia are forced to live in slums? After 9 years, how can he possibly be proud of that?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: Little Julia and her family, if they have very high housing costs, will receive one of the biggest single boosts in family incomes that has occurred in 30 or 40 years. She will be eligible for higher Working for Families payments, the impact of the cuts in the tax thresholds, and the very significant uplift in the accommodation supplement. I hope that that family gets along and finds out their entitlement, because it could be over a hundred dollars a week if they are in extreme circumstances.

Conservation, Department—Ministerial Oversight and Response to Mining Proposal

4. JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in his Minister of Conservation?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH (Prime Minister): Yes. Our Minister of Conservation is a vigorous advocate of conservation, and I am particularly pleased with the work that has been done on Predator Free New Zealand, a visionary target that goes to the heart of what it means to be Kiwi, and engages thousands of New Zealanders in creating a better environment in this country.

James Shaw: How can he have confidence in her oversight of the Department of Conservation (DOC) when it failed to oppose plans for an open-cast coalmine on Mount Te Kūhā, which is a habitat for the endangered great spotted kiwi?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: You would have to address the detail of that to the Department of Conservation, but it is not obliged to oppose everything. There are actually, I understand, over 40 mining sites on the conservation estate, many of which operate quite successfully, and I am sure that if there is any real risk, rather than alleged risk, to the great spotted kiwi, that, of course, would be a central consideration in the process of considering consent for that mine.

James Shaw: Does he not think it is strange for DOC to be neutral on the matter of a coalmine in a kiwi habitat on conservation land?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: First of all, I would want to check the facts that the member is alleging. Secondly, of course it is part of the capacity of Government to take a whole-of-Government view, to take a view that something is a good thing that can happen with the trade-offs that are related to it. If the member is correct that there is some danger to the great spotted kiwi, then, as I said, I am sure that will be a central consideration. The Department of Conservation is not obliged to oppose everything that the Greens are opposed to.

James Shaw: To be clear, is the Prime Minister saying that it is perfectly normal for nature’s statutory defender to not be particularly bothered by a proposal that will knock the top off a mountain, cut down 700-year-old rimu, pollute the Camp and West Creeks with mining run-off, and discharge toxic dust and 11 million tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere? Is that not strange?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: As is sometimes the case with the Greens, they exaggerate to create a sense of catastrophe.

Chris Bishop: Sometimes? Sometimes? That’s very generous.

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well, sometimes they do not—let us put it that way. Of course, if that was the activity, then it would never get a consent, but you cannot stop people making applications under our legal processes. The Greens might regard that as morally reprehensible—for people to be able to apply to do things—but people can apply. They will be treated according to the law, with due process. DOC happened to be part of that process, and I am sure the issues will be dealt with.

James Shaw: Given that answer, what has changed between 1996 and 2001, when DOC strongly opposed this mine, and 2017, when it did not?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: One thing that has not changed is that the Greens are still in Opposition, as it was then. Otherwise, I cannot answer the member’s question, because I do not know what the application or DOC’s attitude to it was in 1996.

James Shaw: Did any of his Ministers give direction to DOC officials about the content of their submission on the Mount Te Kūhā coalmine application?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: That is a question for the Minister, but if the member is asking whether DOC is completely independent, the answer is no, it is not completely independent. It does not have some kind of divine right to hold an opinion with no scrutiny at all from executive Government, or the Parliament, for that matter. That is part of the process. Its submissions will be considered within the Government, as well as according to due process of law, which is where its submission is relevant.

James Shaw: Would he fire any of his Ministers if they were found to have put a muzzle on what DOC can say about coalmining on the conservation estate?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: No. DOC has some statutory roles, but, as I said, it is not a nation unto itself. It is funded by the taxpayer, accountable to the executive and to Parliament, and that means its activities are open to scrutiny. And it may surprise the member, but sometimes DOC disagrees with the Greens. It is not a statutory version of the Green Party.

Budget 2017—Productivity, Social Spending, Tax Cuts, and Government Priorities

5. GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by all his statements?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Finance): Yes, I do stand by all my statements, particularly in relation to Budget 2017 and the Budget debate last night, when I said I found it the strangest thing that the party of Michael Joseph Savage, the New Zealand Labour Party, managed to vote against lifting the incomes of low-income working people and low-income struggling people.

Grant Robertson: If he stands by his statement that productivity improvements mean that it is not necessary for his Government to increase social spending in line with population growth and inflation to stand still, what is the percentage contribution of productivity to meeting this goal?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I am not convinced that the member is quoting my statement correctly. What I said to the member at the committee before lunch today was that the Government is increasing its social sector spending but also expects productivity improvements alongside those increases.

Grant Robertson: What is the percentage contribution of productivity to meeting the goal of standing still in terms of social spending?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well, it does not meet the goal because, actually, we are not standing still. We are increasing our public sector spending and investment in public services by $7 billion over the next 4 years. The productivity improvements will come on top of that, and that is what we are seeking, as we always have, on behalf of the public of New Zealand: to increase the investment but also increase productivity, so we get more from that investment that we are making.

Grant Robertson: Why is giving a tax cut worth an average of $34 a week for a household earning more than $150,000 a higher priority than funding the health sector so that the Waikato District Health Board does not have to turn people away from the emergency department, so that Wellington Hospital can actually provide beds for patients having surgery the next day, or so that the Canterbury District Health Board could actually see young people for their mental health needs within a month of being referred?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well, the member is just wrong. We are investing $3.9 billion more—

Dr David Clark: Those are all facts!

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: —and that is the fact—in New Zealand’s health services in Budget 2017, which I know, through some sort of convoluted spreadsheet, that the member thinks is somehow a cut, but it is not. Actually, this Government stands proudly on the side of Kiwi workers of all incomes, especially low and middle income earners, and I invite him to go out and say that he will campaign to remove the income increases that they are getting through this Budget through Working for Families, through the accommodation supplement, and also through the tax system.

Grant Robertson: Why is giving himself a tax cut of more than a thousand dollars a year a higher priority than funding GPs properly so that they do not have to increase their fees, or are the GPs wrong when they say that they have not received capitation funding, and so therefore they will have to increase their fees?

Mr SPEAKER: There are two supplementary questions there. The Minister can address one or both.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The Government is investing more in primary care, it is investing more in the ambulance system, it is investing more in the district health boards, it is investing more in mental health, and it is investing $3.9 billion more over the next 4 years. I appreciate that Mr Robertson has never seen a time, and will never see a time, when any Kiwis should actually keep more of their incomes. This Government has a different view, particularly in the case of low and middle income New Zealanders.

Grant Robertson: Everyone else is wrong.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: That is pathetic.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! You can score the performance later on.

Budget 2017—Vote Health

6. SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki) to the Minister of Health: What will the $888 million invested into Vote Health in Budget 2017, the biggest increase in 11 years, deliver for New Zealanders?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): Health remains the Government’s No. 1 funding priority in Budget 2017, and this increase in spending will allow us to continue to deliver better health services for a growing population. As in previous years, the largest chunk of this funding is allocated to the district health boards, with $439 million going to investment in services and improved access for New Zealanders. In total, district health boards will benefit from an extra $1.76 billion over 4 years.

Simon O’Connor: What other new initiatives are funded in Budget 2017?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Budget 2017 also includes extra funding for a range of new initiatives, including $1.54 billion for wage increases for 55,000 care and disability support workers as part of the pay equity settlement. There is also $205 million for disability support services, which includes $27 million going to the Enabling Good Lives programme. The sum of $100 million dollars, through the Budget’s social investment package, has been set aside for innovative new mental health services, and $38.5 million is allocated to continue the roll-out of the bowel screening programme. Of course, none of this would have been possible without the steady management of the economy, which has allowed us to maintain sustainable investment into health services.

Housing, Auckland—Supply and Measurement

7. PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū) to the Minister for Building and Construction: Does he stand by his statement that this is a “golden era” for the building industry; if so, why?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Building and Construction): Yes, and I thank the member for enabling me, again, to highlight that the industry is experiencing its longest and strongest boom ever. Investment is at an all-time high of $20 billion per year in the year to April, and the latest household labour force survey showed, in March, 233,000 people working in construction—that is the highest number ever.

Phil Twyford: Does he accept the estimated shortfall of 30,000 homes in Auckland included in his own Auckland Housing Accord—a document he signed?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The Auckland Housing Accord was signed a bit over 4 years ago. It provided for the special housing areas. It has seen, since, the level of home construction in Auckland go from 4,000 homes to 10,000 homes being built per year in that city. That accord sets out a goal of getting to 13,000 homes. I will be continuing to push for new home construction until that target is met.

Phil Twyford: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I listened very carefully to the Minister’s answer. I asked about whether he accepted a figure that was included—

Mr SPEAKER: On this occasion, I will invite the member to repeat his supplementary question.

Phil Twyford: Thank you. Does he accept the estimated shortfall of 30,000 homes in Auckland included in his own Auckland Housing Accord—a document he signed?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: In the time it was set, which is now nearly 4 years ago.

Phil Twyford: Does he accept the estimate of the Auckland Council’s Independent Hearings Panel, made during the preparation of the unitary plan, that Auckland has an estimated shortfall of 40,000 dwellings?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Any estimates on the housing shortfall are very dependent on the assumption of how many people there are per home. A small change and a difference—[Interruption] I am saying that if you vary the assumption by just 0.1 person per household, that can vary that estimate by 10,000 or 20,000. It will always be an estimate. I am simply focused on getting more houses built, and the record of the last 4 years shows very strong growth and the progress that we are making.

Phil Twyford: Does he accept the estimate made by his own officials in a joint Treasury - Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) paper in April 2016 that the shortfall of dwellings is now more than 30,000, and, on current trends, will not be eliminated until after 2030?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: No, the member misrepresents that report. I would also point out that the best indication as to whether housing supply and demand are in balance is price, and I welcome the fact that over the last 8 months, house prices in Auckland have been static. This is equally so in Christchurch, where supply is well in control in respect of demand. We have actually seen house prices and rents fall, showing the importance of growing supply.

Phil Twyford: What does he think is stronger evidence of denial: denying there is a housing crisis; denying Auckland Council’s estimate of the shortfall of housing; denying his own officials’ estimate of the shortfall; or denying that his officials even gave him that advice, as he did this morning at the select committee?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The worst denial I have seen is when the household labour force survey shows a record number of people working in construction, when the building consent data shows the strongest level of building construction in more than a decade, when the GDP figures show that there is a housing boom, and when the member opposite says that no houses are being built.

Phil Twyford: I seek the leave of the House to table a Treasury-MBIE document that sets out the estimate of a 30,000-plus shortfall of houses in Auckland.

Mr SPEAKER: I just need to check: is that not freely available to members?

Phil Twyford: Well, it was received by my office under the Official Information Act.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Over a year ago.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! On that basis I will put the leave, and the House will decide. Leave is sought to table the Treasury-MBIE document. Is there any objection to it being tabled? There is objection. [Interruption] Order!

Climate Change—Pacific Island Nations and United States’ Withdrawal from Paris Agreement

8. MARAMA DAVIDSON (Green) to the Minister for Climate Change Issues: Does she agree that New Zealand has a special responsibility to provide leadership on climate change in support of our Pacific Island neighbours, whose very existence is threatened by it and who have done almost nothing to cause the problem?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Climate Change Issues): I certainly agree that New Zealand needs to play our part in the global effort to reduce climate change. I think the leadership depends on context within that. I think we have a very special relationship with the Pacific Islands. It is why we provide so much aid there. It is why we have committed more than $200 million towards contributing to helping our Pacific cousins.

Marama Davidson: Will the Government, then, show real leadership to support small Pacific Island nations by following many Pacific leaders in condemning President Trump’s decision to withdraw the United States from the Paris Agreement?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I think we have made it very clear that we are disappointed with the decision of President Trump. I think there are more important things that we can do for the Pacific Islands at the moment, and that is in our aid programme. It is in things like the borrow pits and filling them in, in Tuvalu. It is in things like the contribution that we are making in Kiribati, as far as getting adaptation for them so that people can live better lives. I think that makes more of a difference than words of condemnation.

Marama Davidson: When the Prime Minister of Tuvalu, Enele Sopoaga, himself is saying: “I think this is a very destructive, obstructive statement from a leader of perhaps the biggest polluter on earth …” and the president of the Assembly of French Polynesia, Marcel Tuihani, is going as far as saying: “We regret that the President of the United States has no more consideration for the peoples of Pacific Islands states …”, why does the Government refuse to show any leadership by condemning Trump’s decision?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I think I have made it pretty clear that we are more interested in the actions that we take, and I am proud of them. Those island States are welcome to make whatever comments they like. It is called democracy. If those are the comments that they want to make on what President Trump has said, well, good on them. But at the end of the day, we are a part of a high-ambition coalition. We have joined with the Marshall Islands and other countries in a statement with them, and we stand by where we are at and what we are doing.

Marama Davidson: If the Government is really providing so much support to the Pacific Islands on climate change, as the Minister claims, will she then show real leadership by reversing the $13 million per year cut to climate-related aid in the Pacific and, instead, increase it?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Certainly from what I have seen we are providing more—for example, we recently committed another $1.3 million to Fiji to help them with their presidency of the 23rd session of the conference of the parties, which we saw as very important. As I say, there are a number of very successful projects, like the $44.6 million in climate-related support that has gone in in just 1 year alone. Another $3 million has gone into getting the Green Climate Fund operational in helping countries so that those Pacific countries can actually submit applications for that. I would say we work very well with those Pacific countries and want to continue to do so.

Budget 2017—Learning Support and Ongoing Resourcing Scheme Funding

9. Dr JIAN YANG (National) to the Minister of Education: What extra help for children with additional learning needs was provided in Budget 2017?

Hon NIKKI KAYE (Minister of Education): Budget 2017 provided an additional $63.3 million over the next 4 years to support students with additional learning needs. This included $15 million to extend teacher aide support to an extra 625 students per year. This investment fulfils the Government’s commitment to roll out in-class support for 4,000 students. I am also pleased to advise the House that this funding also included $4.2 million in funding for further support for parents and teachers of children with autism.

Dr Jian Yang: How does this commitment build on the Government’s existing funding for learning support?

Hon NIKKI KAYE: The Government has significantly increased funding for children with additional learning needs by around 33 percent since 2009, to $630 million per year. In addition to what I have already outlined, $34.7 million of new funding will provide specialist behaviour services for an extra 1,000 children, and $6 million will also be invested to support young children with difficulties talking and listening. This Government is committed to providing support at the earliest opportunity to give children the best start to their education and the best chance in life.

Chris Hipkins: Why was the additional funding for the ongoing resourcing scheme (ORS) allocated in this year’s Budget less than the Ministry of Education advised her was necessary to meet cost pressures?

Hon NIKKI KAYE: I would have to go and have a look at the statement that he has made. But what I can tell the member is that, in 2016, there was a significant additional investment in ORS. That is on top of the money that we have put in, in terms of behavioural services, on top of the money in terms of communication services, and on top of the money in terms of early intervention.

Vulnerable Children, Oranga Tamariki, Ministry—Letters of Assurance

10. DARROCH BALL (NZ First) to the Minister for Children: Does she have confidence in the accuracy of the assurances in each letter she has signed and provided to the public and members of Parliament regarding individual cases of care and protection of children?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Children): Yes, because of the level of detail involved. Letters I receive in relation to an individual child’s care and protection are referred to the chief executive of the Ministry for Vulnerable Children, Oranga Tamariki. The chief executive’s comments, feedback, and assurances are then passed on to the member of the public or the MP in my response. It goes without saying that I would expect any processes or undertakings she makes to be followed and adhered to. If the member has concerns regarding the safety and care of individual children, he should raise this with me or the ministry through more appropriate channels, rather than waiting for question time.

Darroch Ball: How can she have confidence in her ministry’s procedural integrity, given the drafting of one of her signed letters of assurance that a thorough investigation had taken place included emails from and to her office stating “The Minister’s office asked for the response to be revised.”, “We have a bit of an issue with ministerial correspondence. Hope it doesn’t set a standard.”, and “I have tried to keep it factual without putting spin on it, but happy to change it as you see fit.”?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: What that shows is that I am determined to ensure that whatever responses I give on behalf of the chief executive are made knowing that I can give the member of the public or the MP the assurance that whatever has been said will be followed and adhered to.

Darroch Ball: I seek leave to table two internal emails, dated 4 March 2015 and 25 February 2015, which detail all those quotes that I mentioned in my previous—

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table those two particular emails. Is there any objection to them being tabled? There is not.

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

Darroch Ball: Is she concerned with her ministry’s procedural integrity, given a ministry executive who drafted one of her letters of assurance was, in fact, originally implicated in the very complaint addressed in the letter they drafted stating that “a very thorough investigation was conducted”, when, in fact, there was no investigation conducted at all?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I am aware of the details of that particular case that the member is raising. I am not going to discuss it in this House, but I can tell the member that I have spoken at length with the chief executive about how that can happen. It should not happen, and we are determined that it does not happen ever again, but I would remind the member that the two occasions that he is quoting from in the House here happened under Child, Youth and Family, under the Ministry of Social Development.

Darroch Ball: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Just in relation to the last answer from the Minister, I asked whether she was concerned that a ministry executive who was involved in that—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! No, no, no—I listened very carefully to the answer, and the Minister, effectively, invoked Speaker’s ruling 193/3, from memory, that she was not prepared to give any further details in the House, and that is because of public interest.

Darroch Ball: Will the Minister investigate every letter she has signed that gave assurances of the safety of children under her watch, given that it is clear that the process by which she gains her advice about all of those cases is flawed and she cannot guarantee any such assurances at all?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I dispute that member’s assertion. I do take the care and protection of children very seriously, I do seek information from the chief executive, and I do seek assurances that the information that I am passing on is correct. In some cases, I follow up with the chief executive to ensure that the assurances I have been given about what the procedures are to follow have actually been carried out.

Budget 2017—Fisheries

11. IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei) to the Minister for Primary Industries: How is the Government supporting the transparency and management of our fisheries through Budget 2017?

Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister for Primary Industries): A Budget boost of $30.5 million of operating funding over the next 4 years will help to upgrade and modernise our fisheries management system. The funding will help introduce the Integrated Electronic Monitoring and Reporting System, commonly called IEMRS, which will give us the most transparent and accountable commercial fishery anywhere in the world. The funding will also support more detailed scientific research to improve our knowledge of the marine environment, enabling management of fish stocks as well as the ecosystems that support them.

Ian McKelvie: How will this technology help support the compliance of the commercial fishing activities?

Hon NATHAN GUY: Vessel position monitoring and electronic catch reporting will begin on 1 October this year. This will be followed by cameras on every vessel, phased in from 1 October next year. This means that every fishing vessel can be monitored at all times, no matter where they are, and any illegal activity can be dealt with. Through the future of our fisheries programme, the Government is also refreshing the rules around landing and discarding of fish to ensure that our policies complement this new technology.

Ian McKelvie: How will this investment create more information about the health of our fish stocks?

Hon NATHAN GUY: Good question. The IEMRS system will also allow for finer-scale management of our fish stocks by giving the Ministry for Primary Industries more information to focus on smaller geographic areas, such as specific bays. The new investment will also support more detailed scientific research to improve our knowledge of the marine environment, enabling management of fish stocks as well as the ecosystems that support them. New approaches will also develop new information about the state of our fisheries using biological indicators of stock status.

Health Services—Hospital Capacity and Funding

12. Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North) to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by his statement, “there is always financial pressure in the health sector, that’s nothing new”?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): Yes, and the best example of the longstanding nature of the issue is that when Labour departed office in 2008, it left a growing district health board (DHB) deficit of over $150 million, with Capital and Coast DHB running deficits of $40 million in 2007, $66 million in 2009, and on track to grow rapidly.

Dr David Clark: Is he concerned that cash-strapped Wellington Regional Hospital has been over 95 percent occupancy for nearly half of last year; and is putting patients up in motels the night before surgery because there is a shortage of beds the new normal?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I have had a look into that issue of patients staying in motels. I would not overdramatise it—12 patients who were booked for elective surgery over the past financial year have been placed in motel beds the night before. They are only patients who do not need a hospital bed. So they are going in for routine elective surgery—and, you know, sometimes that has to happen. They are not patients who are needing hospital care, so the member should not mischaracterise the situation.

Dr David Clark: Is he concerned that last year the following hospitals reported being full more often than in previous years; if not, what would it take for him to be concerned? Those hospitals are Auckland, Buller, Dunedin, Invercargill, Middlemore, North Shore, Rotorua, Taranaki, Wairarapa, Waitakere, Wellington—

Mr SPEAKER: Bring the question to a conclusion quickly.

Dr David Clark: —Whakatāne, Whanganui, and Whangarei.

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: As usual, I would have to go off and check what the member is actually saying. I mean, it sounds like those hospitals are working at capacity. But the key thing is that there is more money going to the health system and more people are getting more services than ever before. The member could not, I think, name a single service that is not better than 8 years ago, because out of hundreds of services, they have all improved and are delivering more.

Dr David Clark: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I did ask what it would take, what level it would get to, before he was concerned about the situation.

Mr SPEAKER: That might have been part of the second part of the question that was asked. The first part was about whether he was concerned about a list of hospitals that were more full this year than last year. The question was definitely addressed.

Dr David Clark: Does he think that it is business as usual for Waikato, Palmerston North, and Wellington hospitals to be reporting full occupancy within the last 2 weeks while struggling to clear their emergency department (ED) backlog? How many hospitals reporting full occupancy or over-capacity over the next month will it take for him to realise that there is a problem?

Mr SPEAKER: Again, there are two supplementary questions there. The Minister can address either.

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Full hospitals are not a new phenomenon. I would note that he mentioned ED backlogs. One of the things we did bring in was the ED waiting time target, so that everyone would be in and out of the ED within 6 hours. That has saved 700 lives per year—very different from the days when Labour was running the health system.

Dr David Clark: Is he aware that in the past week, beds in Ōāmaru Hospital have been full and ambulances and GPs have been told to take patients elsewhere, and that during that period Dunedin Hospital was also full at points, forcing care out of the DHB?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Once again, I would have to check that member’s claims, but the fact is that in winter, in busy times, our hospitals are often full. That has always been the case, but the key thing is that people are getting the care that they need.

Dr David Clark: Why did he say to the Health Committee this morning that he was not aware of the Ministry of Health’s survey figures, frequently reported in the media, that show an estimated half a million people missed out on a GP visit due to costs in the last 12 months alone?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I honestly would have to go and check the transcript of that conversation, because I am not sure that he is not misrepresenting my remarks.

Dr David Clark: Is the reason he will not lower adult GP fees for those who cannot afford them due to this Government’s $2.3 billion shortfall in health funding and the fact that there is no money available to stop fee increases for other patients?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: There are a couple of things here. GPs set their own fees in consultation with the DHBs, so they have got certain parameters. The member completely overlooks the fact of free visits for under-13s, a policy that Labour could have delivered but never did. When it comes to funding, basically, we have put $5 billion more into the system. They have got a wish list of $7.3 billion, and that is the difference. But this member continues to misrepresent health funding as a cut. Actually, it has gone up by $5 billion.

Dr David Clark: Supplementary.

Mr SPEAKER: No, the member has now used all of his supplementary questions.

General Debate

General Debate

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister of Immigration): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. One of the hallmarks of a political party that seeks the privilege of being in Government is that it needs to demonstrate that it is enthusiastic and that it is energetic about leading the country. Last night I thought we saw a very good example of that at the conclusion of the 15-hour Budget debate, in what was, essentially, a vote of confidence in the Government. On this side of the House the benches were full to overflowing. It looked like the north stand at Eden Park on test day, whereas, on the other side of the House, it looked like Maidstone Park No. 4 on a windswept Saturday afternoon. Opposition members looked about as enthusiastic about being there as they would have done on a horizontal-rain day at Maidstone Park.

Why would they have that sort of enthusiasm? Not even their leader, the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Little, could be bothered to complete his allotted time in the Budget debate. He could not wait to get out the door. He could not leave fast enough, because he knew he was on a hiding to nothing, thanks to a very, very good Budget 2017.

Let us go through some of the many highlights. I want to reinforce the issue of Vote Health, which has the highest vote increase in that vote for a very, very long time—$3.9 billion over 4 years, with $879 million in this year alone. I have got some advice for the Opposition spokesman on health. Dr Clark might know a little bit about existential philosophy, but I have to say his maths is absolutely appalling. A very large increase in Vote Health, which may nevertheless have been less than what the profligate Labour spenders would have invested, is not a cut. It is a substantial investment, and it is a targeted investment in the areas that have the most benefit.

Mr Robertson caught that bug as well with research and development, when he said on the TV that the Budget was silent on R & D—

Dr Megan Woods: Oh, this is the Rob Hosking article.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: —when he knows—well, Mr Hosking actually got the memo, did he not, because there was a quadrupling—

Grant Robertson: He did get the memo, because he’s definitely with you.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Well, he read the Budget, for a start, which was a great deal more than the Opposition finance spokesperson did. There was a quadrupling in the Marsden Fund and a doubling of Innovative New Zealand.

On the Family Incomes Package, of course, Mr Robertson went to great pains to try to slice and dice this and to portray it as a tax cut for the rich, when nothing could be further from the truth. Mr Joyce last night summed it up when he said: “This is a family incomes package.” We have heard examples of where some of our more vulnerable families in high-cost housing areas will be receiving more than $150 a week as a consequence of this Budget. The Greens understood it. New Zealand First understood it and supported the legislation that would give effect to that, but Labour did not get the memo.

You would think that Mr Robertson, after having had so long to think about an alternative tax policy and an alternative incomes package—8½ years to come up with a coherent alternative to this Government’s plan, and what has he got? Labour is going to give us a review. It is going to go into Government—that is its plan—and it is going to review tax policy. After 8½ years of thinking about it, Labour members still come up with no independent thought about what a tax plan could be. I actually—call me suspicious—think they have a plan; they just do not want to campaign on it. It is that typical Labour tax plan: raise taxes and spend more of other people’s money.

On housing—$100 million for the Crown Land Programme and a couple of hundred million dollars for social housing. We are seeing the benefits of the many things that this Government is doing in respect of increasing supply and reducing house price inflation, no thanks to Labour—no thanks to Labour—which opposes every measure that this Government is taking. It opposed Point England. It opposed Three Kings. It talks about housing supply, but it cannot bring itself to support this Government’s initiatives.

I have got some advice, I think, for that party, which aspires to be in Government. My advice to it is this: just do exactly what you are doing now, because if that is the case, then I think the New Zealand public will know very clearly who has the enthusiasm, who has the energy, and who has the ideas to continue to lead this country. This side, on Budget confidence, will always look like the north stand at Eden Park.

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): It was Hubert Humphrey, the former Vice-President of the United States, who said that the moral test of a Government is how it treats those in the dawn of life, how it treats those in the twilight of life, and how it treats those in the shadows of life—the sick and the needy. Any New Zealander who read on Sunday the story of the boarding houses of New Zealand, and asked themselves the question as to whether the Government of today is meeting the moral test of looking after those in the dawn of life, the twilight of life, and the shadows of life, they would have seen a massive failure.

Julia Alatina is 18 months old. She lives, to describe it as it is in the article, in a “shoebox-sized room” on a “foam mattress”. She lives there with fleabites. She lives there with her whole family, wondering whether they will be able to get through the night and whether they will avoid the violence that is around her. A psychologist said this about Julia’s life: “Living this way really denigrates the dignity of a person; it touches everything—their health, psychology, education, and employment. When you sleep in a room infested with cockroaches and fleas, surrounded by parties and fights each night, how can you be in the right mind frame for school the next morning? … Where’s the space, even, to do your homework?”

That is the reality of life for an 18-month-old. Is that the dignity that we want to offer New Zealanders today? In a country that is relatively wealthy—a country that has prosperity—there is a Government today that says that is acceptable. When that question was put to Bill English today, when his moral leadership was tested today by Andrew Little about what should happen for Julia Alatina, he said it is the Auckland Council’s fault. That is what he said today. That is not leadership. If he is not ready to lead on that, move over, because Andrew Little is ready to lead on that, and the Labour Party is ready to lead on that. David Bennett thinks it is more important that he gets a tax cut than it is that Julia Alatina gets a safe place to live. That is the moral code of David Bennett and the National Government—that it is OK for New Zealanders to live in squalid conditions, while he gets a tax cut.

Once upon a time the National Government told us that it was ambitious for New Zealand. Well, I will tell you what. I am ambitious for every New Zealander to live a life of dignity, a life with security, and a life with hope. Right now, today, tens of thousands of New Zealanders are living without those three things. If we go to any suburb in Auckland at the moment we will see homeless people, we will see people in boarding houses, living exactly those kinds of lives that I have just been describing.

What we are ambitious for, on this side of the House, is that every New Zealander gets security and opportunity. It will not happen with the tired, out-of-touch National Government. We need a fresh approach that says that after 9 years of poor moral leadership it is time for this country to take a new path. That is one where we say collectively that we understand it is our job as leaders in New Zealand to give every child the same shot at success that we would wish for our children and our grandchildren. Government members cannot stand up in this House today and say that Julia Alatina is getting that kind of shot at success.

A Labour Government will prioritise investment in quality housing, in healthcare that everybody can access, and an education system that gives Julia that chance. We will prioritise that over tax cuts for wealthy New Zealanders. That is what this election will fundamentally be about—the moral test of a Government. I am proud that Labour Party members know where Labour stands when it comes to providing lives of dignity, security, and hope. The National Government has failed Julia Alatina. It is time for a change of Government.

Hon JACQUI DEAN (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): I want to congratulate the Hon Steven Joyce on his first Budget for this National Government and, in particular, I want to focus for just a moment on the Government’s $2 billion per year Family Incomes Package, which will make changes to tax thresholds, changes to Working for Families, and changes to the accommodation supplement that will help Kiwi families get ahead. Yes, we are for a brighter future for all New Zealanders.

The package increases the $14,000 income tax threshold to $22,000, and the $48,000 tax threshold to $52,000. Those are significant changes that will mean money in the pockets of New Zealanders. The family tax credit rates for young children increase for those children aged 16 to 18. That is significant for New Zealand families. The accommodation supplement maximum amount is rising to reflect 2016 rents and makes some changes to accommodation supplement errors. Those are significant changes. Those are for the benefit of New Zealand families.

I want to talk today about New Zealand business and the impact that this Budget has had on New Zealand business. But what do other people in the business world have to say about our Budget? Moody’s commented: “New Zealand’s budget … demonstrates very strong public finances, underpinned by ongoing fiscal discipline and robust economic growth prospects, providing the government with significant fiscal flexibility to buffer potential shocks.”

Well, I believe that the biggest risk to our economy is Labour, New Zealand First, and the Green Opposition, because as a small, open economy the biggest risk to New Zealand’s economic outlook is rising protectionism, closing down international borders, preventing us from selling our products on the world stage. Unfortunately, we see that thinking all across the Opposition. They are renouncing free trade. They want to slash immigration. We have employers who cannot find good workers, and that has got a direct impact on productivity. They want to increase barriers rather than backing our exporters and backing our businesses to succeed. But we want to support small business, and we do.

The Budget outlines the strong economic performance of New Zealand, especially compared with other countries, with growth at over 3 percent and 200,000 more people in work compared with 3 years ago. Our books are in surplus. We are investing in public services. We are investing in infrastructure. We have a strong and stable Government, and that is what allows business, and, in particular, small business, to survive.

I want to talk about Callaghan Innovation. There is more budget into Callaghan Innovation this year—$14.5 million invested into making business grow, to provide mentoring workshops, information, and advice on funding to New Zealand businesses to help them to grow.

I want to talk about Topflite Seeds, based in Ōāmaru, North Otago, which took advantage of training vouchers from Callaghan Innovation and has grown, over the course of 5 years, from a woolshed-based birdseed operation to now supplying all around New Zealand—hugely, hugely successful.

I want to talk about the boatbuilding company I visited in Whanganui—metal boat fabricators. Brian and Jodi have exported six emergency response boats to the United Arab Emirates. It was a huge, huge contract for them. When I congratulated them on becoming exporters, they went: “Yes, I suppose we are.” Guess what? They want to keep on exporting their products out into the world, because they know that that is how we will be successful. This is just one of the many small businesses that get on with doing what they do best, knowing that they have a Government that supports them, knowing that they have a Government that will provide the right economic conditions—a stable Government, for them to get on doing what they do best, productivity, jobs for themselves, and prosperity for all New Zealand. Thank you, Steven Joyce, for a great Budget.

JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green): Our outdated drug laws need to change. Now is the time that we should be legalising cannabis and making medicinal cannabis available to those who need it, and not at a cost of over a thousand dollars a month—that is ridiculous. If we want to minimise the harm associated with drug use we should treat it as a health issue, because that is what it is. It is not a criminal issue. Looking at the National members sitting in the House right now, you would think that they had not realised that the Law Commission delivered a report on this very issue nearly 7 years ago, recommending a fundamental change to our drug laws, so that we treat it as a health issue, not a criminal issue.

Criminalising cannabis has not stopped it from being widely used. It just makes more harm, by making people criminals. It is ridiculous. The New Zealand Drug Foundation estimates that between 2007 and 2011, which is 4 years, we spent $60 million on imprisoning people for minor drug convictions. What happens after that? How are those people supposed to turn their lives around, after spending that time in prison? That does not even include the amount of money that was spent on police, on courts, on everything else. An amount of $15 million a year could go a long way to helping people with drug issues, and the last thing we should be doing is locking up people for minor offences, when the activity they are engaging in does not even cause harm to themselves or anyone else.

I know it will come as a huge surprise to National members sitting opposite, but these laws were never evidence-based in the first place. If you go back, in the 1930s medicinal cannabis was being prescribed by doctors in New Zealand. It was actually international pressure, pushed by completely uninformed bureaucrats—very ideologically driven bureaucrats from the United States—that forced New Zealand to change the law and impose the drug law we have today, which is horribly, horribly out of date.

I know the Green Party is usually a little too far ahead of its time, and certainly way ahead of this National Government. The reality is that the evidence has shown we were right about climate change. The evidence has shown we were right about a capital gains tax when we argued for it in 2002. The evidence has shown we were right about public transport, and now pretty much everyone—even the people voting for the National Party—understand that the only way to solve Auckland’s transport problems is to invest in public transport. Above all, evidence has shown that the Green Party was right about drug law reform. We have been leading on cannabis law reform for a quarter of a century now.

Hon David Bennett: Yeah, that is why you never got in.

JULIE ANNE GENTER: Yeah, a few decades ago people were laughing about it, but now look who is out of date. New Zealand is decades behind other jurisdictions, which are demonstrating that treating drug abuse and use as a health issue is far more effective at reducing the harms associated with it. Nearly half of the states in the United States—more than half the population live in states where medicinal cannabis is now legal, or cannabis itself is legal for recreational use. Portugal has taken a completely health-based approach to regulating drugs, and I have to commend the Hon Peter Dunne for recommending that we adopt that same approach here in New Zealand.

It is really unfortunate that 15 years ago the Hon Peter Dunne, as part of his supply and confidence agreement, actually blocked progress on drug law reform, which many people had been advocating for. But I am happy to say that, 15 years later, now that he is the Minister responsible, he has seen the evidence and he is trying to get this Government to take some baby steps in the direction of an approach that would actually help New Zealanders.

But it is not good enough. The minuscule moves in this direction are not going to help the very sick New Zealanders who could really benefit from being able to use cannabis to relieve their pain or their nausea or to help with sleeping. The reality is, and the evidence shows, that cannabis has very low side effects—much lower than the opiate-based pain relief that they are being prescribed. Yet the medicinal cannabis products that are available to them cost over a thousand dollars a month.

This graph shows that cannabis has a far lower chance of dependency and risk of side effects than many other substances that are legal. The Green Party will continue to lead on this issue, and we will make drug law reform a priority because we know it will benefit all New Zealanders. It is time—it is time—to legalise cannabis. Thank you.

Hon DAVID BENNETT (Minister of Veterans’ Affairs): I did not think that we could get any more gifts than we got from the Green Party, but that speech from Julie Anne Genter was just up there. They are talking about legalising cannabis. The one thing that the Green Party walked away from in the last two elections, because it knew that the New Zealand public would not support it, was to legalise cannabis. Now we hear it is back on the Green Party agenda. The best part of that speech was to see the face of the Rt Hon Winston Peters when he saw what a potential coalition partner of his was going to be doing, and that is to legalise cannabis. The gifts keep coming from the Green Party. Let us give them more time in this House to tell us what they would actually do for New Zealand, because it is madness, what will come out of the Green Party. Everybody knows that, the public knows that, and that is why it has never been given the mantle of Government.

But the Green Party is not as bad as the Labour Party. The Labour Party—we had Grant Robertson come in here, and he spoke like a true academic: “It’s about my moral compass. It’s about, you know,” all these things that academics, left-wing—get in the real world. Go out there, get a job, and let us not be in a world where we have been paid for through our whole lifetime to sit behind a desk and tell other people what they think. That is what Mr Grant Robertson was all about today. It was all this left-wing waffle about how Labour is going to save the world, save everything. We have got the saviours of the world in the Labour Party, who are holier-than-thou and have no understanding of practicality or reality. When there is money going into the hands of New Zealanders, they vote against it. When there is money going into the hands of the people most in need, they vote against it—not once; they have done this a couple of times now while we have been in Government. The Labour Party does not care about New Zealanders. It cares only about its academic vitriol in this House.

But it gets worse. It gets worse. We have got a New Zealand First member who is going to stand up soon. They are going to be next up here, and they are going to be saying it is all the fault of the migrants. That is what it is going to be. That is what New Zealand First is going to be saying. At the same time, that party is going around the country trying to pander to every migrant group, trying to get votes off them. That is what is going happen. That is the next speech we are going to hear. It will be: “Oh, migrants are causing the problem in housing.” Well, we do not need to go back to 1955. We do not need to be a Trump-like party of New Zealand politics that is against trade, that is against having an open, free country, and that is against having New Zealanders attain and go for their strengths. That is what you would get out of New Zealand First. Those members have actually got the brains trust now confiding—the four of them are getting together. Poor old “Ronnie” Mark is not there, is he, because he knows what is going to happen in a few weeks’ time when Shane Jones comes in. He will not be in the brains trust at all, then.

New Zealanders have a choice. They have a choice between a reasonable, rational Government that delivers for people in their time of economic need, a Government that has prudently managed the economy to deliver the infrastructure to grow our country and our cities, and at the same time has delivered for people when they are most in need—or we can have a party that just wants to smoke pot all day, we can have a party that wants to stop people coming into the country all day, and we can have a party that wants to psychoanalyse itself and make itself feel good about itself. That is the choice New Zealanders have got when it comes to the election. It is a great choice. It is an easy choice for New Zealanders.

There is a reason the Labour Party will not tell you what it thinks. There is a reason the Labour Party will not actually go out there and say anything. We all know what the Labour Party is doing in its secret files in its offices. In its secret files, there will be tax increases. There are tax increases. At this moment in time, it is working through whether it brings in a capital gains tax—the very tax that it said it would never bring in. It is in its files—I bet you it is in its files. And there are death duties. That will be the other thing in its files. It is looking at those things now. It is going to bring them in. It is being very silent to New Zealanders. The leader of the Labour Party said 12 months ago that there would be no increases in taxes under the Labour Party—there would be no increases. He has changed his mind. He has left the door open now and said there will be increases in taxes under Labour, just like the Greens have changed their minds on legalising cannabis and gone into this election proposing cannabis. Labour will increase your taxes, hurt New Zealanders, and hurt the economy, and for those guys—

Mr SPEAKER: The member’s time has expired.

Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): It is always a pleasure to follow such greatness of oratory in this House—a truly stunning speech by David Bennett, which was bettered only by the Hon Jacqui Dean’s channelling of May before that. “Strong and stable leadership”—it seems that Crosby/Textor is offering a discount package to parties around the world on slogans. Well, I have got news for you. Only a few short hours ago the strong and stable advertising bus blew over on a UK motorway. That is right—it toppled over. That is the kind of strong and stable Government we can expect from this crowd. The Hon Jacqui Dean might also like to google that slogan. She may find that all the newspapers in the UK are abuzz with the fact that Crosby/Textor did not only offer a discount package to “Worldwide Tories Inc.” What it did is it grabbed that and lifted that slogan straight from The Forsyte Saga. That is right—the writing is all about corruption and privilege, and that is where that slogan was pulled directly from.

There is a clear alternative to the strong and stable Government that topples over on a motorway somewhere in the middle of New Zealand or the UK. The clear alternative we have on the side of the House is Andrew Little, a leader who, yes, does have a moral compass and does not think it is a left-wing conspiracy. Andrew Little is a man who knows right from wrong. It was a privilege for me yesterday to attend a meeting with Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and see a man who was prepared to stand up for what he believed in and tell the Secretary of State what the withdrawal of the Trump administration from the Paris climate deal meant. He did not shirk away from bringing up that issue with the Secretary of State. That is the kind of leadership that I want to see in this country.

Andrew is a father who wants his son to be able to afford to buy a house. Andrew has experienced the health system, and he knows how important it is that people and New Zealanders have access to that health system. Like all of us, he is worried about education for the next generation of New Zealanders and whether or not we are planning ahead for that. The Budget that we saw from this Government delivered a shortfall in those areas so that those members and we could get tax cuts. While we will hear a whole lot of rhetoric about how it is helping ordinary New Zealanders, the reality is that I get a tax cut of between $20 and $30, but a single person on the minimum wage will get a tax cut of just $1 once they lose the independent earner tax credit of $10 off their $11 tax cut. This is not the kind of country I want. I do not want this kind of country, where we have the kind of mental health crisis that we see in Christchurch.

Things are so bad with the mental health situation in Christchurch that the Minister responsible for Christchurch regeneration trumpeted a report that came out in the last couple of days that showed that one in 20 Cantabrians has poor or extremely poor quality of life. That is not acceptable to me. And who is most likely to be in this statistic—of the one in 20 who has poor or extremely poor quality of life? Well, they are more than likely not to have their insurance claim settled, they are more than likely to be undergoing a re-repair on their Earthquake Commission repair, and they are more than likely to not have been able to get on with their lives. This is not acceptable. What we do know about mental health in Christchurch is that we do have a crisis. This Budget does not even begin to plug the gaps or to serve the people that require its help. Instead, we have a Government that wants to trot out tired old lines that are being used by parties overseas. What I want to see in this country is real leadership—real leadership with fresh ideas that is willing to face the future and chart out a better course for New Zealand. That is what Labour can deliver, it is what Labour will deliver after 23 September, and it is that kind of leadership that I celebrate.

MELISSA LEE (National): Before I say my bits, I would like to make a comment to Dr Megan Woods, the member who just took her seat. There is a saying in the Korean culture that when you get accustomed to the good life, you cannot have the bad life. You know, in the 9 years that this National Government has led and delivered for New Zealand she has become so accustomed to the good life that she is complaining about certain waiting lists in the health system. I remember when there were people lined up in their emergency departments and cancer patients were sent overseas, across the Ditch, because the Labour Government could not deal with those situations. How terrible it is that those members forget their bad performance and are remembering only the good things that this Government has delivered for them. Sometimes, you know, we have the ebbs and flows of our services, and they are now complaining. So it is true that when they have got it good, they complain about little things.

You know, when we are in this debating chamber, often when we are debating it sounds like we are having an adversarial kind of relationship, but I want to talk about the positives that actually happen within this Parliament and also when we go overseas. I often talk about the parliamentary delegation that we go overseas with—I talked about it yesterday—and the relationship that we have with those parliaments across the Ditch, as well as overseas. It is quite interesting that when members of different parties go overseas, we are, in fact, in complete agreement on the performance of this country and this Government. I am not going to go into detail and I am not going to say who, but it is really interesting that the kinds of complaints that we hear in this debate do not actually happen outside this Chamber when we are overseas.

New Zealand has a strategy for international relations, and this Budget 2017 contains an amazing plan to support New Zealand’s goals in international trade, international security, and the economy. New Zealand is at the forefront of international relations and is pushing above our weight, actually, on the world stage. We are a competitive and innovative country with great trade relations around the world, and we are working to help support peace and freedom for all people across the globe, regardless of race, religion, and ethnicity.

Just a few minutes ago, I posted a Facebook post that says that New Zealand is second after Iceland in the Global Peace Index. Peace is really, really important, and New Zealand contributes greatly to world peace. Our commendable Minister of Foreign Affairs, Gerry Brownlee, and Murray McCully before him have worked tirelessly for the emergency flood relief support in Sri Lanka, the landmine clearance in Afghanistan, and the famine aid in South Sudan and central East Africa. We in New Zealand are continuing to punch above our weight when it comes to helping people globally.

You know, some countries actually benchmark their success by the things that they can do for other countries. For example, my birth country, Korea, used to be, after the Korean War, an aid recipient. I think World Vision was created as a result of the Korean War in 1950, when there were so many orphans who needed to be housed. It was really fantastic to actually hear how these countries benchmark their success. When they go overseas to help Third World countries, that is how they see their success. They see that they have actually become a successful country when they are contributing to the global economy as well as global aid, when they are able to help people. I can say that when we go to these global parliamentary gatherings, we are often seen as a world leader by these countries.

We are a very positive Government, filled with a belief that New Zealand is on a prosperous path with a growing economy and a bright domestic outlook. We should share these goals and our beliefs with the international community. I just want to quote Deloitte’s CEO, Thomas Pippos, who emphasised how well New Zealand is doing among the international community. He said: “Compared to many other countries, most notably the United Kingdom, Australia and the United States, New Zealand is in an enviable position able to invest [in] its initiatives around its Family Income Package, Infrastructure, Social Investment, Public Services, Growing Economy package, while reducing debt as a percentage of GDP.” These are the sorts of things that this Government is actually delivering for the people of New Zealand. I feel very proud to be part of this National-led Government.

Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green): Yesterday, Minister Brownlee met with US Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, here in Wellington. Both Ministers are responsible for the foreign policy of their countries. A few weeks ago, Mr Brownlee, quaintly, explained to a concerned public that he was learning on the job—coming to grips, as it were, with the language of diplomacy.

This morning, with the media, he continued the lesson. Mr Brownlee said that yesterday’s meeting was a good meeting and that the US reaffirmed that it will keep up its presence in the Pacific and have a great interest in its well-being. Beyond that, we can only surmise what the Minister said to the United States.

Here is what he should have said: “Mr Secretary, welcome to New Zealand. Aotearoa is the Māori name of our country. Māori is an official language. It is frequently spoken in our Parliament, often accompanied by waiata and haka and tears.

“Your country is a major power; ours is one of the smaller States. We enjoy sovereign equality with you, but yours has the largest military known to history. You spend $850 billion on what we all call ‘national defence’. We spend 0.3 percent of that. We do not think you have purchased greater security for your people than we have, and certainly not for others.

“The responsibility to use your power in the globalist interest is immense. The use of soft power, as US adviser Joseph Nye used to say, is more effective. Hard power is legitimate when it is harnessed to, and subordinated to, soft power. By ‘soft power’, Joseph Nye means global leadership earned through moral integrity and political wisdom—the kind that people such as Barack Obama and Sadiq Khan have displayed. ‘Soft power’ means a readiness to respect the rule of international law, such as accepting the jurisdiction of the World Court when other States have taken cases against larger ones for blockading or mining their harbours—Britain, France, the US, or anyone, really—and joining the International Criminal Court to show that all men are created equal, and women too. They are equal before the law, including international law and including individual liability for political leaders.

“In the interests of humanity, New Zealand, on behalf of small States, respectfully proposes that you convey to your President the need for genuine global leadership in the following areas:

“(1) Reform the UN Security Council. Listen to those appealing for reform, including France—circumscription of the veto power and more transparent procedural decision-making. Do not be defensive. Make the United Nations great again.

“(2) Join the negotiations for a nuclear weapons convention that will prohibit the possession, deployment, and use of nuclear weapons for all time. Indicate now that while the US will not sign immediately on completion, it will make a declaration that it will pursue a course for the elimination of nuclear weapons from its national arsenal, as it promised to do in 1968. Make it time-bound for, say, 20 years. Make it conditional on all other nuclear-weapon States accompanying the US. Make the major powers all feel great again.

“(3) Respect the advisory opinions of the World Court, including the one on illegal Israeli settlements, and respect Security Council Resolution 2334, of December 2016. Help make Israel great again.

“(4) Accept the overwhelming advice of US scientists that climate protection requires a commitment to the current Paris Agreement and more ambitious national targets, including from the US.

Tell US voters that job security is to be found in a transformational pathway to a low-carbon economy. Help the Mayor of Pittsburgh make his city great again, and congratulate California and China on their climate deal signed today. There are other ways in which we could discuss, but I see your time in this country is already up. We wish you well. Let us help you make America great again, and when you return, the people of Wellington will just line the streets and cheer your motorcade.”

JOANNE HAYES (National): I feel privileged that I get a second day in the House, 5 more minutes, to speak about the amazing Budget that the Hon Steven Joyce announced during the Budget presentation a couple of weeks ago. I want to focus my 5 minutes on the education sector, and the reason that I want to focus my kōrero on that is that I recently went to Haeata Community Campus, which is one of the new schools opened recently by the Prime Minister and the former Minister of Education.

I went to speak to about 150 young people. They were aged between 15 and 18 years old. The reason that I went to speak there was that at the opening, the chair of the board challenged the MPs in the room to come and talk to the students about politics and about the things that matter most to them when it comes to politics. So I went to speak to this group of young people who came together, and, yes, it was a bit of a mission to start with. I had 15- to 18-year-olds, all with their own ideas about why I was there, whether they were going to listen, what it was I had to offer to them, and whether I was going to be boring. I can tell you that I left that room with no doubt that I was not a boring speaker, because I talked to them about the things that mattered most to them and I talked to them about the things that would help them to get to where they want to be in their lives. I talked to them about the power of education and my journey through the education system, and I said to them that if there is one thing, one message, that they will take home with them that day, it is that education will set them free.

When I look at the Budget that was announced recently and what it has to do with the education sector, I see more and more funding going into that sector—actually, $1.1 billion of new operating funding is going into the education sector over the next 4 years. So when I go back to talk to those young people, I can say that we are equipping their school, and all the other schools in Christchurch and throughout the country, with the funding to resource them to be able to achieve the things that they want to do within their education lifetimes. It was about making sure that they understood that education would set them free, and not to think about leaving school early—to get everything that the education system can give to them in the time that they have left.

The Budget also announced additional capital funding for schools—$392.4 million—and this additional capital is actually to help schools grow their infrastructure. Haeata school actually starts from year 1, which is new entrants, and goes right through to form 7 or year 13, but next door to it there is an early childhood education centre. This group of early childhood educators never missed out on the Budget, either. They have got an additional $386 million worth of operating funding, which will go into the early childhood education providers to help them with the operation of their organisations, which is key because it is at those early learning centres that the education of our babies, our pēpēs, actually begins and we start to grow them.

You can see their process, especially in the Christchurch East area, where you see the progress from early childhood education close to Haeata school, and then across to Haeata, right through to when they leave to go to university or head off and do some trade qualifications. That is about a 1.3 percent of operational funding in 2018. Primary and secondary schools will be getting about $458.9 million of additional operating funding over the next 4 years, so when I am able to talk with those students again, we will be able to sit down and talk about how they see working with their teachers on how operational funding will actually be able to help them.

When I look at this school—because it is a combination, it has got a lot of Māori and Pacific Island students there, so therefore we started looking at the types of languages that are being taught there. One of them is Te Reo Māori, the curriculum resources of which are going to receive $7.6 million of new investment in schools throughout New Zealand, to help with the learning of the Māori language—

Mr SPEAKER: The member’s time has expired.

RICHARD PROSSER (NZ First): I would like to begin by saying a thankyou to Minister David Bennett, and addressing his comments with regard to New Zealand First having connection with the regions. I would like to afford him an invitation, in actual fact, to be in Whakatāne tomorrow at 1.30, at the Liberty Centre auditorium, where Winston Peters will be addressing people from the regions. They will be wall to wall, and Mr Bennett is perfectly at liberty to come along and become edified. But that is not really what I wanted to talk about, although I do thank the Minister from Hamilton for the opportunity for, perhaps, some free advertising outside the restricted period.

The 1973 historical work on World War II entitled Enemy at the Gates: The Battle for Stalingrad concerned the Battle of Stalingrad. We are fortunate, in actual fact, in New Zealand that we do not have hordes of rampaging Nazis preparing to invade across our border. In the Battle of Stalingrad, of course, there was protection given by a very proactive Red Army and a couple of extremely effective snipers, and, at the end of the day, mother Russia was saved through the Battle of Stalingrad and the enemy was driven back from the gates. We are faced by an enemy at our gates that is every bit as potentially destructive and dangerous, and I am talking about biosecurity incursions. Despite the assurances, despite the protestations by this Government and by the Minister to the contrary, these incursions keep happening. The systems keep failing. We have seen it. We have seen it with pea weevil; we have seen it with the Queensland fruit fly. There has been any number of them, and the latest one, of course, is myrtle rust.

Hon Member: Yeah, “Rusty Myrtle”.

RICHARD PROSSER: Myrtle rust might sound like a slightly humorous name—some of these things do, especially when one of the Ministers concerned has come to be known as “Rusty Myrtle”, we understand, previously known as the “Orange Roughy”. I will not name names, of course.

The official line that is being pushed about the incursion of myrtle rust is that it has arrived on the wind and there is nothing we can do about it. Well, that is true—it is a spore that can be carried on the wind. However, in all the assessments that have been done, all the years of warning that this Government has had about the potential for myrtle rust arriving, and the potential for the damage and destruction not only that it could cause but that it will cause if and when it becomes established, have been ignored. These warnings go back to 2010, when Scion gave a report saying that, yes, it was in Australia and it would arrive, so the Government needed to be prepared and the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, as it was in those days, needed to have a plan to be prepared for the arrival of myrtle rust. In 2011, another briefing document said that it was going to arrive by one way or another, and that we needed to be prepared. Still nothing was done. In 2014, again—again—Scion warned of the imminent arrival of myrtle rust.

The serious nature of this particular biosecurity pest is the effect that it can have on some vital aspects of this country, both culturally and economically. It will affect pōhutukawa—it has the potential to wipe it out. It will affect mānuka. It has the potential to wipe out the mānuka honey industry, and yet for 7 years the Government has sat on its hands doing nothing, withholding the funding. In 2016, last year, finally the Government grudgingly coughed up $30,000—half of the $60,000 that was needed—to conduct an initial economic impact assessment. That was 7 years after the fact, and then, as we understand it, the money simply was not spent and got diverted to something else. Taking the attitude that it is going to arrive on the wind anyway and we cannot do anything about it would be a bit like the Red Army folding up at the gates of Stalingrad and simply allowing the Nazis to walk in. That is, effectively, what New Zealand’s totally failed biosecurity system has done. They have not even talked about closing the stable door after the horse has bolted. The horse has gone, and they sit down and have a committee meeting about whether or not it is worth closing the door.

I really want to believe the Minister when he says biosecurity is his top priority, but it seems that the rest of the Cabinet members simply do not get it. They simply do not understand that pretending that they are spending money that they are not spending, and pretending that they are putting measures in place to stop the most likely pathway of inclusion from breaking through—that being that spores are carried in by people, on clothing, on footwear, on machinery, or, perhaps, introduced on plant material. It is very telling that all these incursions have not been found out in the wild, as they would have been had it arrived by wind, but have been found in nurseries. It has been introduced here through our border systems, inadvertently or deliberately, through mechanisms by which it could have been stopped. Thank you.

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Moving from the Second World War to present times—in fact, to today—I would like to acknowledge the Minister of Civil Defence, Nathan Guy, who today announced $14.4 million of funding to go to the Kaikōura District Council. I would like to thank him, on behalf of the people of Kaikōura. That is a very welcome announcement. We are talking about the second-smallest council in New Zealand, with the smallest being the Chatham Islands Council.

The Kaikōura District Council is grappling with a lot of damaged infrastructure. In fact, after the earthquake, the only way domestic water was being supplied into Kaikōura was through two plastic pipes running along the top of the ground. Now they have a rather large plastic pipe, which has actually been buried, parts of it, but it is still above the top of the ground. It is going to cost that council a lot of money to get all of its infrastructure back up to speed. Its sewerage ponds were emptied after the earthquake. No one quite knows where everything went, and I suppose we can guess, but it really has to repair that now. It is quite expensive, and it is a big impost on that small council. This will be really welcomed by the people of Kaikōura.

I want to talk a little bit about WISPs, which are Wireless Internet Service Providers. I think that the day of the WISP is almost here. In my electorate, one of the typical issues that we are going to struggle with is around our internet infrastructure in New Zealand. We are talking about—it is rather difficult to get to places geographically. There are tight gullies, with very few people in them. We have done a fantastic job of getting ultra-fast broadband out. There are a whole lot of new towns around New Zealand announcing that their ultra-fast broadband is coming out in the Ultra-fast Broadband Extension, and there is an announcement soon on Rural Broadband Initiative 2, and that will reach a long way out.

But to get to that last, most difficult 5 percent of New Zealand, I think the answer will be WISPs. In Marlborough there is a very good example in the Waihopai Valley, where Creative Development Solutions and thepacific.net and Simcox Construction got together, along with the Marlborough District Council, and put a wireless transmitter, which was quite small, up on top of a big hill—a container on top of the hill—and provided Wi-Fi to homes right up in the most difficult places to get to. There was no cellphone coverage there, but now they can get a cellphone hotspot within their own home, running off that Wi-Fi. It breaks down that digital divide. I believe that that is the only way we are going to do that throughout the rest of New Zealand.

Another good example of opportunity is out in the Marlborough Sounds. We have two-thirds of New Zealand’s aquaculture production sitting out there in the Marlborough Sounds. Water quality measurements, and those sorts of environmental parameters, currently are taken manually by someone in a boat. That could all be done remotely, as long as we have connectivity, and that connectivity will come only from a WISP, in my view. Putting up a half a million dollar cellphone tower in the middle of the Marlborough Sounds, to capture a few permanent residents, some baches, and some passing boats, simply will not be economic. It will not make economic sense, and it will not happen. A WISP tower, on the other hand, can be built for a fraction of that price. It is designed, really, to go out into those small places that are hard to get to, and I think that is actually where we will go, in the end.

Fletcher Tabuteau: It’s an interesting topic, because I don’t think anyone is going to disagree with you.

STUART SMITH: It is really, actually, quite rich to hear some interjections coming from New Zealand First members, who voted against Rural Broadband Initiative 1 in Budget 2015, as I remember, and so, therefore, do not really care about the regions.

Actually, while I am on that, I would like to point out that in my electorate—and in most of regional New Zealand, particularly in the South Island—we are desperately short of labour on our farms, in our garages, and in lots of our businesses. We are reliant on getting immigrants into the country, who will come out and work on those properties. That is what a growing economy needs: skilled people coming into New Zealand. We do not need Luddites who will stand in the way of progress in the regions. So the party that stands up for regional New Zealand, the National Party, cares about those things, cares about growth, and that is why I am so proud to be a member of this party. Thank you.

Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North): The first speaker in this debate, the Hon Michael Woodhouse, spoke about the health system, and he sounded somewhat defensive, I have to say. He mentioned that Opposition parties have talked about cuts in health funding. There has been a debate in the media over recent days, pushed a little bit by the National Party. I suspect its focus groups and its polling are telling it that it is vulnerable in the area of healthcare because it has failed to invest in healthcare for New Zealanders.

The Minister of Health today, in front of our select committee, began with a defensive gesture. He said: “Opposition parties will tell you that there’s been a shortfall in health funding of $1.7 billion. That’s not true. We’re putting in more money than ever.” He said “We’re putting in more money than ever. How can the Opposition parties say that?”, and he concluded on a very similar note. I could see what was top of his mind.

Of course we all know in this House that to put in more money than ever, all you would have to do is put $1 more in, and we all know that every year costs go up by more than that for New Zealand families. The figure that gets put in every year matters, but what that figure is is the thing that matters the most—$1 will not cut it. We know that over the past years, GP visits have gone up, for example, from $29 to over $40. That is more than $1. Families are facing growing costs, and this Government is failing to invest adequately in the health sector.

Just today, an update from Infometrics was published that made it clear that this Government has short-funded the health sector by $2.3 billion—$2.3 billion—since 2009, and that $2.3 billion is coming at the cost of services. If you do not fund services enough to stand still, which is what that $2.3 billion represents, they go backwards, and there have been cuts. In my own area, the Southern District Health Board has announced to those NGOs that provide mental health services that they will take a 5 percent cut. I am aware of other district health boards where cuts have been much bigger than that. That is what happens when you do not fund services—they get cut.

That Infometrics report is interesting and significant because it is actually a conservative estimate of how much National has taken out of the sector. It accounts for demographic pressures. It does cost more to provide healthcare when you have an ageing population. The Minister likes to talk about inflationary pressure as though all people in the society cost the same amount in the health system. Somebody who is fit and young, like me, is not expensive in the health system as compared with somebody who is nearing the end of their life and who needs significant intervention, or compared with a newborn baby who has care in hospital when they are delivered. All of those things cost more money. Because of the shape of our population and the fact that it is getting bigger and it is getting older, we know that healthcare services cost more over time, and the Government’s funding is simply not catching up. There is a deficit in the healthcare sector.

We can see that the buildings across the sector are getting past their use-by date. That is a common feature across New Zealand, commented on by the Auditor-General. We know that half a million—half a million—New Zealanders have missed a GP visit for reasons of cost in the last 12 months. The shocking thing today, when I asked Minister Coleman about that figure in the select committee, was that he said: “I am not aware of that figure. I’ll have to check the member’s numbers.”

That is what he said in the Health Committee today when I mentioned that half a million Kiwis could not afford to go to their GP. He was all over the place. That is his report. It is his ministry that publishes those figures—that half a million Kiwis could not afford to go to their GP in the last 12 months. That is how out of touch this Government is with what is going on for New Zealand families out there, struggling to make ends meet.

Labour, when we are in Government—hopefully, I will be the Minister of Health in a few months’ time—will make sure that we lower GP fees. We are not immune to doing something about the issues in the health sector. We will make sure there are more operations. We will make sure there is access to new medicines. We will make sure it is easier to access mental health services.

If you are already one of the wealthiest New Zealanders, you should not expect a tax cut from us. Our priority is the provision of affordable access to quality healthcare, and we make no apologies for that.

Labour will make a difference in the health sector. We will fund it adequately. We need a fresh approach. We need a Labour Government that takes public healthcare seriously and that does not turn a blind eye and focus on giving tax cuts to those who do not need them—the wealthiest New Zealanders. Labour will have a fresh approach. We will make sure that that $2.3 billion is restored over time and that Kiwis can access the healthcare that they need.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Motions

Officers of Parliament Committee—Disclosure of Secret Evidence

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I move, That, pursuant to Standing Order 219(3), the House authorise the disclosure of all secret evidence received by the Officers of Parliament Committee in its Inquiry into the Appointment of a Controller and Auditor-General to Sir Maarten Wevers for the purpose of his provision of specialist advice to the committee. By way of brief explanation, this is to avoid contempt of the House—something that would be quite easy to do in these circumstances—by Sir Maarten or witnesses to the committee, and to make sure that Sir Maarten’s report does not contain the level of ignorance that we have heard on this issue from some people.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Crown Minerals (Protection of World Heritage Sites) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Debate resumed from 10 May.

NUK KORAKO (National): This bill is poorly thought out, it is poorly worded, and one thing about this bill is that Ruth Dyson did not ever go and consult with people like mana whenua, Ngāi Tahu iwi. She never went to the local council. We have got the mayor sitting here from the Westland District Council, and they are so worried because this bill has caused so much angst because of the fact that there are so many people who could lose from this bill if it was to go through.

Also, there is no thought as to what is already in place, particularly through conservation legislation, and particularly through Treaty settlement legislation, as well. We have to look at the mana whenua iwi situation here. If this bill went through, well, then mana whenua could be denied access into those taonga areas—and I am talking about te wāhi tapu.

So when we look at this, we actually have a plan when you look at the way that this heritage site is actually managed. Mana whenua iwi have a management plan in conjunction with the Department of Conservation. We also have to look at the Ngai Tahu (Pounamu Vesting) Act, because that will also bring in disrepute about this particular bill. This bill is a travesty and should not go through. Kia ora tātou.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): Saying that my bill is poorly thought out is an appropriate contribution for a member to make in the House, but having it said by that member, Nuk Korako, who introduced to the House a bill about stuff that you leave behind in airports, which was later consumed in a statutes amendment bill, is just laughable—just laughable. The ignorance and arrogance of that man beggars belief.

Let me get back to what the bill actually does, rather than what that member was portraying. There are three World Heritage sites in New Zealand—only three. This bill says that those World Heritage sites, which have reached an incredibly high bar in terms of having been made World Heritage sites, should not be open to exploration or mining. That is what this bill says. It does not say what the former Mayor of Westland District said in the local papers.

Nuk Korako: Why don’t you go and talk to them?

Hon RUTH DYSON: It does not say what the National list MP who just resumed his seat said. It just says that those three—those three only—World Heritage sites should be included in schedule 4 of the Crown Minerals Act so that they cannot be open for exploration or mining. That is the sole purpose of the bill.

Previously, schedule 4 of the Crown Minerals Act was considered protection from all mining until the National Government some years ago decided that it would open up some parts of schedule 4 land and allow for mining. It decided that that protection was no longer appropriate. It had been in place for many, many years. Forty thousand New Zealanders signed a petition and thousands, particularly in Auckland, got on the street to protest the stupidity of the National Government at the time, when it was proposing to allow mining in schedule 4 - listed land.

So while this bill seeks to move those three World Heritage sites into schedule 4, we should remember that this Government, which is in place for only another 100 or so days, does not automatically respect the protection that schedule 4 gives them. The National Government did back down—

Nuk Korako: What about mana whenua respect? What you need to do is go and talk to them.

Hon RUTH DYSON: The National Government did back down on that proposal to allow mining in schedule 4—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): I apologise for interrupting. I have, in a non-verbal way, indicated to the member that he should not continue to draw me into the debate. I think he has now done it about five times. I know that he is very concerned about the issue, but he has got to speak directly to the member and not to me.

Hon RUTH DYSON: The three areas that this bill proposes to protect are Te Wāhipounamu, Tongariro National Park, and the Subantarctic Islands of New Zealand. I want to ask the National members which of those three World Heritage areas they consider it is appropriate to mine in. Campbell Island—should we mine on Campbell Island? Should we mine in Tongariro National Park? Which of those three areas—World Heritage status areas—should not be granted the protection of schedule 4 in the Crown Minerals Act? What is the answer to that question? Ah, silence—absolute silence. There is no answer at all from the National members who are still going to vote against it. They cannot say why they oppose it. They read their poorly written research notes, and I bet none of them have even read the bill. None of them would have read the bill to know that its sole purpose is to protect—

Nuk Korako: If you had been here last time, you would—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! The member’s time has expired and I will inform the member that I was here last time.

Hon Ruth Dyson: Not very quick on the uptake, that one.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): I am on my feet. It is only because the member was interrupted in an inappropriate manner so many times that I will not make her apologise—a sort of one-all on the non-apologies.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Crown Minerals (Protection of World Heritage Sites) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 45

New Zealand Labour 31; Green Party 14.

Noes 74

New Zealand National 58; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Motion not agreed to.

Bills

Friendly Societies and Credit Unions (Regulatory Improvements) Amendment Bill

First Reading

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): I move, That the Friendly Societies and Credit Unions (Regulatory Improvements) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Finance and Expenditure Committee to consider the bill. This bill is about the credit union sector, which covers 13 credit unions and their 190,000 members. Credit unions play a vital part in the country’s financial system. Credit unions have become highly progressive in their development of innovative payment methods. This is despite operating within the confines of legislation that has not kept pace with developments in the financial services and payments industry within which they operate. This is an opportunity for a much-needed update to the legislation.

Credit unions touch as many as one in 20 Kiwis and for over 50 years have provided a full range of banking services to diverse and far-flung community groups and industrial organisations. As such, they play a significant part in the financial services market. Credit unions have access to the latest core banking services, including New Zealand’s largest ATM network, which has 900 ATMs across the country. Payment services include ATM switching management and MasterCard services, anti - money-laundering services, and insurance and payment infrastructure services.

The bill makes certain changes to the Friendly Societies and Credit Unions Act of 1982, which was enacted around the same time ATMs were first introduced to New Zealand, well before the days of internet and mobile banking. The bill aims to remove unnecessary operating and compliance costs, promote greater efficiency, innovation, and accountability, bring credit unions into alignment with other financial service providers, and maintain the element of mutuality and the requirement of a common bond between members. The bill also includes measures to reduce the minimum number of credit union members needed for an association.

The bill provides for credit unions to be bodies corporate, with what is commonly referred to as the powers of a natural person. However, it is important to note that credit unions will be bodies corporate under the Friendly Societies and Credit Unions Act; they will not become companies under the Companies Act of 1993. As a result, all of the following remain unchanged under the bill: the statutory objects of a credit union under the Friendly Societies and Credit Unions Act, the requirement of a common bond for membership, the “one member, one vote” provisions, and the prohibition on transfer of members’ shares to people who are not members.

The incorporation of credit unions as mutuals with full capacity and powers in this bill is consistent with approaches worldwide. Australia, Canada, and the UK are already among those that have invested in this approach. It is also in line with the World Council of Credit Unions’ model law. As a matter of fact, the World Council of Credit Unions advised that it is not aware of any jurisdiction other than in New Zealand where a credit union is not considered a form of artificial legal entity. Article 3.10 of the model law states that licensing a credit union should render it “a body corporate with perpetual succession”. Article 3.10 goes on to state that credit unions should have a range of powers, including the power to “Exercise the powers, rights and privileges of a natural person as necessary.” None the less, treating credit unions as bodies corporate is also consistent with other mutuals in New Zealand such as building societies and cooperative companies.

So you can see why demutualisation of credit unions—that is, removing the mutuality requirements of credit unions—and allowing for outside shareholders cannot happen under the bill. Importantly, however, credit unions and their boards will still have to exercise those powers with reference to their objects, which remain unchanged under the bill. These include paying money into a fund to make loans to their members, the use and control of savings for their mutual benefit, and the training and education of members in the wise use of money, and in the management of their financial affairs. Credit unions and their boards will remain subject to the controls on them, such as legal and regulatory requirements under the Reserve Bank, financial markets, financial reporting, and taxation legislation.

The bill provides for a statutory transition process for credit unions from being unincorporated associations to bodies corporate in order to minimise compliance and transactional issues and costs. There will be two phases, with the first being a period of up to 18 months for the substantive provisions to come into force. Consequential changes will be required to the rules, trust deeds, and product disclosure documents. The second phase will be a further period of 6 months for the application of credit unions for incorporation. However, credit unions as bodies corporate will no longer need internal trustees to hold and deal with property or incur liabilities. All of these changes are intended to be neutral from a substantive, regulatory, tax, and financial reporting perspective.

In regard to lending, the bill enables credit unions to directly lend to small and medium sized enterprises (SME) that are related to that credit union’s members. These provisions are empowering rather than mandatory. This means that credit unions are not required to lend to SMEs.

The other important provisions relate to associations of credit unions under the Friendly Societies and Credit Unions Act. There is currently one association, the New Zealand Association of Credit Unions, trading as Co-op Money NZ. Co-op Money NZ is a cooperative owned by 11 of the 13 active credit unions in New Zealand. It provides its member credit unions with a number of banking, payment, and related services such as ATM services, EFTPOS and debit card services, internet and mobile banking, and anti - money-laundering services. This bill is intended to remove any uncertainty in the current Act and confirm that associations of credit unions have the flexibility to provide services to other parties where doing so is for the benefit of their credit union’s members.

So, should this bill pass, there will be a statutory transition process for credit unions from being unincorporated associations to bodies corporate in order to minimise compliance and transitional issues and costs. The operational date for the new entity in practical terms is generally the start of the financial year after the certificate of incorporation is issued. The detailed provisions of the bill are currently being studied by credit unions, Co-op Money NZ, and other interested parties, including the regulators.

The provisions of the bill have been subject to extensive work. This work includes work by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment at the time of the earlier exposure draft, and I am informed that provisions have widespread support in the credit union sector. I am also aware that some credit unions do not support the provisions. I look forward to those matters, together with any other issues arising in the bill, being considered by the select committee.

This is an important bill for the credit union sector and for the customer-owned banking sector—[Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Sorry, I apologise for interrupting the member. I have now had, I think three times, from Aupito William Sio, interjections attempting to direct me on matters that are solely my preserve. I do suggest that the member has a look at the relevant Speakers’ rulings, which do allow for more reading when a member has less experience or has a technical matter, and I think both of these would apply in this case.

STUART SMITH: The latter, certainly. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. This is an important bill for the credit union sector and for the customer-owned banking sector of New Zealand, but, most importantly, it will help ordinary New Zealanders who borrow from credit unions, especially those starting out. I feel privileged to have the opportunity to modernise legislation that will bring immediate benefits to New Zealand. As such, I am very pleased to move this bill through the first reading. Thank you.

FLETCHER TABUTEAU (NZ First): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would ask you to please reflect on the ruling you gave to Mr William Sio, and reflect on a ruling you made earlier to a New Zealand First member who introduced a bill in this House some weeks ago. You courteously allowed him to finish his contribution, and I acknowledge you for that, but—and I appreciate it is a matter of degree—in no way did he read his speech to anywhere near the same extent as that member, Stuart Smith, has done in this House this afternoon. I ask you simply to reflect on that.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Well—[Interruption] No, I am not going to take any further comment. If the member looks very carefully at the Speakers’ rulings, he will see that this matter is a matter entirely for the Speaker. I will give the member an explanation to say that my opinion, and the reason for my judgment, was—given the members have, I think, about equal experience—that this matter is a more technical matter, and there were some things that it was important to get on the record of the House. That is why I exercised my judgment that way. I think that if the member feels that his party has been picked on in this matter, he should talk to my colleagues.

STUART NASH (Labour—Napier): Mr Assistant Speaker, you will note that I did not interject in any way, shape, or form, because I might have to engage in some of the same activity. We are supporting the Friendly Societies and Credit Unions (Regulatory Improvements) Amendment Bill. The bill is not quite as boring as that last speaker, Stuart Smith, made it out to be. In fact, when he said, at the very end, “I am very pleased to introduce this bill to the House.”, you would not have believed it, would you? You would not have believed it.

I understand Mr Tabuteau’s frustration here, because if you are reading something, at least put a little bit of energy into it, especially when it is the member’s own bill. It is his only member’s bill. So get out there, go hard for the credit unions, stand up for what you believe in—a bit of passion. Read it as if you mean it.

But, anyway, what I want to say is that there is a credit union in Hawke’s Bay. It is called NZCU Baywide. It does a fantastic job for members and for people of the bay. It is a different type of organisation from a bank, and it plays a very important role. The legislation that governs NZCU Baywide is 35 years old now, and the world has changed significantly since 1982. I think you were in the House, Mr Assistant Speaker, or no, you—anyway, the world has changed—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Well, if the member continues that, he will not be.

STUART NASH: Sorry. I think it is up to Parliament to bring this piece of legislation up to the 21st century standard, because there is no doubt we are demanding a much higher level of accountability from our financial institutions, but we also want to level the playing field for them as well, so that citizens have true options about whether they go to credit unions, friendly societies, banks, or whatever in terms of borrowing, lending, etc., etc.

There is a process point that I would like to bring up before I continue. I am going to quote here what Stuart Smith, in an interview with Fairfax, actually said: “The proposed changes”—this is talking about this bill—“were originally part of the Regulatory Systems (Commercial Matters) Amendment Bill, however the decision was made to put them forward in a standalone bill.” The Regulatory Systems (Commercial Matters) Amendment Bill was a Government bill that had minimal changes and minimal deletions by the select committee and the Committee of the whole House. How or why a Minister would actually take these clauses, or this part of the bill, out of the original bill and give it to another member as a member’s bill is highly concerning.

There are two things that concern me. First of all, that is so not appropriate in any way, shape, or form. We know this. The second thing is that it just shows how serious the Government is about this bill itself, because when a member drafts a member’s bill and it goes into the ballot, the odds of it being drawn out are actually not that high. The member himself has alluded to this. I am not too sure how long the member has been in the House—this is your second term, is it not, Mr Smith? First term? Third term? Anyway, he has been in here long enough, and he is the first to admit that it is his first bill that has ever been—[Interruption]—first term—drawn out of the ballot. So the odds of it being drawn out are not that high. It just shows the level of respect or the level of urgency, or where this actually places in the Government’s work plan.

Now that it has been drawn out, you heard the member, it was almost as if—you know, some people get a bill drawn out of the ballot and they are ecstatic because it is something they are very passionate about. I mean, I had a bill drawn out about council amalgamation, and I can talk for an hour on that without notes, or probably longer—or probably longer. But it is often something that a member is very passionate about, and they take every opportunity to jump up. They use the media and they go hard on it. Then there are other times when a member’s bill gets drawn out—and this bill here is the classic case—where you can almost hear them say: “Oh, no, how did that happen?”. They get a speech and they have got to read it out, and there is about as much passion as a damp squib.

The thing is, I am aware that credit unions and friendly societies do welcome this piece of legislation, but I know that the question a number of people will be asking is what a credit union is and what a friendly society is. I mean, what are we actually doing with this bill and what sorts of organisations are we doing this to?

Well, just to help those watching, and members on the other side—because I doubt Alastair Scott knows what a credit union is—a credit union is a type of financial cooperative. They range in size from small, volunteer-only operations through to large entities with thousands of participants. Credit unions can be formed by large corporations, organisations, and other entities, usually for their employees and members. The basic model that a credit union uses is that members pool their money—technically, they are buying shares in the cooperative. That is what they are doing. They are, in essence, shareholders, but they pool their money in order to be able to provide loans or demand deposit accounts, etc., etc. I suppose the biggest difference between a bank and a credit union is that a bank functions to generate profits for its shareholders whereas a credit union operates as a not-for-profit organisation designed to serve its members, who are also de facto owners. That is the main difference between a credit union and a bank.

Now, what is a friendly society? To be honest—you know, I have sat on the Finance and Expenditure Committee for a long time. I think I am reasonably financially literate, and if someone said to me “What’s a friendly society?”—I actually did not know what the formal definition of a “friendly society” was. I thought it was the Labour Party, where we all get together because we are all friendly, unlike the National Party. But it is not. There actually is a definition.

A friendly society—and when I talk about this, people will know what I am talking about, actually—is sometimes called a mutual society or a benevolent society. What it is, actually, is “a mutual association for the purposes”—here we go—“of insurance, pensions, savings or cooperative banking. It is a mutual organisation or benefit society composed of a body of people who join together for a common financial or social purpose.” So it is a little bit like the Labour Party, I suppose. “Before modern insurance, and the welfare State, friendly societies provided financial and social services to individuals, often according to their religious, political, or trade affiliations.”

What has happened with the advent of the modern bank and the welfare system, for example, is that friendly societies have moved from being almost like bodies that represent trade unions, etc., into having a much wider scope. I suppose that is one of the reasons why we do need to amend the legislation, because the world has changed substantially and the role of friendly societies and credit unions has also changed.

The thing is, this party will join the Government in saying that we support every piece of legislation that looks to get rid of red tape or to remove unnecessary regulatory barriers, but we must also be aware that in this day and age, the ability to defraud or launder money, etc., is also heightened. In fact, in front of the Law and Order Committee at the moment is a bill that is phase two of the anti - money-laundering legislation. We also need to be aware that whilst credit unions play a very important part in the fabric of society—often a lot smaller than banks—they will also be covered, and are covered, I am pretty sure, by anti - money-laundering provisions.

The thing, I suppose—I am going to digress slightly here, just for about a minute and a half—that really concerns me when we look at the Police Estimates is the amount of money given to police to investigate fraud. What we heard in the select committee yesterday was that, in fact, about 90 percent of the fraud committed within banks is not taken to the Serious Fraud Office or is not reported. That is because often these institutions do not want it out there that their employees have committed fraudulent activity.

But, anyway, back to the bill, for another minute and a half. We do support this—with a passion. It is necessary. I look forward to this coming—I am assuming it is going to come to the Commerce Committee. I am unsure, but I assume it will, which is the reason that I am speaking on it.

I know the CEO of NZCU Baywide, and he is a very good man. I am looking forward to engaging with credit unions and friendly societies, just understanding the issues that they have and the opportunities they have, but also the opportunities that this bill is going to provide, which perhaps are not available to them at this point in time. I also want to know what sorts of systems they are going to put in place, because this will create extra risks. What this bill will do is ensure that credit unions and friendly societies can actually lend money wider or change their operations, but with any change in operations—certainly ones that are provided through the regulatory and legislative process—there must be systems in place to ensure that with any change those risks are mitigated. You can never eliminate risks, but they are certainly mitigated.

So there will be a cost to credit unions and friendly societies. I am keen to know what that cost is, and I suspect that might be one of the reasons there are some credit unions that do oppose this. But the bill will appear before the select committee, and I am looking forward to following this through to the next stage. We will support this, and it has been a pleasure to speak on it. Thank you very much.

CHRIS BISHOP (National): The deep irony of hearing Mr Stuart Nash talk about the Labour Party as a friendly society is, I am sure, not lost on the House. Friendly societies are, I think it would be fair to say, slightly strange beasts within our financial framework and the regulation of clubs and societies. There are not many of them left—there are about 20—but those that are left have quite significant assets. Actually, in my part of the world, the Upper Hutt Cosmopolitan Club is a friendly society, interestingly enough. I think one in eight people who live in Upper Hutt is a member of the “cossie club”. I know Chris Hipkins, the shadow leader of the House, is a long-term member there. It plays a significant role in the Upper Hutt community. That, actually, is a friendly society.

I know from some of my dealings with the “cossie club” that the legislation that governs it is outdated, frankly. It is anachronistic, it is outmoded, and it needs reform. The issue that it has been dealing with is unrelated to the financial oversight that this bill deals with, but it is generally true to say of friendly societies generally. So this bill is, I think, a good step forward.

It seems to me that there are, basically, three types of members’ bills. There are the sorts of political bills that are, basically, put up and have no real prospect of passing. The title of the bill is often the hit that the member is trying to get. There are sort of conscience issues—your classic is marriage equality or something like euthanasia, and there is a bill on the ballot for that now, and we had marriage equality in the last Parliament.

Then there are what I would characterise as the dull but worthy members’ bills. I do not mean any disrespect to the member Stuart Smith, but they are the sorts of bills that are probably not going to encourage hundreds or thousands of submissions to a select committee; they are the types of bills that encourage learned submissions from people who know what they are talking about. I would put this bill in that category. It is a dull but worthy bill, and they make sometimes significant but important improvements to legislation that is important.

In giving the speech before, Mr Nash talked about how some of these provisions—and, I think, maybe all of these provisions—were part of a Government bill, one of the regulatory improvements bills. Mr Nash seemed to find it “highly concerning” that these measures did not go through as Government legislation. Well, I do not have a huge background in the history of that bill, or indeed of this bill, but I would venture to suggest to Mr Nash that the regulatory improvement bills that we pass in the House are generally for non-controversial tidy-ups of legislation or improvements to legislation—regulatory improvements; it is in the title—that are non-controversial and that everyone can agree on. Actually, in the case of this particular bill and these provisions, as the member who is in charge of the bill said in his first reading speech, there is not actually consensus about it even amongst the friendly societies and credit unions. There are people who are opposed to it, and I am sure that when the bill does go to the Finance and Expenditure Committee, those credit unions will turn up and say that, and they will say why. I am looking forward to hearing why that is.

Actually, it seems to me to be totally inappropriate for a bill like this to be part of a regulatory improvements bill, which is meant to be, as I say, for non-controversial, consensus improvements to legislation. It seems—

Fletcher Tabuteau: It was in the bill.

CHRIS BISHOP: It was in the bill. That is right, Mr Tabuteau, and I have just spent a minute explaining why it is now appropriate that it is not in the bill, because there does seem to me to be some controversy about the changes.

We have already heard from both members who have spoken so far that there are credit unions or friendly societies who are opposed to at least some of the changes. Actually, there is quite a degree of complexity to the legislation. For example, it allows credit unions to incorporate, which brings them into line with other financial institutions. We might want to have a look at that at the select committee. Another change, for example, is bringing down the number of credit unions required to form an association. The current legislation says that there have to be seven. Well, when you have got only 20 in the country, that makes life quite difficult. The bill brings it down to two. Well, we are going to want to test that in select committee, as to whether or not that is an appropriate number. Two is—I suppose you could call it an association. It is not one, but it is only one more than one, obviously, and so we will want to test that at select committee.

This is a good bill. It deserves to be on members’ day, and I look forward to examining it at the Finance and Expenditure Committee.

BARRY COATES (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. I rise to talk about the Friendly Societies and Credit Unions (Regulatory Improvements) Amendment Bill. It is being introduced by Stuart Smith, with great enthusiasm. I am also enthusiastic about this bill. The Green Party will support it. We think it is a good bill. We see it as providing a really necessary basis to help the credit unions and friendly societies get on to a level playing field. At the moment, under current legislation—the 1982 legislation—they are effectively discriminated against and made to jump through hoops that are unfair and make life difficult for them.

One big advantage is that this bill will reduce unnecessary operations and compliance costs. Secondly, it will enable the credit unions and the umbrella body, Co-op Money NZ, to operate with greater efficiency, to embody more innovation, and to have a greater degree of accountability. Thirdly, we see that, essentially, it aligns the credit union movement with other financial service providers. It really does make the rules common across the different providers. Finally, and I think quite importantly—and where the original controversy, I think, arose—is that it does maintain mutuality and the bonds between the mutual societies.

So we see these benefits as being important. Why is this important? Well, actually, this is a relatively large component of our financial sector. There are 194,000 members. They have got $1.7 billion of assets in 16 credit unions and mutual building societies, and they operate through 76 branches throughout New Zealand, from Whangarei to Invercargill. So we think they are an important part of the financial services landscape.

They are also part of a wider group of member-owned cooperatives. As well as the 16 credit unions, there are also three larger cooperative banks, and the customer-owned banking sector has 350,000 members, which is 8 percent of Kiwis. So this is not a small organisation. The leadership provided by the umbrella organisation, Co-op Money, actually puts it as New Zealand’s sixth-largest financial transactor in providing services to those members. They operate according to principles that I think we could recognise as being important: they have a democratic structure, they provide services and benefits to their members, they play a role in education in spreading the messages about thrift and savings, they encourage cooperation between their members, they build financial stability, and they promote a sense of social responsibility. So we think these are qualities that should be strongly encouraged.

The Green Party policy supports a more diverse financial sector, including New Zealand - owned banks—so far, we have got only one—credit unions, building societies, and other local financial institutions. This bill, and the credit union movement itself, will create an enabling environment for social responsibility that we think is an important part of a broader ethical money, ethical banking, and socially responsible investment movement.

If I might just say one final word about this bill, we support it also because this is a very different slice of our financial sector, and we have seen too much dirty money coming into New Zealand. We have seen money-laundering that is taking place here on a massive scale, we have seen tax havens promoted by this Government, and we have seen the kind of speculation, particularly in houses, that is not what we want to encourage. Instead, we applaud this bill and this sector. Thank you.

ALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa): If I could, for a moment, reflect on this pin that I am wearing today. It commemorates the Battle of Messines. I have just returned from a Featherston war memorial. Many of the Kiwis who were at that battle came from there. They came from the Featherston army camp, walked over the hill, and ended up—700 of them—dying at Messines. So I would just like to make a note of that and acknowledge them, almost exactly 100 years ago to the hour. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker.

Let us go to the bill. This is a very good bill. It tidies up what is a piece of legislation that is 30-odd years old, and 30 years ago, when those first eftpos machines—I can recall walking down Lambton Quay and just wondering what this new invention was that had come about. That is when this original Act was put in place. So it really is time to change and update the terms of the Act.

This bill reflects a part of the banking scene in New Zealand, as mentioned by the previous speaker, Barry Coates. The sixth-largest financial transactor is what these credit unions represent. To give you some idea, within the banking sector there are 24 registered banks: 20 are foreign-owned, only one is Government-owned, one is community-owned, and two are cooperatively owned. Seven of those 24 banks are listed on the NZX. To Mr Coates’ point—there is no reason not to have any other New Zealand bank in New Zealand. It is for shareholders, Mr Coates, to initiate one themselves. There is no law to stop another 100 percent New Zealand - owned cooperative bank, credit union, or bank from being initiated in the environment. I would just like to point that out to Mr Coates.

This bill does not change the characteristic of a mutual body that is owned for the benefit of the membership, and, as mentioned earlier, it often reflects religious groups. In this instance, we are talking about a group or a customer base that supports by lending and borrowing amongst each other, but at the moment there are restrictions on the credit union sector. So, for example, there are issues around the governance. You have still got to have, at the moment, trustees in place. Obviously, individuals come and go. That is an inefficient governance arrangement compared with, say, a bank, which has a board of directors, a chief executive officer, and so on.

So this bill will tidy up and enable the society or the union to be incorporated—to have its own life, its own legal entity, a continuous life independent of who comes and goes on the board of directors. But it still maintains the characteristic of being mutual—that is, it does not require and does not allow for third-party capital to come in, as would be the case with a bank. So there are no third-party shareholders allowed into a credit union, and this bill does not change that.

The other important aspect is that it is not governed by the Companies Act, as I hinted at earlier. It is governed by the Friendly Societies and Credit Unions Act. Although there will be some banking regulations overriding and managing the credit unions, it is not going to be a bank and it will still maintain the characteristics of a credit union and the mutuality—if that is a word—

Fletcher Tabuteau: It is a word. Well done!

ALASTAIR SCOTT: Thank you, Mr Tabuteau. This bill does create some efficiencies. It tidies up what is an old Act. It creates a level playing field for those credit unions to grow, in fact—to become more efficient and to serve their members more effectively. That is why I am enthusiastic about supporting this bill. I look forward to the submissions that will inevitably come. I note also that there will be some objections. I accept that, but look forward to the debate in the select committee.

FLETCHER TABUTEAU (NZ First): I would like to suggest that Mr Bishop was incorrect in his contribution to the House earlier. This is not a boring piece of legislation full of technicalities. Actually, this is an exciting opportunity for a group of friendly societies and credit unions representing more than 190,000 people—someone earlier alluded to the fact that this represents one in 20 people. I think over here we heard that almost one in 10 people in New Zealand will see the benefits of updating this archaic legislation. Despite the delivery from the sponsor of the bill, Stuart Smith, I think this is a reason for this House to celebrate an exciting and, yes, technical piece of legislation.

I had the pleasure of meeting quite a few of these member groups and discussing with them their concerns. They spoke to me about an antiquated piece of regulation that they have been trying to operate under for the last, what, 35 years—since 1982. They showed me their desire to move into modern times, and, actually, I must give credit to the sponsor. Despite his delivery, he was on the money. He alluded to what they were trying to do in terms of technology, ATMs, and electronic transfer systems. They are trying to get there, but they have had this cloak of legislation literally suffocating their efforts, I would suggest, and we now have this opportunity in the House to support innovation and modernisation.

In particular, from New Zealand First’s point of view, we celebrate the fact that this is real and genuine competition against the big four Aussie banks. We see this as Kiwi money being able, and enabled, to be put back into Kiwi business. I speak with specific reference to the ability for the credit unions to use their funds to invest in small to medium sized enterprises where the membership is related. That is to be hugely celebrated. New Zealand First would like to see this ability, this opportunity, taken by the horns by these unions. We hope that they would grow from being the sixth-largest banking organisation in New Zealand, if I can call them that—to grow, basically.

In my limited time left I would like, obviously, to criticise the Government because I do think it was completely inappropriate for the Government to take this out of the regulatory changes legislation and give it to a member. We have spoken about it earlier already. I think Mr Nash spoke to it. That is the reality of the situation. The fact that it was drawn out of the ballot in such a timely manner is bordering on miraculous. It is incredible. This was past due in being changed, and that mechanism by which the Government moved it to being a member’s bill speaks to the veracity of the contributions from that side of the House. The Government did not care. It did not want to know about it. To be quite honest, it was insulting to the cooperative money and friendly societies movement.

I just want to finish by suggesting that the competition that we hope will grow from and be fostered by these changes will be to New Zealand’s benefit, not just the friendly societies’. We see this as a great opportunity. We see this as an opportunity to level the playing field, as I have said before. The legislation seeks to, basically, do some very fundamental and simple things. I said I acknowledge the speaker Stuart Smith because I think that in his contribution to the House he was almost pre-empting some of the concerns from some of the associate society members. I congratulate him on that because I feel the same way. But I must conclude by saying to the Police and Families Credit Union, your concerns will be heard in a select committee, and we will endeavour to ensure that we understand what they are—if we can, we will absolutely support you in that. Thank you.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): It is a pleasure to be talking to the Friendly Societies and Credit Unions (Regulatory Improvements) Amendment Bill. First of all, I just want to congratulate my colleague Stuart Smith on having the good fortune to have his bill drawn out of the lottery, as we all know, of members’ bills. But contrary to some of the aspersions, and particularly those made by the previous member, Fletcher Tabuteau, I think this is a good bill. It is absolutely a very good bill trying to help ordinary New Zealanders with their financial arrangements. I think Stuart Smith is a hard-working MP, who seized the opportunity to do a good thing for many people. As we have heard before, there are a lot of people who have money invested in credit unions. So this is a good bill because it modernises some very old legislation, as we have heard—from 1982. So it is timely that it is dealt with.

Why the change? Well, credit unions operate now in a very competitive market. We all know that. There are many different institutions operating, offering money and doing services for people. It is interesting that a number of the speakers have spoken about the credit union arrangements at the moment. There are three that have fewer than 2,000 members, but there is one that has 68,000 members, and combined they have nearly $800 million worth of assets or loans. So, in terms of these businesses, they are large financial institutions.

What is a credit union? I heard Mr Stuart Nash try to explain it. Basically, these credit unions have the power to take money for the purposes of lending. They also can use it to control and apply savings and look after savings. But the third thing—one of the primary interests or purposes of credit unions—is actually about training and educating their members on the wise use of money. It is very unusual. I do not hear of banks having those sorts of things in their purposes statements. The fourth one is, obviously, to be able to operate.

I think that what this bill sets about doing—it has got some key elements. The first one is the difficulty around the structure of a credit union. What this bill does is it deals with the issue of allowing them to incorporate under the Friendly Societies and Credit Unions Act—not under the Companies Act, as many people assume, but under the Friendly Societies and Credit Unions Act. That Act gives it, effectively, the power of a natural person.

The second thing is that at the moment, credit unions have this perverse situation where they have all these members—thousands of members—whom they can lend money to, but they cannot lend money to their related small-business interests, for instance, if they own a company. What this bill does away with is it removes that perversity and allows the credit unions to lend directly to small businesses. Many people who are members of these financial institutions do want to borrow money to support those businesses, and also to place money that the company may have generated into a financial institution that is safe.

The other part about this bill is it deals with the issue around structure. Some of the speakers have talked about it. It is a very unusual structure that credit unions have to adopt, such as they will have, effectively, a board of directors, which you might envisage with an ordinary company. But, underneath it, they have to have trustees to hold assets such as property and another trustee to actually be able to operate the credit union. This is a weird structure that is very old and outdated. What this bill does is deal with those structural issues and, effectively, remove that added level of bureaucracy to enable credit unions to work and to operate much more effectively, thereby reducing costs but, just as importantly, reducing the complexity of the way they have to operate.

Finally, the bill deals with the impracticality of 13 unions having to have a requirement of seven of them to be a member of the Association of Credit Unions. Most people do not understand what a credit union is. The Association of Credit Unions—what that does is provide services like ATMs, eftpos services, debit cards, and mobile banking services. That is an important function, and this bill deals with it comprehensively. I fully support it.

CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): I do not think there is any doubt that the framework that underpins credit unions and friendly societies is out of date and needs a good look taken at it. I do not think there is any doubt that the Labour Party supports the removal of unnecessary regulatory burdens—red tape, that sort of thing. The member Stuart Nash has covered that ground. What we do have a problem with, though, is when a 35-page bill is presented to this House in the name of a member who gets up and gives a technical written speech on it, when it is actually presented to the House as a member’s bill and when it is actually acknowledged that it was meant to be in a previous piece of legislation called the Regulatory Systems (Commercial Matters) Amendment Bill, which has gone before select committee and has been through all stages in the House. That bill was one of three omnibus amendment bills that all went through their stages, yet this part of it was somehow left out. We do not know why, and clearly that will be a question for the select committee.

I am a bit sad that the bill is not going to the Commerce Committee, for two reasons. The first is that there are no bills before the Commerce Committee at the moment and it could do with a bit of work being done from a Government that clearly does not have any legislation in that area. The second reason is that it should have been a part of the Regulatory Systems (Commercial Matters) Amendment Bill, which went through all its stages in the Commerce Committee. It could have been already dealt with, so it is wasting the time of the House for the bill to be considered as a member’s bill. It has already been drafted. It has clearly had input from officials. In fact, a good question to ask the member Stuart Smith is who actually wrote his speech, because I am sure he did not write it. I am sure it has come from officials. It was not part of the original bill that went to first reading, and I know this because I checked the initial report to the Commerce Committee, the second departmental report, and the third departmental report.

Although I can find a reference in subpart 9 in Part 1 of the Regulatory Systems (Commercial Matters) Amendment Bill to the Friendly Societies and Credit Unions Act 1982, where there were two proposed changes—actually, there were three proposed changes, I beg your pardon. There were minor changes to that Act. Why was this bill not considered to be a part of that legislation then? Those are questions that need to be asked at select committee, and I am, in fact, keen to sub on to the Finance and Expenditure Committee, if I can, to ask some of those questions. I think they are really valid questions that should be asked as to what the genesis of this bill was and how it has got to this point.

The three matters that it is concerned with—the inability of credit unions to incorporate, their inability to lend to small to medium sized enterprises that are related to members, and the reduction in the number of credit union members needed to form an association—all on the face of it look quite sensible and valid. But we have heard this before in first readings from this Government, when on the face of it the legislation looks quite straightforward, but there is an underlying reason for a delay and for opposition or for concern about the way it has been written. I hope that is not the case with this bill.

I think it is also timely to have a good look at credit unions and friendly societies and their structures, and how fit for purpose they are in this modern age. They have an underlying reason, as good societies rather than moneymaking, profit-making entities, but there are lots of questions to be asked at select committee about this bill.

BRETT HUDSON (National): I am thrilled to take a call on the Friendly Societies and Credit Unions (Regulatory Improvements) Amendment Bill in its first reading. I cannot imagine what could fire the passions more than taking care of a bit of regulatory streamlining or throwing away a few archaic regulations. It is difficult to contain oneself. How could anyone call this a dull and technical bill? This is the sort of thing that really inspires you to come to the House and let loose.

Before moving on to the substance of the bill, I would just note that Mr Nash in his call postulated that perhaps a friendly society could be seen in the Labour caucus. Well, I have to say that the rumours and leaks coming out of that caucus about the blood on the floor as it was debating whether or not to support the Family Incomes Package in the Budget show it is anything but a friendly group of people. What are you doing with your hands, Mr Faafoi—are we dancing?

Kris Faafoi: Get back to the bill.

BRETT HUDSON: The purpose of the actions and initiatives under this bill is to change some regulation around credit unions to make them more competitive and less expensive to run in the modern financial services industry. Over the last few years, both before the global financial crisis and, certainly, following it, a number of regulatory frameworks and rules have been put in place to provide some safeguards for people in their dealings with financial services companies. The credit unions will still be covered by all of those, but this bill will get rid of some of the complicated and difficult wording around the statutory objects of association that credit unions have to follow but other financial services institutions do not. For instance, it will reduce the number of union members required for an association of credit unions down from seven to two. That will make it easier for credit unions to maintain their operations and to continue serving their members.

Under the current Act credit unions have a very complex supervisory and oversight regime. Among other things, they have to have internal trustees—as one of my colleagues pointed out, not only a set of trustees to manage their financial assets but actually a separate trustee to take care of the operations of the union.

Another really odd piece—because, you know, credit unions are not-for-profit organisations, but are there for the benefit of their members. The customers are effectively owners and members of the credit union. There is this odd situation where a credit union is not permitted to lend directly to a business such as a small to medium sized enterprise (SME) that has a relationship to one of the members of that credit union. They get around this, or have got around this to date, by instead making the loan to the member of the credit union, who then has a second loan with that SME with which they have some relationship. Meanwhile, the credit union does hold collateral against both its own member and the SME that ultimately is, in effect, the recipient of the loan. That just seems absolutely bizarre, particularly when it is not a requirement that is imposed on other major trading banks.

So the measures that Mr Smith’s very good bill—and he is a very good member for Kaikōura, by the way—will put in place will actually serve to help credit unions to maintain a competitive position in what is a regulated but still very competitive marketplace. They are a significant contributor to our financial services industry. About 194,000 people are members of credit unions in New Zealand. They collectively hold assets of around $1.7 billion and are actually the sixth-largest financial transactor by volume. That is pretty substantial, I think, by anyone’s measure. Given that they transact that volume of business and given that they exist for the benefit of their members and are a non-profit financial services option for people to choose, I actually think it is a very, very good idea that we make sure that the legislation that governs them is actually keeping step with modern times and modern markets. I commend this bill to the House.

JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green): The Green Party is supporting this bill. I am a huge fan of credit unions. My grandfather was a member of a credit union. I have been a member of a credit union. They demonstrate just what can be achieved by a financial institution that is member-owned and democratically controlled, and, frankly, I think we need a lot more of that. Many people do not even realise that credit unions are an option for them, and this legislation will go some way to allowing credit unions to properly reach out to their potential members and let them know what financial services they can provide.

I congratulate the member Stuart Smith on bringing this bill before the House. It is wonderful that it was pulled from the ballot, but it is actually quite a travesty that it had to be brought in on a members’ day and not as part of the Government programme. I spoke to the credit unions and Co-op Money NZ some years ago, and they were asking for these changes. They were concerned, because they were talking with officials at the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment who had been looking at potential changes but had backed away from them.

I am glad that the member Stuart Smith did bring this before the House, but it should have been a priority for his Government. There is no reason why this should have to happen on a members’ day. It should have been a priority for the Government. I do not want to take up any more time on a members’ day, so I will sit down.

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you to the last member, Julie Anne Genter, for giving me an earlier start than planned. Thank you for that. Look, I would like to respond to a few things that have been said during this debate. This bill actually started life as a member’s bill. It ended up in the Regulatory Systems (Commercial Matters) Amendment Bill later on, and if members had taken the time to do the research they might have realised that, but anyway.

Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga was the member who put this bill up first. It was decided then to put it in this regulatory systems amendment bill. For the benefit of members who do not seem to be aware of this, there is a convention in the House, among other things, that that type of bill is to be non-controversial. But it turned out there were two credit unions at least—it may well have been three at that time—that had objections to provisions in the bill. Some of them still do. I, like the member, do look forward to that being aired in front of the select committee. We will get the bottom of all of those issues at that time. I have spoken to those credit unions and I understand their issues with the bill. I do not agree with them, but I do understand them, and I welcome the opportunity—in fact, I took the bill out of the ballot until I had more information and then I put it back in so that I ensured I knew what I was talking about at the time. I respect their opinion; I just do not happen to agree with it. When it was taken out of that bill, I willingly picked it up.

It is something I really believe in. I think this bill is actually about the little guys. This is about people who are members of credit unions, and the provision to allow small and medium enterprises to borrow money from credit unions and allow credit unions to lend directly to them is actually really important. You can imagine someone who has a lawnmowing business, for instance, who is a member of a credit union and who is used to dealing with the credit union on a day-to-day basis. They will now be able to carry out their business banking with the credit unions.

There are lots of good reasons why you would want to do that, but one of them—which I am sure very few of us in the House realise at all—is that very shortly, Co-op Money will have its Oracle Flexcube installed and up and running. It will be the only financial institution in the country that will have a tier one, state-of-the-art banking platform to operate from—the only one in the country. All of the trading banks will not have that, but it does, so it is leading the banking sector.

I also go along with a lot of the sentiment of other speakers in the House around the fact that this is a smaller part of the banking sector and is less complicated. There are no financial engineered instruments that the credit unions use, unlike other banks, so it is a much simpler process. It is, essentially, money in and money out. You know what you are getting, and I think that is fantastic. In fact, if there was a bit more of that in New Zealand, I do not think that would be a bad thing at all.

It brings much-needed competition into the banking sector in New Zealand, and I would be hopeful that more New Zealanders would consider using the credit union sector as a very serious part of their banking operation. I think it is something like $800 million that the credit unions are lending out. It is not small beer at all, but it is something really well worth considering, I believe. I think the ability to take the trustees out of the system to make it a much less complex and less costly operation for credit unions to organise their internal structures is a really good thing, and it is much needed for the credit union sector.

I would like to finish by going back to the beginning. It seemed like a number of the speakers in the beginning were really barely veiling their envy at a complex bill that is actually making a real difference. It started life as a member’s bill, it is going through the House as a member’s bill, and I understand that when you have a one-page bill that you could drive a bus through, for us to have something that has got 35 pages of complex legislation, it is something those members grapple with. You know, one day, in perhaps 20 years, if they ever have the opportunity of being in Government, they will realise that what is actually needed is well-drafted legislation. Thank you.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Finance and Expenditure Committee.

Bills

Electoral (Registration by Special Vote) Amendment Bill

First Reading

MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare, tēnā koe. Otirā, e ngā members of Te Whare nei, tēnā tātou katoa. I move, That the Electoral (Registration by Special Vote) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Justice and Electoral Committee to consider the bill. Often we have members of Parliament who can go through their time in this House without having the privilege of having a member’s bill drawn under their name. I am proud, as the member for Ikaroa-Rāwhiti, that this is not the first bill that I have had drawn, but, actually, my second bill, and I do hope that the support of the Government in terms of my first bill is also realised in the introduction of this bill.

I am proud to nominate this bill, the Electoral (Registration by Special Vote) Amendment Bill, and the aim of this bill is to amend the Electoral Act 1993 to allow unregistered voters to register by completing a special vote. Voter participation in our general elections is too low, and Labour is committed to lifting it. The bill amends the Electoral Act 1993 to allow unregistered voters to register by completing a special vote and so ensure that their votes are counted. In the last 30 years, there has been a general decline in voter turnout over time, with the lowest percentage of people voting occurring within the last two election cycles, 2011 and 2014. Roughly a million people did not show up to vote in the 2014 election, making it one of New Zealand’s worst turnouts in the last century.

The Ministry of Social Development’s Social Report 2016 says that voter turnout rates as an indicator of the confidence the population has in political institutions, the importance they attach to them, and the extent to which they feel their participation can make a difference. It is vital for a healthy democracy that we lift voter participation, and it is also vital that we do what we can to remove current impediments to voter participation where they serve no use other than to fulfil bureaucratic requirements.

Democracy will be enhanced under this bill, as unregistered voters will be able to register by completing a special vote. For various reasons, someone may choose to complete a special vote—which involves submitting their details and signing a statutory declaration in front of a witness—unaware that they are not enrolled to vote. In this case, the elector will receive a letter from the Electoral Commission advising them that their vote did not count and requesting that they now enrol by submitting the same details they provided when they cast their special vote. Not only has their vote been disallowed but an opportunity to engage the elector in the political process has been lost. The elector must also duplicate the paperwork necessary for their enrolment.

The 2014 election saw an upsurge in the number of special votes cast, the total number of special votes disallowed, and the percentage disallowed due to non-enrolment. There were 331,000 special votes cast in 2014. Of the special votes cast at the last election, 27,467 were disallowed because the voter was not enrolled at all. The Electoral Commission has projected that in 2017’s general election, 35,000 people who cast special votes will be disqualified because they will not be enrolled at all. The commission projects a further 53,000 voters in this year’s election will have their party vote counted but their candidate vote disqualified because (a) they are not enrolled in the correct electorate, or (b) they will vote in the wrong electorate because they have failed to understand which electorate they were enrolled in.

An analysis of the Te Tai Tokerau judicial recount indicated that some voters whose votes had been disallowed because they were not enrolled had completed special vote declarations at previous elections. The commission surmises that these voters thought that completing a special vote declaration would mean they would be enrolled. With both enrolment and voting now being delivered by a single agency, and because both forms require similar details from the elector, the commission suggests legislative change that enables a special vote to be treated as an application to enrol or update details. This will also serve to streamline the enrolment and voting process during the advance voting period.

This bill will enhance democracy in New Zealand by ensuring those whose voices would otherwise not be heard are engaged in the political process and have their votes counted. This amendment to the Electoral Act will enact recommendations made by the Electoral Commission and enable tens of thousands more Kiwis to participate in our democratic process. Increased voter participation is vitally important if voters are to elect a Parliament that is truly representative of our communities. This bill will also create efficiencies and will eliminate wasteful red tape in our electoral system by treating a special vote as an application to enrol or update details.

I want to thank the Labour Party’s submission to the inquiry of the electoral subcommittee into 2014, and I particularly want to acknowledge our deputy leader and colleague, Jacinda Ardern, who took our views to that subcommittee, and is very much part and parcel of this bill being presented tonight. I do look forward to the Government’s support for this bill. For me, it is completely apolitical, it is fully non-controversial, and it is something that all Kiwis will benefit from. I also look forward to the support of the Māori Party for this bill. In the 2014 election more than 3 percent of all votes cast in Māori electorates were disallowed as they were invalid special votes. In the last two elections more than 8,600 Māori voters have had their votes disallowed as they were invalid special votes. Māori know that we desperately need to increase our participation in the electoral system, yet the current barriers in place are already suppressing a significant number of Māori votes. For democracy, for representation in this House, I commend this bill to the House.

JONO NAYLOR (National): It is with a certain sense of déjà vu that I find myself standing to speak to this member’s bill. Not so long ago, we passed the Electoral Amendment Act and brought into force a number of recommendations that came forward after the Justice and Electoral Committee had gone through quite a long process of picking apart the 2014 election. We heard from many different submitters, and we heard a whole bunch of things that people thought perhaps could be brought into play for the 2017 election and beyond, so we brought forward a bill that contained a number of amendments to the Electoral Act. Some of those amendments were significant improvements; for example, around clarity around advertising at advance polling booths—we set a parameter inside of which it would be inappropriate to campaign. We brought forward some amendments regarding standardising exactly when signage would be able to be put up at election time.

There was a particular look at the electoral roll, actually, and we had quite a long discussion about access to the electoral roll. One of those discussions was around who it was who would have access to the electronic version of the electoral roll. We had ideas put forward that perhaps the intelligence agencies might have access to that. We kind of batted that around, looked, and decided that the electoral roll was actually something that was quite important and quite significant to New Zealand, so we said that there should not be any changes as to who should have access to the electronic version of the electoral roll. In doing so, what I think was really interesting about that conversation about the electoral roll was the importance that it has, not simply just for general electoral purposes. In fact, the electoral roll is actually important to a number of other organisations, who use the statistical data from it. The information is valuable to political parties during an election time in terms of scrutineering, in terms of identifying where voters may or may not be, and also for local government purposes, which of course happen outside of the normal general election cycle.

It was with a certain level of trepidation that the committee and then the House decided that they would not necessarily want to tinker too much with that. A proposal was brought forward that, perhaps, some should be allowed to register to vote by way of a special vote on election day, and that was rejected by the committee. I recall that it was actually brought forward by a Supplementary Order Paper at the Committee stage, and was again rejected at that point. So here we are, finding ourselves a few short months—or maybe it is even weeks—later, debating this again.

When I saw that this had come up, I thought: “Aha! There must be some new information that has come to light that we did not have before us when we first heard this.” I listened intently to the speech from the sponsoring member, Meka Whaitiri, for that new piece of information—that new “Aha!” moment that said something has changed that warrants this House going back around the mulberry bush again, spending its valuable time to revisit an issue that was a decision made a very short time ago. I did not hear it. I did not hear any argument that had not already been put forth at either the select committee stage, or the Committee of the whole House, or at the first, second, or third reading of the electoral amendment legislation. But here we are. We are around the mulberry bush again. If we are just going to rehash the same old arguments, I guess we will just have to do that again now.

Why is it that we have an electoral roll? I think it is a really important question that we ask, because this piece of legislation that has been proposed ultimately undermines the value of the electoral roll in New Zealand. If we say to people that they can just rock up on the day and cast their votes, there is no need for them to actually go to the effort of enrolling in the first place. In the first election, we might not see much of a change. We might actually see, as the member has suggested, an increase in voter participation, because those people who have not enrolled will have their votes counted. But I will put dollars to doughnuts that over time, the number of people who actually choose to enrol will diminish, because word will get around that, actually, you do not need to bother to enrol; you just rock up on the day and you cast your vote.

I will tell you what I believe happens when people enrol. I know some people do not get around to it, but, quite frankly, I think one thing that the Electoral Commission does well—there are a number of things that it does very well, but, in particular, what it does very, very well is promote to New Zealanders, across all sorts of media: “An election is coming, are you enrolled?”. It sends out information, it asks whether you are enrolled, you get those packs in the mail if you are on mail, you see it on the TV, you hear it on the radio. You would have to be living under a rock, basically, to not know that there is an election going on when there is the little cartoon guy with the orange background running around saying: “Are you enrolled?”.

So people will slowly, as time goes by, enrol less and less often. I believe that enrolment is a very, very important part of the process. If people are so disengaged from the process that they do not get around to enrolling, what confidence can we have that they are actually engaging, listening to the comments that are around, and informing themselves in order to make an informed decision? It is absolutely somebody’s right to vote. I absolutely agree with the point that it is somebody’s right to vote, but in New Zealand we have a system that says you enrol to vote. I cannot understand, if the member is so committed to this idea, why she does not just scrap the enrolment altogether. But no—she still believes that enrolment is important, but she is just prepared to undermine the enrolment process.

There are some other points that make it very important that we actually get as many people enrolled beforehand as we can. It makes vote counting a lot simpler. On election night, what we want to have, for certainty for the country, is the most accurate—the most accurate—outcome that we can have on election night. Now, we always understand that there are special votes being counted, and things rearrange a little bit. The Greens, traditionally, get a little bit of a smile on their faces after the special votes have been counted, and, actually, we in National sort of get a little bit sad, because the last time around—I think the last two elections—we lost somebody after the election night, and the Greens have gone: “Yes. We’ve got an extra one.” But that variation is generally pretty small. And so in an MMP environment, when parties are trying to get into post-election negotiations over how to form a Government, the last thing we want is to increase the amount of special votes that are being cast and, therefore, create more uncertainty for a longer period of time after election night.

It is clear to me that, actually, despite the fact that on the first time up there might be increased participation—I believe that over time, this kind of thing will actually undermine the election process. If we need to work harder to get people enrolled earlier, then let us work harder to do that. If we need to work harder to get people engaged in the democratic process, then let us do that. But let us not just take a short-cut route. Let us not just take the easy way out that actually says: “Oh, let’s just make it really easy for them so that we don’t have to worry about it.”

Now, when we had this debate during the electoral amendment legislation, a member from the other side accused us of simply voting for this because, as he perceived, we were doing it because it would benefit our side of the House. The funny thing about that accusation is that at that point, that member, I believe, was admitting to himself and to this House that the only reason he was voting for it was that he believed it actually served his purposes better. You cannot make accusations without it coming around to face the other way as well.

There is no need for us to go around the mulberry bush again. We have done it once recently. I will not support this bill.

CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): It may be that that member, Jono Naylor, has to come back to the House tonight and apologise for undermining his own Government’s commitment to the Open Government Partnership, which is to allow participation, encourage participation, and provide for the engagement of the citizens of this country, to enable them to participate in democracy.

What he has put up is a case for putting up more barriers—and not just putting up more barriers; he has justified putting up more barriers. “They should be disengaged if they cannot be bothered to enrol.”, he says to this House. Well, that goes to the very heart of the utter core differences between the National Government, which is anti-democratic, and the Labour Party, which is fundamentally about all people being able to participate in society, and not putting up barriers to people.

What about the 40,000 homeless people in New Zealand? How are they going to vote on election day? They are going to be disenfranchised from their democratic right to vote if they have to cast a special vote because their details are not right on the electoral roll or they are not on the electoral roll. That is what we are discussing in this House today.

This is a democratic bill that Meka Whaitiri has put up. She has put it up to try to correct an utter anti-democratic act by this Government in blocking the enablement of more people in New Zealand to be able to participate in the New Zealand elections. And yet the Government is a signatory to the Open Government Partnership. It is absolutely in black and white that a Government that is a signatory has to provide better means for people to participate in their democracy. So that is why that member needs to come back to the House and apologise before the night is out, because he has fundamentally gone against that.

For his edification, the legislation that was recently passed was the Broadcasting (Election Programmes and Election Advertising) Amendment Bill, and the Electoral Amendment Bill, which came out of the Justice and Electoral Committee inquiry into the 2014 election. There were 28 recommendations that came out of that inquiry. This Government has implemented only 12 of them. What it did say, though, was that it would possibly look at other measures. Well, from listening to that member tonight, they are off the table. They are off the table. And any other National Government member who gets up to speak on this bill needs to clarify the position of the Government on this. Is the Government going to look at this in the future, or is it off the table, as that member has said?

I want to show you a graph. I am sure the people of New Zealand watching this at home can see the blue parts of this graph. The blue parts of this graph go back to 2005, and the circled bit here is 2014. The graph shows the number of people who were disenfranchised at the last election. On election day there were 27,000 people who turned up to vote, who were not on the electoral roll, who cast a special vote, and whose special votes were not counted in the election either because they were not on the electoral roll or their details were different from the details they had previously provided. The estimation is—as you can see—that that graph is going to go up to 35,000 people. It may even go up further.

This is the party for participation; that is the party for exclusion. This is the party for all of us; that is the party for a few. This is the party for enfranchisement and enablement; that is the party for disenfranchisement. This is the party for streamlining and simplifying and making processes easy; that is the party of confusing and deliberate attempts to disenfranchise a part of the community that it knows is unlikely to vote for it. That is why it is blocking them from having access to democracy.

PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): In following on from that hectoring lecture from Clare Curran, the poor man’s Diane Abbott, I want to respond by saying that this is the party that has been doing such good work in enabling New Zealanders to come and electronically enrol by implementing the RealMe system—by rolling that out. It has never been easier to do the right thing and fulfil your obligations and your responsibilities as a New Zealand citizen by identifying yourself online and enrolling properly on the electoral roll. I think there is harm in this bill. I do want to commend the member Meka Whaitiri for, I think, a well-intentioned bill, but there are not only moral hazards but practical issues with the measures that she proposes.

The electoral roll is an important—in fact, fundamental—part of our voting system in New Zealand. We are among the most liberal jurisdictions in the world, in that we do not close the rolls many weeks before a general election, as they do, sometimes for practical concerns, in some parts of the world, where you have printed rolls as your main means of registering people—then there is a practical reason you need to close the roll. But I think having a roll that is not simply a self-determined one on the day by turning up in the ballot booth is important, and it is important that we preserve the integrity of that roll and actually encourage New Zealanders to fulfil their obligations. They have an absolute right to cast their vote, but let us not forget that there is a legal responsibility and an obligation in this country to register on the electoral roll.

If you are not registered on the electoral roll, you will not receive the published booklets and literature that are issued prior to a general election. So we are actually saying that you will turn up and vote on the day without having received any of the literature that is provided, and I think that is problematic. The Electoral Commission coordinates and compiles lists of, for instance, the party lists. This might be information that people have not yet seen through the media, through online browsing, or through going to the parties’ websites—

Denis O’Rourke: This is waffle. It’s not literature. The member’s waffling. Give us a good reason.

PAUL FOSTER-BELL: —because not every member of the general public is as politically obsessed and politically aware as members of this House.

Denis O’Rourke: Stop waffling and give us a good reason.

PAUL FOSTER-BELL: And if Mr O’Rourke ceases his incessant heckling and actually turns his ears on, he might actually have some intelligent remarks to make to my comments.

Also, I think there is a significant problem in the signal this sends to people, which is that it is OK not to fulfil something that is currently a legal obligation—to be registered as a voter—and we know that it would create significant difficulties in increasing the number of unregistered voters to be processed. That could lead to significant issues on election night and the days and weeks after an election, when we will have a number of seats where it could be quite unclear who the winner was on the night. We have that as it is, but this could become a significantly larger issue when we come to coalition negotiations and those other very important parts of the political process that we have under MMP.

It is far better that there is a comprehensive roll and that people cast their vote and those are counted, where possible, on the night, and there are obvious exceptions—those votes that are cast in our missions overseas, at high commissions, consulates, and embassies; votes cast in hospitals; votes cast by members of the military. It is important that those people who are serving the country in those capacities, in particular, have the right to have their views heard. We accept that there is an administrative burden in allowing those votes to be cast in that way and counted in that way. However, if every single person who turned up to the ballot box and cast their vote without having been properly enrolled—that is, if more votes become special votes because of this perverse incentive that has been created—I think that would be highly problematic for counting the votes.

I am not entirely convinced that it would lead to a massive, sudden increase in turnout. We know that there is something special about our voting system in New Zealand. We know that if you go to a postal ballot, there is significantly less public interest and lower turnout, as is demonstrated in local body elections. We know that in countries that have tried an electronic system for voting—

Denis O’Rourke: Irrelevance. Irrelevant to this bill.

PAUL FOSTER-BELL: —this lowers the value. It certainly lowers the public perception of the integrity of the vote, and this was the case, Mr O’Rourke, in Scandinavia, in Norway, where a trial of electronic voting was so unacceptable and so disastrous that they overturned that and they have actually gone back to a system much closer to the paper-based system we have. This is a well-intentioned bill, but it would not achieve what it wants to achieve, and I think it should be voted down.

DAVID CLENDON (Green): I am pleased to stand to inform the House the Greens will be supporting this bill, and doing so quite willingly. We think it is a useful addition to our electoral law. It will achieve some good outcomes. It is disappointing that the National Government has seen fit not to even allow this to go to a select committee. I have to say that when our friend Mr Foster-Bell uses an absurd argument to oppose the bill, it suggests that even with National’s second speaker it is scratching the bottom of the barrel to find a reason to oppose the legislation. The notion that everybody will suddenly not bother to register to vote but will just all turn up, 3 million - odd of us, without having registered—I do not think that is a very profound or a very sound objection to the legislation. Similarly, Mr Naylor in his contribution seemed to imply that if someone is not on the roll, does not bother to get on the roll, then somehow they are not deserving of a vote. I think that is a very slippery slope indeed. What is next? Shall we have some sort of a qualifying exam before we allow people to vote? That has been done in some countries in the past, and it is a very unfortunate proposition, I think.

This National Government is almost becoming a bit of a serial offender in terms of disenfranchising people or apparently being unwilling to maximise the number of people who can vote. We know that this year there will be in excess of 10,000 people who will not be able to vote simply because they are in prison, and that is a direct result of a very unfortunate member’s bill passed in the last term of Government by a National member. We know that that blanket banning of prison inmates from voting is inconsistent with our own New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, unjustifiably so. We know that because the High Court has said so, and, more recently, the Court of Appeal has said so, and I hope the National Government will think long and hard on that. When our Court of Appeal agrees that a particular legislative provision around voting is inconsistent with our own New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, it should think long and hard about reversing that legislation.

But to return to this bill, I believe the purpose of this bill is twofold. The issue around special voting I think is genuinely confusing to some people. The Electoral Commission’s report implied that some people actually think that turning up on the day and doing a special vote does also enrol them. Unfortunately, that is not true, but it would be good if it were true. There will certainly be a very small number of people who might simply not bother to enrol on that basis, but I think that number would be vanishingly small. The cost of validating their votes after the election day would be minimal in terms of the value of actually having people participate in the electoral process.

The other major point, of course, is to increase turnout. Turnout fluctuates from election to election, but the trend in recent decades has certainly been going downward. In only one election in the last several decades—in fact, since 2004 only once have we got above the 80 percent barrier, where in previous decades New Zealanders turned out to vote in much larger numbers. It is a somewhat worrying trend. Anything we can do to encourage and enable voting has to be a good thing if you believe in participatory democracy. If you look at all the OECD countries, the countries we commonly compare ourselves with, in terms of voting turnout we are about halfway down the list. Our friends across the Tasman rate very highly, with something often in excess of 90 percent turning out to vote. It would be a good thing if we could get closer to emulating that. Anything we can do to increase turnout, to engage more people in voting, and to make it easier for people to considering voting a good habit—something they should do and will continue to do—I think would be a useful thing to do, and this bill does facilitate that, at least a little bit.

I came across an interesting piece of information along the way of reading about some of this. New Zealand at one time had a Second Ballot Act, at the beginning of last century. This meant that in electoral contests candidates had to get an absolute majority. If nobody got that in the first round of voting, there was a run-off between the top two. It occurred to me that it actually might have some legs, some value, to reconsider something like that. For the moment, though, limiting ourselves to this, the Greens are happy to support this legislation.

CHRIS BISHOP (National): Well, it is slightly strange that David Clendon criticised my colleague Paul Foster-Bell for making what he described as terrible arguments in the second National speech on the bill, while the member who has just resumed his seat finished his speech by talking about how we should introduce alternative vote into the New Zealand political and electoral system. Given even he cannot bring himself to make any arguments in favour of the bill, I think that says quite a lot about the merits of the particular proposal we are talking about.

The critical issue with this bill is what the purpose is of an electoral roll. Why do we have the electoral roll? I would put it to the House that there are three very good reasons why we have an electoral roll. First, it is to allow political parties and third parties to furnish members of the public who are enrolled on the roll with information and content that is relevant to them about the upcoming election, about the things that the party stands for, and about the things that individual candidates stand for. That is very important. Secondly, it is to enable the Electoral Commission to furnish voters with information, to send out the EasyVote cards, to tell them where the polling places are, to tell them when the election day actually is, and to do all of the things that the Electoral Commission, very rightly, does. Thirdly—and this is important as well—we have a roll so that we know that people who are entitled to vote do vote and that people who are not entitled to vote cannot vote. That is actually really important, otherwise we would just let anyone turn up with ID and say “I’m over 18 and I’m entitled to vote.” You know, we have a roll for a reason, because we have restrictions around who can vote in New Zealand and who cannot vote.

Given we have the roll, the question is: should we get people on to the roll so that we can fulfil all of those important functions? Should we get as many people on to the roll as we can so that parties can communicate with them, so that the Electoral Commission can communicate with them, and so that interested observers and people who are interested in the credibility of our electoral process can scrutinise the roll? The answer is absolutely yes. And what does this bill do? Well, it completely diminishes the utility and the importance of getting on the roll, because what it says is that you can rock up on election day itself, and you can simultaneously or at least contemporaneously vote and enrol yourself at the same time. It absolutely diminishes the incentive for anyone during the non-political campaign period to enrol themselves and to get that information and to make sure that they receive information during the 3-year parliamentary term.

It is not just in the campaign period when political parties and candidates want to communicate with voters; it is during the 3-year period that Parliament is sitting. It is what MPs do with parliamentary funding to communicate with voters. It is what every MP—or, at least, I hope every MP—does in this House. So we have to make sure, and we have to send the message to people: get on the roll. It is really important for scrutiny, for communication purposes, and for the reasons I have just outlined. What this bill does is send the message that you do not need to do that—that, basically, it is OK just to turn up at any old time on election day and enrol.

You have got 364 days of the year to enrol. We now let you do it during the advance voting period, and, actually, there are arguments, I think, to be fair, about whether or not that is a wise thing to do, because for a lot of first-time voters, the evidence tends to suggest—for a lot of first-time enrollers and first-time voters—that they are waiting till the advance vote period opens to enrol and then vote. And, actually, that means that for the other 2 years and 9 months when the parliamentary process is ongoing, they are not on the roll and they cannot be communicated with, because of political parties. So there is, I think, a legitimate question around whether or not that was a good idea, but that is the way the law works now.

The question, really, for this House is whether we should extend that step even further and say that not only can you enrol during the advance voting period, but you can enrol on election day itself. My view—my personal view, and the view of the National Party, actually—is that that would be a retrograde step, for the reasons I have just outlined, and also because of the complications it would introduce on voting day. Voting day is for people to turn up and vote. It is not for people to rock up and enrol at the same time. In fact, the Electoral Commission staff are not competent or qualified to deal with both things at the same time. I do not mean competent in an intellectual sense; I mean institutionally competent to deal with it. It would introduce extraordinary complications. There are 364 days to enrol; people should do it on those days, not on—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! The member’s time has expired.

DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): New Zealand First will support this bill, and with some enthusiasm because New Zealand First wants to enhance democracy, whereas the National Government wants to restrict it. National wants to restrict applications to enrol, especially on polling day, even if the person concerned is entitled to enrol and entitled to vote. It will not accept a special vote as a valid application to enrol. All of that is wrong.

The reason why the National Government takes the position it has is it says there are issues about security and there are issues about the integrity of the roll, whatever that might mean. Apparently, there would not be enough time to check validity, but that is not a valid consideration, since, in fact, all that happens with any ordinary application for enrolment is that there is complete reliance on the statutory declaration to say that “the facts I give here about name and address and so on are correct”. There would be absolutely no difference between that and doing this on election day as part of a special voting process—no difference whatsoever. So that argument does not really work.

All this bill actually does, when you think about it, is allow polling day enrolment—and why not? Why not? Why is that different than any other day? You should be able to enrol as a voter on any day of the week. There is no reason why not. Secondly, it uses a special vote application, 2B, which is also an application for enrolment—again, why not? There is exactly the same information contained in both processes—special voting and an application to enrol—so why duplicate it? Why not allow both on one piece of paper, to be processed straight away, given that it relies entirely on a declaration?

Now, the speakers opposite have said that one of the reasons why they will not support this is what they call perverse incentive—that is what Paul Foster-Bell said. What he means is that people might wait until election day to enrol instead of doing it before then. Well, actually, I do not think many people in this country would want the hassle of having to do a special vote on election day if they could have enrolled a long time before that. Almost everybody will want to do that. Paul Foster-Bell is talking utter rubbish, and he ought to know it, because the rest of the population does.

The other reasons given were those given by the last speaker, Chris Bishop. He talked about information being required. Nobody needs information to vote. Nobody needs information to enrol. Information is nice, but it is not necessary. The right to vote is paramount and much more important than those minor considerations.

It is a common-sense matter and a democratic matter to allow enrolment and voting at the same time. There is absolutely no reason why that should not happen, and, as I have said, it is all a matter of correct information that is verified by a statutory declaration, not by any process of checking that goes on, because that does not really happen anyway. People believe that if they cast a special vote, then it will count, because they believe they will have applied to be on the electoral roll at the same time. Try to tell anyone in the public why that should not happen—it just does not make sense. This is a common-sense bill, and it should be supported for that reason alone.

The effect, by the way, is something that National should want. The effect will be to add thousands of people to the roll who would not otherwise make it—people entitled to enrol and entitled to vote. Why would National want to stop people who are entitled to enrol and entitled to vote? Ask it that question, and let us hear a more decent answer, rather than the absolute nonsense we have heard so far from the other side of the House.

MAUREEN PUGH (National): I stand to speak to the Electoral (Registration by Special Vote) Amendment Bill tonight in its first reading. I am a member of the Justice and Electoral Committee, which I joined in 2016, and every 3 years this committee undertakes a review of the general election. It is a public process, it is advised by the Electoral Commission, and it is open to submissions from the general public. The last review was initiated on 30 October 2014, 1 month following the last general election, and the submissions to that process closed in March 2015. The feedback from the hearings was worked on for over a year by that select committee, and the findings were reported to this House last year in April. There were quite a few recommendations that came out of that process.

One of the issues highlighted in the review was that the availability of the roll is important to ensure its integrity, and we heard that late enrolment would, in fact, prevent effective scrutiny of that roll. It could affect how we even deal with fraudulent voting. We do not like to think that that is a possibility, but we need to protect the roll in that case. In the open democracy that we live in here in New Zealand, we cannot afford to do anything that would compromise the integrity of the voting system that we have in place. It works well, and the review is conducted after every general election. That ensures that the details that are thoroughly investigated as an outcome of that review and the learnings from the previous election are fed through, considered, and acted upon where appropriate.

The advance voting system is relatively new to this country. I would just like to read a section from the report that I think is valuable to this debate: “The commission advised us that because of the numbers potentially involved, it would not be confident it could validate election day special vote enrolment applications with integrity without delaying the official count. The commission instead recommended that the question of whether election day special vote enrolment applications could be included in the official count should be reconsidered for the 2020 election in light of lessons learnt in 2017.” It is clear that we are going to be looking at the results of the 2017 election, and that will feed through to a further review on advance voting and enrolment. Thank you.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

GARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora, Mr Deputy Speaker. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou, kia ora. I am disgusted—disgusted—with what we are seeing tonight, which is National members who care more about the electoral roll than about New Zealanders voting. At a time when we have got the lowest voting in absolute generations, and when the second-biggest party in this Parliament would be “did not vote at the last election”, National is voting against making it easier to vote. I am disgusted with the arguments we have heard tonight, because they are all in electoral and political self-interest, not in the national interest. I am rising to support this bill, but disgusted with what we are seeing tonight.

Outside this Chamber is a giant painting of the Glorious Revolution. In the middle of this Table is the Mace, the symbol of when once upon a time the Speaker’s representative of Parliament in the UK had his head lopped off for exercising the right to vote. At a time when we know throughout history and even today people are beaten and killed trying to exercise the right to vote, National wants to make it harder for 27,000 Kiwis to exercise their right to play their part in the democratic process.

I want to say thank you to Meka Whaitiri for putting this bill to Parliament. I want to say thank you for standing up for the 27,000 Kiwis who last election went to the ballot box, cast their vote, filled in the forms for a special vote, but then got a letter in the mail from the Electoral Commission saying: “I’m sorry, your vote didn’t count.” Can you imagine how that would feel? It may be the first time in your life that you have gone to a ballot booth to vote, and then you get that letter in the mail. No wonder so many people are not voting. No wonder so many people will not vote again. This bill is about making it easier. It is about making it easier for Māori, when we know that in the Māori electorates 3 percent, in fact, got that letter in the mail because they were turned away from voting. We have a massive voting problem—a massive democratic deficit in New Zealand. We should be discussing how to make it easier, not harder, and my fear is tonight that because of the National Party we are going to be making it harder.

It must have been incredibly hard in the National caucus room to come up with arguments—“How do we argue in Parliament against enfranchising voters?”. Well, they literally scraped the barrel with their arguments. Mr Naylor came out and said “Well, look, quite frankly”—and to paraphrase—“if you can’t be bothered to enrol you shouldn’t deserve to vote.” Then Paul Foster-Bell came out and said: “But if you are not on the roll you are not going to get the literature.” What literature? All the information about where to vote and the ballot box is all online. That must be the weakest argument I have ever heard for stopping making it easier for people to vote—because they are going to miss out on some literature.

Then Mr Bishop came out and said: “Well, we need the electoral roll because parties need to be able to send letters outside of the election.” We all know what Mr Bishop means—these faux surveys, right, where political parties use the electoral roll to harvest the contact data of Kiwis. That was the reason, blunt and frank from Mr Bishop’s own lips. I think that proves if you can argue for the tobacco industry you can argue for almost any issue in this House. What we heard from all the National speakers was that they cared more about “the sanctity and the integrity of the electoral roll” than actually voting. They care more about a bit of paper—the roll—than electors, the people of New Zealand who want to cast their ballot. That is why I say I am disgusted, without exaggeration.

Let us look at the track record. We see in the previous Parliament this Government disenfranchised 10,000 New Zealanders currently in prisons from being able to vote. I believe every New Zealander, no matter where they are, should be able to vote. This is the Government that sacked democratically elected councils in Canterbury. This is the Government that does electoral deals to rort the mixed-member proportional system to get their zombie parties in. This is the Government with the worst ever abuse of the Official Information Act in our country’s history, and it had the gall to say efficient light bulbs were nanny State. You want to see nanny State? You will see councils being sacked, Kiwis disenfranchised, and abuses of official information.

But it does not have to be this way. I am proud that the Green Party will be voting for this bill. We believe we should be making it easier for Kiwis to vote. We want to see people not go into the booth and cast one vote but vote the next time and the time after. We want them to tell their friends to care about what is happening in their country and exercise their right, which we saw people around the world throughout history, and even today, die to exercise. I believe we can promote voting. I believe we could see civics education in schools. I also believe we should consider lowering the voting age, because this democracy is bigger than all of us in this House.

ALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa): Well, that last speaker, Gareth Hughes, completely got the messages wrong, made a huge drama, and the dramatic notion of not being able to vote is just not right. Anyone in this country can vote and is entitled to vote. They need to be enrolled. That is all they have to do. They have to take some personal responsibility and get themselves enrolled, put themselves on the roll—simple as that.

So let us be clear—most people are capable and do just that. This inquiry into the 2014 general election is a very good read and traverses exactly the issue that Meka Whaitiri is raising today. It is clear that it does not recommend that people should be able to enrol on voting day. I think there are a couple of issues here; there are two issues. There is the ability to vote, and there is the roll and the role of the roll—if I can use the two words together—in the election process.

It is important that the roll is accurate. It is important that the roll is accurate for the purposes that have been traversed by both sides of the House. I would like to pick up on one point that Mr Bishop said. Arguably, we should not be able to enrol a day before the election—or 2 days, 3 days, or 4 days before the election—because the accuracy of the roll may not be as accurate as it could be or should be. I accept and agree with Mr Bishop on that point. Therefore, to be able to enrol on election day goes against the purposes of the electoral roll for the purpose of this bill.

I see what the member is trying to do in getting more people to vote, to get them enrolled as late as possible so that they can vote, but I think the means is incorrect. If we want to have everyone vote, why not suggest a member’s bill that makes it compulsory to vote? Perhaps that is the answer. That would have been more useful. And I am not advocating that, but to me that would be a much more useful discussion around how we are to get a high participation rate in our general elections; other countries do it.

Over 90 percent of us are enrolled to vote—so most of us are enrolled to vote. About 80 percent of us do vote. So just because you are enrolled on the ballot does not mean you are going to exercise your right to vote. There was said in a discussion that 27,000-odd people thought that they could vote because they enrolled on the day. To me, those 27,000 people should have listened to all the adverts, taken their personal responsibility seriously, and got themselves enrolled on the roll. That is the key to it.

I think there are better ways to ensure people do participate, education being the primary motive, to make sure people are enrolled, but to say, as the Green Party member said, that we are hindering people, we are trying to slow people down, disabling them to exercise their vote is just a total nonsense—a total nonsense. As I say, they are able to enrol; it is very simple. At the moment they can enrol up to the day before election day. So there really is no excuse to be able to rock up on election day to say: “Oh, I forgot to enrol. I am still entitled to vote.” Well, I am sorry, that is not the case. To be entitled to vote you must be on the roll. I think it is very simple to do so. The little orange man comes round and there is a hell of a lot of stuff that goes into your letterbox.

There are some very good other recommendations in this report regarding those people who change—

Pita Paraone: So what if they become eligible on the day of the vote?

ALASTAIR SCOTT: Good point. Or people who are not in their electorate, or who have changed address prior to the election. There are more efficient ways of dealing with that, which are recommendations in the report. So those things are positive and they will make the system more efficient and effective. But to enable people to special vote on the day and enrol completely goes against the purpose of the roll, and confuses the purpose of the roll with the person’s right to vote.

Pita Paraone: So the moral of the story is hope that your birthday does not fall on the day of the vote.

ALASTAIR SCOTT: So the moral of the story is to ensure that you are enrolled before election day.

MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Just in response to that last speaker, Mr Scott, 27,000 people voted—27,000 people on election day in 2014 went to vote and to do what every other New Zealander did throughout the election period last election. There were 27,000 people who cast a special vote, on the understanding that their vote would count, and, of course, it did not. It did not.

This bill, despite what the members on the Government benches are saying, is not going to create anarchy. People are not going to jump off the electoral roll and leave it until the last day to rock on up, as many of those members have said, on election day to cast their vote. We are talking about 27,000 people who did that for the last election.

Can I remind the House of the reasons why I gave those 27,000—and there are multiple reasons why 27,000 people in the last election cast a special vote, on the understanding that it would be counted. I gave a couple of reasons. One is that they may have been enrolled in the wrong electorate. They may have voted in the wrong electorate because they failed to understand which electorate they were enrolled in. There could have been some reason that I do not know—maybe they had no fixed abode; maybe they were homeless. Maybe they were part of the 40,000 people in this country who have no fixed abode, which is an issue when you go and register. “What’s your address?”. “Well, I’m actually sleeping in the car—oh no, no, hold on, I’m sleeping in a garage. Oh no, I’m in a crowded place.”

Let us bring up the whole core problem with this bill that the Government is creating. There were 27,000 people who went to the polling booths in 2014 to exercise their right to vote by casting a special vote, and there are multiple reasons why people found themselves there. This is not an open slather for every man and their dog to give up enrolling through the normal process and leave it for the last day.

I want to just go through some of the comments that the National members contributed in this debate. Jono Naylor talked about how this bill undermines the electoral process—that, all of a sudden, people will disregard the electoral enrolling process and just turn up on the day. Well, I was waiting for his evidence to show that that would happen. No, I did not hear it.

Then we went to Paul Foster-Bell, who talked about the “perverse incentive”. He talked about online voting and all these moral hazards, the practicality and the signal it will send, and the administrative burden. Again, he is creating a mountain out of a molehill—we are talking about 27,000 people. As the Electoral Commission said, the number could rise to 35,000 people. This bill would address the multiple reasons of New Zealanders all around this country who find themselves on election day unable to go through the proper process. This bill was to address that need.

Then we go to Mr Bishop, who talked about the importance of the roll, the information of parties, the Electoral Commission sending out stuff, and who can and cannot vote. If people can register and vote through early voting, then what I cannot understand is why this Government is so opposed to extending that to election day. I did not hear any justification or rationale as to why it thinks that this bill would not address the very issue that I have raised in my contribution.

There are 27,000 people, in a country that purports to support democracy—the very country that first gave women the vote. And when we are looking at those who, for whatever reason, cannot register in due course and want to vote on election day—this bill would enable them to practise their democratic right to vote. I am disappointed that the National Government has come up with very lame reasons as to why it is voting against it.

In the half a minute that I have got, can I please thank the parties whose members got up and spoke in support: the Greens and New Zealand First. I was hoping that the Māori Party members would come down and take a call, because, as I said in my opening speech, 8,600 Māori voters in 2014 were disallowed and this bill was going to address that. I was hoping that they would take a call. I want to thank all the parties that supported it. I was hoping to hear from the others. It is still a good bill. I present it and support it in this stage. Kia ora tātou.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Electoral (Registration by Special Vote) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 59

New Zealand Labour 31; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2.

Noes 60

New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Motion not agreed to.

Bills

International Transparent Treaties Bill

First Reading

FLETCHER TABUTEAU (NZ First): I move, That the International Transparent Treaties Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee to consider the bill. This bill was written in response to the fear, unease, and confusion of our times, in response to New Zealand’s worry and anger with an out-of-touch and arrogant Government. I speak, of course, about the 6 years of secret Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations and a signing that deliberately excluded the majority of New Zealanders and, in fact, excluded those whom we call their representatives.

For the spin acolytes across the side of the House there, before they start dribbling the words “anti-trade” and “build a wall”, I remind the National backbenchers that one of New Zealand First’s founding principles is to grow our country’s exports through trade and favourable fiscal and monetary settings that actually work for Kiwi business. The TPP and the Trans-Pacific Partnership 11 (TPP11) will not do that for our country. You will be aware that trade, in the sum of our economy, has actually gone backwards under this National Government. It was a bad deal when the United States was involved. It will be a bad deal without the United States.

The Government needs to let it go and work on real free-trade agreements so our exporters have open access and so they benefit from meaningful tariff reductions. We have recently seen the death of neo-liberalism and globalism—at least, I hope so, in its current form. Discussions over the decades have suggested that an unfettered globalist agenda without thought for the people they presume to represent would bring about its own demise. Yes, expanded global trade under an interventionist US Government in a post-war era has grown the world economy, and many of us have seen the benefit of that. But globalism, I put it to this House, has become the calling card of the global elite. Big business has hijacked trade, and now New Zealanders know it. As the Brexit vote highlighted, globalism in its current form must be considered dead, and yet most commentators and most economists have been blinded by the backlash.

In the late 1990s, it became clear to observers that deeper economic integration required harmonisation of laws and regulations across countries. Differences in rules on employment conditions, or product safety requirements, or the environment, for example, are deemed to be barriers to trade in this modern world. Indeed, as New Zealand First has always said, the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement (TPPA) was more about non-tariff barriers than it was about actually removing real tariff barriers for our exporters.

The consequences of these agreements often run counter to what the majority of the people actually want from their Government and for their country. Deeper integration, it was reckoned, will therefore either lead to an erosion of democracy—sound familiar—as national leaders disregard the will of the public, or cause the dissolution of the nation State, as authority moves to supranational bodies elected to create harmonised rules for everyone to follow. The example of that that we see in the world does not seem to be working particularly well either.

These trade-offs in these treaties create a trilemma. Societies cannot be globally integrated—

Hon David Bennett: That’s a big word.

FLETCHER TABUTEAU: Sorry, I will repeat that for Mr Bennett—a trilemma. Societies cannot be globally integrated, completely sovereign, and democratic. They can opt for only two of the three. Many international corporates and the servants of big business wagered that the sovereignty of nation States would be the item societies chose to disregard. It is now clear that the people of the world—

Hon David Bennett: Andrew Little’s Budget speech was better than this, mate.

FLETCHER TABUTEAU: —the people of New Zealand, Mr Bennett—cannot and will not forgo their sovereignty and their right to determine their own future, and that National Government sided with big business, and it did not side with the people of New Zealand. Tonight its members will not want to discuss a more open democracy in a more empowered House of Representatives. They will have us continue with their current undemocratic power base.

By way of example, Parliament was not informed about the contents of the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement when the executive signed it. Instead, we were told to trust them and were described as breathless children. New Zealanders were rightly insulted, and indeed infuriated. That was when tens of thousands of New Zealanders rose up in revolt. Kiwis protested up and down the country. They literally shut down Auckland in an incredible show of opposition to the signing of the TPPA.

International partnership agreements were at the forefront of our consciousness, and the Government did not want a bar of it. Our Parliament was officially informed only once the agreement had been signed, and even then we were not actually ratifying the treaty; we were ratifying supporting legislation. By goodness, were we shepherded in what that debate looked like in the House on those pieces of legislation. They were detailed and we were absolutely confined to the tedious law. We could not speak about what the enabling legislation meant for the rest of the country and what the trade deal meant for New Zealand.

The real difference between the current system and what my bill proposes is that Parliament will actually matter. The people of New Zealand want Parliament to matter. They want representatives to think about them and not just the international corporates. There are trade-offs in these agreements, and the National Government never looked beyond the infinitesimal benefits that were highly contested and highly debated—

Todd Muller: Come on! Passion, not volume—passion.

FLETCHER TABUTEAU: —just not in this House, Mr Muller. In fact, the New Zealand people wanted their representatives to care about New Zealand.

Outside of the Westminster jurisdiction, in the developed world, it has, basically, moved on. Across the world, we see a more democratic process, with greater restriction placed on the executive to enter into international treaties. Sweden, France, Ireland, Denmark, and the Netherlands are just a few examples of where parliaments must give approval for signing up to treaties. We should look to them, with the modern world, and cast off this antiquated anathema. Even within the TPP11, the zombie that the Government is trying to resurrect, we are on the negative side of the ledger. Japan, Malaysia, Chile, Mexico, Peru, Vietnam, and Brunei all require parliamentary approval for treaties.

New Zealand has a long tradition as an international player. It is a tradition we are proud of, but in this we have fallen behind the times. We will be seen as lacking in our democracy, and we will be tarnished for it. The system as it is absolutely fails when the executive signs New Zealand into treaties against the wishes of the New Zealand public. That is why parliamentary approval of treaties must be given before the executive signs us up. This Government has shown that public debate about, and the opposition to, international treaties does not matter to it one bit.

In our democracy, accountability matters. Not only did the TPPA take accountability away but so does the current outrageously outdated system that this Government so desperately clings to. This bill will allow New Zealanders to decide who is to be held accountable for the decisions made on their behalf. It will be clear, and it will be transparent when they go to the polling booths. Democracy and accountability must be at the core of good Government. Thank you.

TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): I rise to speak against the International Transparent Treaties Bill. Mr Tabuteau—dear, oh dear, oh dear. My 9-year-old told me a joke and said: “What’s an example of wasted energy? Telling a hair-raising story to a bald man.” This is even worse when it comes to wasted energy. In fact, to be honest, it is hard to know where to start.

Let us start with, firstly, an observation—that I would look at this and see it as so off beam that it borders almost on the bizarre. Firstly, let us create the scenario that this bill talks to. A trade Minister, who has worked on behalf of this Government, of this Parliament, of this country, negotiating, in many cases, for many, many years, often between Governments, across Governments, on behalf of New Zealand’s interests and trade interests—they are in a tight negotiation where they have had many wins and some compromises, and they get to the final point of the handshake. Yet now here what we are suggesting is that that trade Minister, before he or she can put their signature to the paper that sums up the collective effort of so many people, on behalf of exporters in this country, would have to say: “No, hang on a minute. I’ve got to stop now and I’ve got to run back to the Parliament of New Zealand and run it past them before we can sign it.”

Fletcher Tabuteau: Like half the developed world—more than half the developed world. That’s ridiculous.

TODD MULLER: That is absolutely ridiculous. Mr Tabuteau, you stand there and wave your flag and affiliation to anything with the Union Jack on it. You, understandably, underpin so much of New Zealand First’s constitution, as you have outlined. So all those other Westminster democracies, of which, in other contexts, you are so proud to say New Zealand First reflects the same traditions—when they have separations of powers, where you have the executive given the ability to go and negotiate on behalf of a Government, and then it brings back a negotiated text for the select committee to reflect on and report back to Parliament on, somehow you think that is a nonsense. Quite frankly, Mr Tabuteau, I think you have completely misplayed it here, in your suggested bill.

Can I just reflect for a moment on why we find ourselves reflecting on a bill so poorly constructed and really, I think, incredibly weak. It is based on a flawed perspective that somehow our treaty-making process is inherently covert, when the opposite is true—the complete opposite is true. We are extraordinarily transparent when the deal is secured. It seems to me that what New Zealand First wants to be is ringside at the negotiations and it wants its particular view of how trade deals should progress—or not progress, in the New Zealand First context. That is why it is putting this bill up in front of us here this evening.

It is so naive, in terms of the context around how trade deals are negotiated—this view that, somehow, you have got to have total visibility on how we are negotiating because anything other than that, Mr Tabuteau, is covert. I direct you to your general policy statement, which you did not even mention here in the conversation about this bill tonight: “Parliament or Select Committees do not have the right to examine and review the terms of international treaties before or during negotiation.” So your view, if I read this ill-considered bill that is in front of us tonight, is that you expect that you should be sitting there as the negotiations unfold and, worse than that, that there should be an open visibility from the New Zealand negotiators—up against all these other countries that have their own national interests that they are seeking to promote, protect, and enhance—that, somehow, our interests are best served by being completely open about what the New Zealand position is and being able to tell everyone here, back in New Zealand, as we negotiate through our position. It is naive, quite frankly, at a level that it is disturbing that we are even having to have this conversation this evening.

I think, in a very real sense, it is a window into the soul of New Zealand First, particularly in respect of how it views trade, how it views the world unfolding, and where it thinks New Zealand’s interests are best promoted. In fact, if you listen to its rhetoric, time and time again it is constantly suggesting that an integrated, harmonised global system is not the way of the future. Well, Mr Tabuteau, you go and talk to the exporters from Rotorua who go to your office and say: “I want the opportunity for non-tariff barriers to be removed to assist my kiwifruit, to assist my wood exporters.”

This is the whole purpose of this country: it is to sell value to the rest of the world; not to listen to your protectionist, “pull up the wall”, New Zealand First and New Zealand interests above all else. In my view, that is sounding somewhat analogous to some other administrations around the country that have pivoted to a more internal, more introspective view of the world that this party in particular does not believe serves the values of New Zealand families and exporters. Quite frankly, it is a disgrace that we should be having to have a conversation this evening on a bill so poorly thought-out as the one that we have here.

I use your words, Mr Tabuteau, that you graced us with this evening: trade has grown, you noted. Trade has grown on the back of the neo-liberal agenda that you somehow believe is now dead. Trade has grown, and we have all seen the benefits—precisely, Mr Tabuteau. So when you talk about the evils of harmonisation and the evils of a global economy that is increasingly integrated, you are doing a disservice to all those people in the communities that you seek to represent whose entire livelihoods and jobs and families’ aspirations reflect our ability to be able to trade effectively on the world stage.

If you look specifically at this bill, it holds a remarkable view around the current approach that we take in respect of dealing with international treaties. It seems to be completely blind to the extraordinarily powerful and critical role that Parliament and its select committees—in this case, the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee—play in reviewing every treaty of significance that is concluded by the executive. They get introduced here, in terms of the final agreed text; we take it out to the community, the entire country, to have an opportunity to reflect on it and to give us feedback as a select committee; we get official advice; we pore over the national interest analysis (NIA); we make our own select committee assessment on the value, based on the submitters’ perspectives, the officials’ advice, and reading the NIA ourselves; and then we bring our own report back to Parliament. How is that not transparent? How is that not providing an opportunity for the people of this country to give feedback?

It is an absolutely ridiculous construct to suggest, Mr Tabuteau, that, somehow, the executive, which has been given that power to be able to negotiate treaties on behalf of New Zealand, should somehow not be able to do that and have to give it back—at any time through the negotiation. I quote your key words back at you, Mr Tabuteau: at any time during the negotiation, back to the whole of Parliament. This process that is being considered in this bill is, as I say, extremely flawed.

When you look at the process that we have run—as has the United Kingdom, as has Canada, as has every Western Westminster democracy like our own—it is a process of negotiation. It is a process where, once that negotiation has been completed and concluded, Cabinet, assessing the national interest analysis, then agrees that it should be signed. Then that text is presented in this House and in similar Houses in similar Western Westminster democracies. It is then presented here for consideration, which includes a huge amount of public consultation. And then, finally, ratification.

What I think this bill does talk to is a rather distorted view of the way the world is unfolding, a view that does a disservice to this Parliament, in my view. It is a view that does a disservice to this country and to our expectation that we should always give a firm hand to the trade Minister to be able to negotiate the best deal on our behalf, and then for us, as Parliament, to be able to follow due process to assess it. I strongly oppose this bill.

CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka): I would just like to begin by reminding the member who resumed his seat, Todd Muller, that Government Ministers every day undertake complex negotiations across a range of activities that then require legislative endorsement by the House. I will give him an example, one that I know he will be very familiar with. Ministers across successive Governments negotiated with the dairy industry, for example, to create Fonterra. It then required ratification by the Parliament, through a legislative process. To say that Ministers could not undertake complex negotiations simply because they required ratification by the House through a legislative process afterwards is somewhat of a straw man to build up, only to then knock it down. That is simply not relevant in this particular case.

Globalisation is not a Government policy; it is happening whether we like it or not. That is the truth. That is the reality. But how Governments respond to globalisation matters a great deal, because globalisation does not belong to corporations; it belongs to people. Actually, what we are seeing around the world now—in popular democracy around the world—is a rebellion by voters who feel that the globalisation agenda has been taken away from them and given to others. We saw it in the Brexit decision, where voters in the UK rose up because they felt that they were being left behind and that their voices were not being heard. We saw it in the United States, where Donald Trump was elected off the back of a backlash—a backlash against elected elites, who, the voters felt, were no longer serving their interests.

The promise of democracy is an empowered and informed citizenry, and the level of secrecy that goes with some of these international negotiations does cut against that. I simply remind members who are opposed to the idea of more transparency around these negotiations that agreements that are entered into undemocratically can be exited from undemocratically. We are seeing that at the moment. Think about agreements on climate change. Think about other agreements that people who might not sign up to a trade agenda might sign up to. There should be transparency around those, and there should be scrutiny of those.

The solutions to many of the challenges that we face as a people, as a global people, are multilateral ones not unilateral ones. We cannot resort to the certainties of past solutions that are no longer relevant in the current world. We do have to be part of the multilateral globalisation debate, and we have to be part of the process. But we have to ensure that we engage with that on our terms and that we make sure we are being responsive to the needs of our people in the process. People are being left behind in the current processes around globalisation. Corporations are being put ahead of people. It is unsustainable, and, as a result, we are seeing a backlash from voters around the world. New Zealand is not immune from that. If we are not responsive to that, if we do not ensure that Parliament becomes more responsive to the needs of the voters, then we will face exactly the same backlash.

The New Zealand Parliament is becoming increasingly irrelevant to the process of governing in this country, where more and more decisions are being made by a handful of Ministers, away from the public eye, with very little scrutiny. I think we have to make Parliament more relevant to the process of governing. Globalisation and multilateral agreements are increasingly becoming more and more important in the way that we are going to solve the complex problems of the future.

So, yes, I believe that there should be more parliamentary scrutiny of those multilateral agreements. I do not think that that somehow means the world is going to end, and that we are not going to be able to go out and negotiate with the world in good faith. Of course we will be able to, but, ultimately, Parliament should be debating those things and Parliament, ultimately, should be ratifying them. That is what we would do if the Government entered into certain contractual arrangements. Think of the aged-care sector. The Government negotiated a very complex deal there with people working in the aged-care sector, and we are legislating to ratify that at the moment. That does not mean Government Ministers could not negotiate in good faith. They did, and Parliament is now debating it and will legislate to make it happen. We can do that with multilateral agreements too.

I do not necessarily agree with the exact design of this bill, but I absolutely agree with the basic principle that Parliament should be applying much greater scrutiny to the multilateral agreements that we are entering into. Parliament should be relevant in this process, not a handful of Ministers. We live in a democracy; we do not live in an elected dictatorship. If voters start to feel that they live in an elected dictatorship, that is when we will see some of the very unpredictable results that other countries are experiencing at the moment.

Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): Paragraph 5.77 of the Cabinet Manual describes a treaty as “a written agreement between states or international organisations that is governed by international law.” The current steps to the international treaty process include submission to Cabinet with an NIA—national interest analysis—before presentation to the House. It is then referred to a select committee, the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, referred back to the House plus or minus recommendations, and then ratified by the executive.

The first point is that the current treaty examination process was agreed in a bipartisan fashion several years ago—bipartisan agreement. Secondly, there are already existing opportunities for the House to approve a treaty, on the basis that most treaties require enabling legislation, which must progress through the standard legislative programme and get approval from the House. In fact, if we look at the recent treaties—maybe we will just go to the first one that is in the online system, the international treaty examination of the agreement between the Government of New Zealand and the Government of the United States on technology safeguards. If we look at this, we can see that the member Fletcher Tabuteau and his party had an impact and offered a view on the treaty through the enabling legislation. In fact, if we look at the member’s contribution on the first reading debate of the Outer Space and High-altitude Activities Bill and look at his last sentence in that first reading debate, he says the following: “I will acknowledge that this is an amazing opportunity for New Zealand, and I do look forward to the select committee process and further contributions on this legislation in the House.”—further contributions. The member had a say; his party had a say.

I think even more compelling is the fact that a member’s bill of exactly this type, the International Treaties Bill, was introduced in 2000 by Green MP Keith Locke. This was forwarded to the select committee and, in 2001, it was resoundingly turned down. If we pull that select committee report, who do we see on the committee? Ron Mark from New Zealand First. On that select committee, Ron Mark from New Zealand First turned that bill down—turned this policy down. In fact, if we look at what New Zealand First said in the second reading debate on that bill, which did not progress, they said the following, and I read from the document. “New Zealand First will not support the continuation of this bill. … I was interested in the submission made by the New Zealand Law Society on this bill. The Law Society indicated it does not support such a revolutionary approach as that set out in the bill. … The main reason that I oppose this bill is as much from the practicalities that are involved as from anything else.”

The last paragraph of the second reading debate speech from New Zealand First states this—remember, this is 2001—“The suggestion that more work should be given to this House, when this minority Labour Government cannot currently run the Order Paper, beggars imagination. New Zealand First cannot possibly support this legislation,”.

In conclusion, (1) the current treaty examination process was arrived at in bipartisan fashion, (2) the inevitable enabling legislation means the House gets to indirectly vote on treaties, and (3) New Zealand First made the correct decision and has not supported this in the past. I like this member and I commend him for the work he has done to get this bill to this point. I despair, though, for his party, which has left him hung out to dry. It knew that it had turned this down recently, and it did not let the member know. It let him proceed with this and hung him out to dry, and I am very sorry for that—very sorry for Mr Tabuteau, whom, as I say, I like, and I think has done good work. For this and any number of reasons, I cannot support this bill any further. Thank you.

Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green): The Green Party will certainly be supporting this bill, and we do so for reasons that are clearly beyond the comprehension and ability of National MP colleagues to even begin to comprehend. There is probably one person sitting across the aisle there who has an understanding of, and insight into, constitutional and international law and the role of Parliament in a constitutional democracy—one.

The current chair of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee was so moved with personal emotion to launch a personal attack against our colleague Mr Fletcher Tabuteau, who is also a member of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, conveying misplaced scorn, bordering on anger, against a colleague. I will quote Mr Muller: “so naive” of Mr Tabuteau, “a disgrace that we should be having to have a conversation”, “does a disservice to this Parliament.”

The chairman, in being unable to control his emotions and his anger, did a disservice to this Parliament. He should be ashamed. He let our committee down. As it happened, he was not actually a member of the committee, as I recall, at the time. The previous chairman, Mark Mitchell, conveyed dignity and courtesy to all members of the committee at the time and to all submitters, about 3,000 of them, every one of them impassioned—3,000 written submissions and 255 oral submissions presented in person. The previous chairman of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee conveyed the utmost courtesy to every single one of them. He did the committee proud.

The philosophy that is animating the current chair is an over-interpretation of “New Zealand Inc.” It conveys a philosophical skew on the one hand and a certain constitutional ignorance on the other. The fact is that the treaty examination by Parliament is simply an undertaking where, with a majority on the committee, it receives submissions and reports back to the House on the treaty, with no obligation for the House to actually even debate it. In this particular case, the House did not debate it. There was no vote taken. That is the extent of the treaty examination.

The ratification process proceeds independently of Parliament. It is not dependent on Parliament. The implementing legislation is the only role that the Parliament has, beyond that supine treaty examination. The select committee relies on the very Government department to report back with a national interest analysis, made on the basis of its own original judgment about the merits of commencing and proceeding with negotiations.

Whereas six of the 12 Trans-Pacific Partnership countries require a parliamentary majority for ratification, in New Zealand the Government can proceed with supreme indifference to Parliament. There is a strong reason to have a requirement that the Government, in the form of the Minister, report to the Parliament before any signature of any international negotiation or any international treaty is finalised. We will be supporting the bill.

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): It is an interesting bill to talk about—interesting, but not, I suspect, in the sense that the sponsor of the bill would think—the International Transparent Treaties Bill. Well done on getting your bill drawn out of the biscuit tin, Mr Tabuteau. It is a great feeling to get a bill out and to get it into the House. It is fantastic.

I would say one thing, though. That was quite a Trump-esque speech. I would have to let you know, though, that the one thing aligning New Zealand First along the lines of the Brexit exit and the success of Donald Trump in the United States is that those were sorts of anti-establishment votes. The leader of New Zealand First is establishment. After 40 years in Parliament, he is establishment, so the parallels just end right there. But going back to the bill—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Good.

STUART SMITH: —in the previous speaker’s contribution, Dr Kennedy Graham mentioned something about one person having a constitutional law background on this side of the House, I believe. Well, I have to say that I recall, during the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) debate, actually looking across the House and thinking: “Who on that side has an exporting and a trade background? I am not sure.” I could not count any. There may well be one member whom I have missed, but I could not count any. I would say, coming from that background, that to actually get out in the market and work in a foreign country and realise how much easier it is to have fair trade, you would then have a much better understanding—not you, Mr Deputy Speaker, of course; the sponsor of the bill would—of what free trade means, because, clearly, looking at the way this bill is drafted, the sponsor does not.

I know that it is well-intentioned, as I mentioned before, but it adds needless complexity, which would make the Rules Reduction Taskforce’s day, seeing something like this to eliminate off the books. I would also point out to the Labour speaker—I am not sure which one it was who spoke earlier. The young fellow—what is his name? Anyway—

Hon Member: Chris Hipkins, I think.

STUART SMITH: Chris Hipkins, that is right. The TerraNova decision was, in fact, signed by the Government; then the legislation had to be passed by Parliament. So he quite misrepresented, whether it was intentional or not—I doubt that it would be intentional; it was just a lack of homework yet again. This is a serious debating chamber on a serious issue. We should do our homework.

The national interest analysis is a major plank in getting through all of these types of agreements that we sign up to. It then goes through the usual Westminster processes of coming to Parliament to be debated through a select committee—which was well explored by my colleague Mr Muller—and I think that is a very important process.

I remember going through and being subbed on to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee in Christchurch to hear the evidence there, and it was worth the whole day to hear Sir Graeme Harrison from ANZCO talk about the world not owing us a living, how difficult it was to get out there in the market, and how much of a difference it would make to the meat industry to have a free-trade agreement, particularly with Japan, where a lot of beef goes. That is significantly impacted on, compared with our friends and colleagues in Australia, who have a much better trade deal with Japan than we do. The TPP would have enabled us to have the same basis to operate under. Hopefully, TPP11 will be successful, and I am sure it will be, although I am sure that that support is not going to come from, particularly, the sponsor of this bill.

I just want to finish by circling right back again and saying that, really, if the member was to walk in the shoes of someone who has done the trade and gone into the coalface of trade on the front line, he really would understand much better the importance of negotiators having the ability to get in and negotiate, make the decision, sign the agreement, and then come back to Parliament for its ratification, which is the process we have today. Therefore, sadly, I oppose this bill.

KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana): I feel a need to calm things down, because this debate has been very heated so far. So, in a relatively short contribution, can I just say that I think the Government’s position on this bill is a little confused, because it did bring some legislation to this House around the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). It had the numbers in the House to pass that, and so it had the majority to see that legislation through this House.

What this piece of legislation does—removing all the emotion and specificity around a trade deal or a climate change treaty that we may be part of—is to make it standard practice that if a Government of the day was to sign up to something like a trade deal or a climate change treaty, it would come to this House, it would be debated in this House, the merits or negatives about the treaty or the deal would be taken to the public, through the select committee process, and this House would get to vote on the specific treaty, or not.

The Government has done it on one piece of legislation, and if it is confident that it has the numbers in this House, then it should be able to get it through. If it is confident enough to have gone out and signed a treaty or signed a deal, and it has the majority in this House, what is wrong with a little bit of transparency on behalf of the public to make sure that there is a benefit to the treaty or the deal and that those benefits, or some of the disadvantages, of a specific deal that we may have signed up to can have some scrutiny from the public?

I was not a member of Parliament at the time when the China free-trade agreement was signed and went through this House, but I understand that that is the process Phil Goff and the last Labour Government went through to make sure that there was some public scrutiny, and there is a good story to tell around the China free-trade agreement.

The Government has an opinion on the TPP. It brought that legislation to the House. Unfortunately, there was a change in international circumstances that means that the deal as it stood is now no longer able to be done, but it did bring some legislation to this House. What this piece of legislation that the New Zealand First member has proposed is saying is that if we have a similar deal, why not bring it through this House as a standard procedure?

I guess the members opposite need to ask why we would do it for the TPP but we are not willing to commit to it for any other future deal that might get done in the future. I am saying that not necessarily to a particular kind of Government—a National Government or a Labour-led Government. But if a Government either sees fit to commit us to some commitments around climate change or sees the economic benefit of a trade deal, why not let it be a standard procedure that this House gets to debate it and the merits and the disadvantages of it?

I think the Government needs to figure out where it stands. Does it need to bring the deals to this House and get public support for them, or will it answer questions around sweeping it under the table or doing a bit of a “sneaking it through quickly” deal, if we do sign up to these treaties or trade deals, and then pay the public price for that too? So I think this bill should go to a select committee to enable a public debate about whether or not, as a standard procedure, this is something that Parliament does to make sure that the deals that we sign up to as a Government are scrutinised by this Parliament and by the public of New Zealand. Thank you.

PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): I rise also, as other members on this side of the House have done, to speak against the International Transparent Treaties Bill. I think—I know, in fact—that it has long been the case in New Zealand, since the 1800s, that the power to enter into or to withdraw from a treaty sits properly with the executive; that is, with Her Excellency the Governor-General, acting on advice from Ministers. So, in the time that New Zealand has been an independent Realm, and even as a dominion, in so far as we treated internationally at that point in time, agreements, arrangements, conventions, and covenants—“treaties”, if you will—have been, quite properly, and as is the practice of all other Westminster democracies akin to our own, concluded by the Crown, by Ministers advising the Governor-General, and these are then considered by this House in the treaty examination process, particularly in those areas that then need to see measures implemented under New Zealand law.

I did want to pick up on a couple of terminological issues with the bill that the member puts forward. It may surprise the member to learn that of the 1,600 agreements that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade keeps the texts of in its archive, the vast majority of them are, in fact, not called treaties; they are agreements and arrangements, which often pertain to trade, and conventions and covenants pertaining to multilateral issues such as disarmament or human rights. The word “treaty” in the New Zealand system is almost universally reserved for significant international agreements, particularly pertaining to defence.

So whilst the member talks a lot about secret trade deals—in fact, it is mentioned in the explanatory note, in the general policy statement of this bill—I think a very real risk of the system he proposes is to international agreements that we are party to that deal with defence. This is an incredibly important topic in this era of fundamentalist terrorism in some parts of the world, and with the need for the global community to act in a decisive and timely manner in addressing the risks and threats to our societies—those of us who live in the Western, liberal, democratic world—I would not want to see any defence arrangement that New Zealand enters into held hostage by a lengthy process when, in fact, the measures that would implement the process can be properly scrutinised by this House after it has been concluded, in a timely fashion, by the Ministers of the day, who, let us not forget, are democratically elected and are, universally, members of this House.

I also think there is an issue with the definition of “treaty” as supplied by the member in the interpretation section of his bill. I think he draws from the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969, but I would refer the member to chapter 29 of the very excellent A guide to Diplomatic Practice by Sir Ernest Satow. If he would like, I have the fifth edition. It is a little bit dated now—it is about 30 years out of date—but I would be happy to supply him with a copy, where a far superior definition, at a much higher level of generality, is given for what constitutes an international treaty. Part of the problem with the member’s definition is that it does exclude oral instruments, which are acknowledged as being a very real form of international agreement, and I would point the member to the legal status of the Eastern Greenland case from 1933 as a particularly interesting one. I think a superior definition, as Reuter proposes, is that a treaty is: “une manifestation de volontés concordantes imputable à deux ou plusieurs sujets de droit international et destinée à produire des effets de droit selon les règles de droit international”. So I think the member should have done a little bit more homework and not relied on definitions drawn from a quick google search, which is clearly what he has done in this case. That might have made for a better bill.

One last point—and I think Dr Reti rehearsed this argument very well in his contribution—in 2000 the same measure was considered by this House, and then the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, which was dominated by Labour members, refuted this measure and, in fact, consigned it to the dust bin. That was, of course, a far more competent Labour administration than the party that sits across the House today. I would hope that some residual level of competence remains and that they will oppose this measure. Thank you.

MICHAEL WOOD (Labour—Mt Roskill): I do so hate to disappoint the member who just resumed his seat, Paul Foster-Bell, but when Kennedy Graham referred to one member on the Government who was a constitutional expert, I do not think he was referring to that member.

I rise very happily to support the International Transparent Treaties Bill, and before I outline some of the reasons for Labour’s support, I just want to touch on some of the other contributions from members opposite. The first one I want to go to is a comment from Stuart Smith. I do not know whether it was a throwaway or an intended remark, but he stood up in this Chamber, in which we debate laws in a democratic system that we all treasure and value, and spoke about the needless complexity of having a House in which we can democratically debate our laws. He called what we are doing “needless complexity”. That is all that this bill does—it says that the members of this House should be afforded an opportunity to scrutinise an international treaty that might bind the people of New Zealand and future Governments of New Zealand. Stuart Smith said, on behalf of the National Government, that that democratic process in this House was a piece of needless complexity, and that probably tells us about all that we need to know.

Shane Reti chose to draft in Ron Mark for some extra support, which I think showed the paucity of his other arguments, but the major argument that he did put forward—which a number of the other National members plucked off their speaking notes—was that we already have a select committee process. Of course that is true, but, to some extent, is that not the point? If we already have a select committee process, then what is so hard, what is so additionally complex, about affording the members of this House the opportunity to properly scrutinise and vote upon a treaty that might bind us in the future? If the argument is that it is too hard—and we heard this from Mr Muller in his contribution at the beginning—to bring a treaty back to Parliament, where it might be picked apart, why is it so hard to do it in this House if we already have a select committee process? That, to me, was an entirely contradictory position from the members opposite.

The other thing that I found confusing tonight, particularly coming out of the Budget debate over the past couple of weeks, is that this Government’s members—I will give them credit—do not lack confidence. They are very happy to march into this Chamber, no matter how short-sighted or contradictory the position, puff up their chests, and confidently advance their position. I do genuinely give them some credit for that. And that is the fundamental point here. If they are so confident of their position, so confident of their own world view and intellectual framework, then why are they not willing, when they choose to sign this country up to a binding international treaty that they believe will be good for this country, that will have the effect of binding future Governments—why will they not come into this Chamber and argue it on those occasions, and win the debate? What would be so hard about that?

My colleague Kris Faafoi expanded on this point earlier on, and I thought this was probably the most important point of the debate. Most of the members of this House have a liberal and open world view. Most of the members of this House support free and fair trade. Most of the members of this House support New Zealand being engaged in multilateral institutions and instruments. But if members over there will not open up the debate and include New Zealanders, then they will lose the debate. It is so patently obvious to many of us in this House that that is what is happening around the world—when Governments and institutions close the debate and do not bring people with them, then the people whom we are elected to represent will lose confidence in our democratic processes, will lose confidence in our multilateral institutions, and will retreat into nativism. Most of us in this House do not want that, but if we do not open up the debate, if we do not give proper opportunities for democratic engagement, that is exactly what will happen.

My colleague Kris Faafoi spoke about how we can do this. Did the China free-trade agreement (FTA) fall over because of needless complexity because the last Labour Government brought it back to this House? No. It strengthened. It built political and civil society support. That FTA had agreement from, with acknowledgment to my friends immediately to the left, about 90 percent of this House when it came through. It had agreement from trade unions, it had broad agreement from civil society, and it has proven to be an enduring and important free-trade agreement that enjoys widespread support, precisely because we had a democratic process around it. A part of that was bringing that international treaty into this House. I am surprised and disappointed that this Government, which supports free trade and says it supports multilateral institutions, does not have the same courage that the last Labour Government had in respect of that treaty. Thank you.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): I am not sure whether to be appalled or entertained; I am sort of vacillating between the two. The farcical attempts at reason and logic here tonight have been relatively astounding. Actually, there has been only eloquence from this side, particularly from my colleague Paul Foster-Bell. There is always room for more French—of course, it is the language of diplomacy—in this House. I will not attempt, though, any other language.

Look, the arguments put forward have been, again—I could do it in Latin, but the Hon Chris Finlayson is here and I would be told off very quickly. We just heard from the member who sat down, Michael Wood, about the nature of liberalism. He seems to have missed the fact that this bill is actually about closing the door to free trade. This is the whole point of it. It has come through very clearly and off the back of the whole Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiation. It is a reactionary bill. It wants to close the doors. It is from a party that is very well known for its anti-trade, anti-globalisation—and then the last speaker had the audacity to talk about this as being somehow liberal when it is not. The other thing about being liberal is that it comes out of a tradition, and in particular, liberality comes out of a Westminster tradition, or has been well protected by it. This works within the Westminster tradition where the executive has the power to make these treaties.

Tracey Martin: Power! Power!

SIMON O’CONNOR: Oh, yes, power! And now the feminist critique comes out that all power is bad, of course, until they get it and then they love it, but that is a whole other debate.

We have also had the great lecture on democracy, and the classic failing that often comes from the left that democracy is simply about representation. Now, that is a real—I do not know; it is not even a stage 1 understanding of what democracy is. The idea that everyone has to have their say at all times is not the whole point of democracy.

Even if you go right back in history, democracy is about representation in order to achieve a particular end. If all your end is is sitting around talking all day, which might be familiar to the caucuses on the other side of the Chamber, then that is not democracy at all. Democracy is about making things happen for the people. My colleagues on this side, who have been in business, who have been in negotiations, who understand what business is about, know that this democracy—this New Zealand democracy—is all about actually making sure that everyone is looked after, and we do that by trading. We do that by having our executive members, who have been voted for by the people in New Zealand, go and negotiate a treaty, then bring it back to this House to be ratified.

I would love the other side—unfortunately, they are not going to have the chance—to wonder, when we look analogously at the carers’ agreement that we have just signed: did they want the union or their mates to come back here and negotiate constantly with the House the terms they negotiated with the Crown? No, they did not. They negotiated that carers’ contract quietly, as you do. They talked about it. They brought it back here. The agreement was signed by the Crown. There was none of this discussion, and they are not calling for that in this situation here, and I just think it is fascinating that they do not.

This bill is, ultimately, as I said at the start, about restricting free trade. It is about needless complexity that is not required. I have spent years doing negotiations—not, granted, in the treaty or overseas area—and I can tell you that a person does not go reporting back every 5 minutes to everyone about what they are doing. I certainly did not. You are trusted to go and do the negotiation and bring it back. That is fundamental to any contracting process, let alone a treaty negotiation.

Again, this is a matter for the executive. It is a long-standing tradition. And, actually, and fundamentally important—and I think it has been missed most in the contributions here—the House has to adopt a treaty as part of its domestic law. That is the process that we go through. The Parliament can choose to block a treaty becoming part of our domestic law if it chooses.

Fletcher Tabuteau: You signed it before you got here.

SIMON O’CONNOR: And now the member says: “Oh, you signed it before we got here.” You have missed the fundamental distinction: it is the right of the executive—and it is proper—to negotiate and sign that agreement, and it is right for this House, it is right and proper for the non-executive, the members of Parliament, to ratify that bill, to pass the law.

They are two separate processes, and it is very clear from the member’s last comments that they are conflating the two. And so, from that basis of ignorance, there is no way that I can support that bill, along with, really, as I said, the farcical understandings that have been going on around this. It is time-consuming and tiring.

FLETCHER TABUTEAU (NZ First): I think the members opposite would have known—but it is clear; and I probably need to make it clear for them—that this bill was kept simple for their benefit. The profundity was missed by those members. I just want to note that I had no idea that the National Party’s definition of democracy was “needless complexity”. Hear, hear—brilliant! Despite knowing exactly what the Government members would say tonight, I am still frustrated, perplexed, and disappointed—disappointed by what turned out to be personal attacks on myself. I would have said that it was beneath those members; apparently, I was wrong.

As expected, the National backbenchers turned to their historic and ongoing spin that somehow New Zealand First is against trade. It was sad that they could not and would not refer beyond their tired spin and the tired rhetoric that somehow New Zealand First is anti-trade. The whole premise of this bill is about debating trade, or international treaties. It would have been nice to have gone to a select committee and said: “What is it that we should bring to the House that is of such significance that the people of New Zealand must be represented by those whom we call their representatives?”.

As Dr Reti ably noted, we have been here before in 2001-02. A bill of a very similar nature was defeated in its second reading. That was then, and this is now, and I say to the members opposite that so much has changed. What passes for a trade deal today would not have been recognised by members 10 or 15 years ago. I put it to this House that the same objections can no longer apply. Funnily enough, those were the exact objections 15 years later—the same objections used by the backbenchers tonight. The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) has shown—and it is a shining example—that the executive must be constrained in its power; that Parliament must play a more significant role in our international obligations and what we would sign up to.

This is a House of Representatives, and under MMP the diversity of its representation has become so much more reflective of the people we presume to represent. That must be recognised in this debate tonight. For the benefit of the members opposite, you can imagine—or not, I suppose, in your caucus—that New Zealand First has actually discussed this bill. We say that, in fewer than 10 years, trade treaties—or partnerships now, actually—have changed beyond recognition. They are no longer fundamentally bilateral trade agreements; they are investment agreements that exceed 6,000 pages in length. They are huge, they are complex, and they discuss so much more than trade liberalisation through the removal of tariffs and the movement of goods across borders. They go so far beyond that. This House absolutely deserves to be part of that conversation—in fact, more than that, this bill says this Parliament must be the ultimate arbiter.

Hon Simon Bridges: Oh, you don’t believe that.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order!

FLETCHER TABUTEAU: They are so sure of themselves—oh, and here is a perfect example of arrogance here tonight. They are so sure of themselves, so confident, that they want to close off the debate. They want to shut out the public. This is what is wrong with the globalist movement today. This is what is wrong with the National Government. It wants to shut the discussion down. We want to remain open to the world, and we need to undertake profitable business through the form of exports. We want to see New Zealand businesses succeed, but we cannot sit back and watch international corporates take over New Zealand.

I just want to end by closing with former Minister Richard Prebble, because I am disappointed with the vote of the ACT Party tonight, which I admit I presume. Richard Prebble called it absurd that the executive could sign up to international treaties without parliamentary approval. And, in that, New Zealand First would agree with him. Thank you.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the International Transparent Treaties Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 57

New Zealand Labour 31; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.

Noes 62

New Zealand National 58; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Motion not agreed to.

Bills

Marriage (Court Consent to Marriage of Minors) Amendment Bill

First Reading

JOANNE HAYES (National): I move, That the Marriage (Court Consent to Marriage of Minors) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Justice and Electoral Committee to consider this bill. It is an honour and a privilege to stand and take the first call on the Marriage (Court Consent to Marriage of Minors) Amendment Bill. It is a bill in my name, but it was first put into the ballot in 2012 by the National Party MP, and now human rights commissioner, Dr Jackie Blue.

I want to acknowledge the Shakti refuge organisation in Auckland because it is this organisation that has been the recipient of some of the young women who have experienced forced marriages in New Zealand. I also want to acknowledge all the other organisations and people who have received these young women into their organisations and have worked tirelessly with them to help them through the various issues that they have faced due to forced marriage.

There is no denying that child marriages and forced marriages are the most horrific, horrific cultural practice that could happen, not just to young women but also to young men. It lines up there at the same level—but maybe this other area is worse—as genital mutilation. All these horrific stories that I have heard to do with forced marriage and child marriage just absolutely sicken me, and we must ensure that it must stop here in New Zealand before it gets legs and carries on.

Last year the member Louisa Wall and I, along with Dr Jackie Blue, were invited to the Shakti refuge in Manurewa. We were invited to listen to some young women’s evidence on their experience within a forced marriage. The cases I heard that I said sickened me, they absolutely sickened my guts out. In one case a young woman was faced with having to have a forced abortion, and in another case a woman was faced with deportation, leaving behind her 2-year-old child.

These women had come into New Zealand under a partnership visa. The women whom we interviewed—there were, obviously, more than two—had come in under the partnership visa. When the marriage breaks down, they have only one other choice, which is to be deported from New Zealand and return to their home countries to face what the wrath of their parents or their communities would do to them. Therefore, they are in a quandary, with no other option for a visa to stay in New Zealand. However, once the marriage is over, the man—the husband or the partner—is free to go and do it all over again, and we have got to stop that. We have got to stop that from happening on our shores.

We know a few things about child marriage, or the marriage of minors, in New Zealand. We know that between 2002 and 2011, there were 798 young brides in New Zealand—410 of those married in New Zealand, and 388 married overseas. You would think that if you have about 798 young brides between that period, you should have 798 grooms, but not so. There were only 97 grooms in New Zealand and 77 grooms from overseas, so there are some issues around that. Maybe the number was not counted properly—I do not know—but it just did not seem to match for me.

We know that some girls are also exported to New Zealand for the purpose of undergoing a forced marriage, and the man, who may have residence in New Zealand, may be importing them for that purpose alone. All of this has to do with charging a fee to the parents. A bit of a story is given to the young woman, who is told: “You come over here. You’ll get some free education. We’ll look after you.” Really, at the end of the day, their lives end up with them being slaves in an unwanted marriage and one that ends in violence, to the point that—we did hear stories of where young women have lost their lives, and there was no justice for them.

We know that marriages of 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds occur 80 times a year and that 80 percent of those marriages are between, obviously, 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds. We know that some of the marriages are forced or coerced by the parents, which I have already explained at the start of my speech, and I think there are actually many more of those types of marriages—forced marriages—in New Zealand that go undetected. They are not brought forward to the authorities, let alone to groups like Shakti and other NGOs in our community. That could be because these young women actually fear what might happen to them should they come forward to the authorities, but they should do that.

We also know that the legal age to marry in New Zealand is 18 years old. However, if your parents consent to the marriage and you are under the age of 18, then you will be able to get married. So once we start to look at that, we then start to look at what is under this bill. We are maintaining the legal age at 18, but what we are doing and proposing in this bill is that young people under 18 who want to be married not only have to garner parental support or parental consent but they also have to get consent from the Family Court. By doing this, there is another layer of protection—another set of eyes, I guess—for them. The bill also changes a couple of Acts: the Marriage Act 1955 and the Care of Children Act 2004.

I have heard recently that we should just leave the legal age of marriage at 18 and that for anybody under the age of 18, it would be illegal for them to get married. What some people are saying is that that would help to deter forced marriages of young people and child marriages. I am not sure how that would work in New Zealand. I have heard that in some countries they do have this law and that it does not really work—forced marriages and child marriages still go on underground. But I am the type of MP who is open for the debate, and people can debate that with me. I have got ears to listen and I will hear what they have to say.

Legislation is like everything, really—if it is not used, then it cannot help people. So this piece of legislation is going to encourage young women to speak up—to come forward and speak up—because there will be some boundary around it, some protection for them. New Zealand supports all efforts to eliminate the practice of forced marriage and it has signed up to several key international instruments to protect girls’ and women’s rights. When we start to look at this, we also see that under the family whānau violence legislation, coercion to marriage is an offence, bringing a maximum penalty of 5 years’ imprisonment—personally, I would like to see it being longer, but, you know—so this Government is sending a very clear message out to everybody that forced marriage for minors is unacceptable in New Zealand. It will be criminalised and it will be taken very seriously.

Before I finish my contribution, I just want to read out a couple of quotes that came in once this bill was drawn out of the ballot. The first one is from the Unicef Executive Director, Vivien Maidaborn. She said that the law change makes sense and that “It’s a really sound way of having an overview of a cultural practise that’s really common in other parts of the world,”. The Shakti women’s refuge said that Family Court consent would be “a good stopgap measure” for women who are facing this.

As I said, I am very proud to support this bill and bring it to the House. I encourage all parties to please support this bill because this is an area within our country that we need to stop before it grows legs and multiplies. Thank you. I commend it to the House. Kia ora.

POTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East): Firstly, I must acknowledge and commend the member Joanne Hayes for bringing this bill to the House. Congratulations to you on having it drawn from the ballot. I commend you for the work that you have done to bring this bill, and the work that you will do on shepherding it through. Labour will be supporting this bill.

I also want to commend the member, who has been a co-chair of the Commonwealth Women Parliamentarians group, along with Labour’s Louisa Wall, and the previous chair Dr Jackie Blue, who initiated the legislation and has really encouraged the women’s organisations within Parliament to think about what types of pieces of legislation we can support across the House, as members of Parliament. This is one such piece of legislation. It has been discussed quite fully and robustly at Commonwealth Women Parliamentarians meetings, and we are very proud as an organisation to be supporting this piece of legislation.

What is coercion, and what are we talking about in this particular piece of legislation? We are talking about marriages where one party, or at least one member of the party, is unwilling or lacks the capacity to actually make the decision about being married. Often, they are marriages between older men and young girls. I know that the member bringing the bill to the House was very moved by a Women in Politics meeting she attended in Kathmandu where this was actually discussed. She was particularly moved by the physical and emotional harms that can happen, particularly to young girls, when they are forced into relationships with people, at a young age, and forced into sexual relationships and having children, which sometimes can do physical harm to them because of their age. I know that she was passionate about ensuring that this piece of legislation actually found its place in Parliament.

Often, the brides come from overseas, and I know the member referred to that. Our immigration is such that we allow people to come through on partnership visas or on visas where you can sponsor people into the country. It is often the case where some women are sponsored into the country by people who will become their husbands, if they are not their husbands already, and they can, after a period of time, around 2 years, decide to no longer continue with that relationship and no longer sponsor that person. That woman no longer has an immigration status in this country, and that is problematic for her because it means that she is forced to leave, often having to leave behind children who were born in this country.

So I think, when we are talking about this piece of legislation, we also need to consider the wider implications of what happens to those women, particularly when they are sponsored into the country and can be abandoned by their husbands and left, really, with nothing, and forced to go back overseas. Sometimes, the cultural context within which they are returning means that they are shunned by their own societies, and it is problematic. It is one of the things that Shakti, the ethnic refuge, raises with politicians constantly—that it is an issue for them.

And speaking of Shakti, I do want to say that it is the only ethnic-specific refuge in this country that deals with women who have no immigration status, women who have been abandoned by their husbands, and, unfortunately, it is also not supported in terms of that work. We have heard, over the course of the last few months, Shakti’s pleas to ensure that its Wellington refuge gets funded, and that, unfortunately, has fallen on deaf ears. So I am hoping that the passage of this bill, for the House, actually raises the awareness of specific ethnic refuges for women, particularly those who will lose their immigration status should they be abandoned by immigration policies put in place by our Government and our Parliament.

I do want to quote from Shakti’s youth coordinator about the importance of this bill, because they are supportive of this. She states: “And for young people to know it’s not okay and that they can speak up about it and for parents and relatives to also know it’s not okay to force anyone into marriage.”

But it is not just about ethnicity. Yes, Mrs Hayes raises that as a specific concern, but it is not only about that. What does this bill do? Well, it actually allows for people of the age of 16 or 17 to marry, but only on their successful application through to the Family Court. So while currently that is possible with parental consent, what this bill does is add another element of safety to the process by requiring a Family Court judge to hear the application and to approve it. That will allow for cultural practice to continue, but it adds an element of safety and comfort to the people of New Zealand that those people engaged—those young people engaged—in marriage are not being forced into it and not forced to do so.

I also want to quote the justice Minister Amy Adams, who said that this piece of law was going to fill a hole that is in our current laws. In that regard, I want to commend the justice Minister for this morning launching the Family Violence Summit, where much was discussed, particularly around the new risk framework in family violence, and there was a lot of discussion around the current family violence law going through the House at the moment.

But there is one thing that I want to ask of the select committee when this bill goes to the select committee, and that is: why is this bill not part of the family and whānau legislation currently before the House? Why are we debating this as a separate bill? It would fit well within the parameters of the changes to the Domestic Violence Act that the Minister is currently proposing. Why are we engaged in a separate process for a specific piece that could actually fit very nicely into the current legislation? I would ask the select committee to examine that as a possibility to actually save taxpayers’ money and the Parliament’s time and fold this into the current legislation before the House, which is currently being heard at the Justice and Electoral Committee.

I do not want to draw out the debate. It is a useful bill, and it will actually add to ensuring that cultural practice is able to be observed but that we are not forcing young people into situations that we ought not to. It actually adds an element of safety. I again want to commend the member. I want to acknowledge the work that she has done in the cross-party women’s arena in this Parliament, and we thank her for bringing the bill to the House.

JONO NAYLOR (National): I would like to pick up where the previous speaker, Poto Williams, left off in acknowledging the people who have brought this to the House—in particular, obviously, Jo Hayes, who is the sponsor of the bill, but Jackie Blue before her in initially putting it together. Can I also acknowledge the work of the Commonwealth Women Parliamentarians in championing this. I think it is great to see cross-party support of this type of legislation, and, if I could be so bold, I guess I would like to speak on behalf of the men in Parliament and say that we absolutely support this as well.

I guess one of the things—when it comes to being a parliamentarian, when it comes to this type of legislation is when I feel most proud to be a parliamentarian. It is when we can actually get together as parliamentarians across parties and ask what things are going on in our nation that are just plain not OK and what we can do to stop those things from occurring. At the moment in New Zealand there is evidence to suggest that there are young people, particularly young women aged 16 and 17, who are being, through whatever process, pushed into a marriage that they are not comfortable with, that they are not happy with, and as a result of that they are facing all sorts of atrocities, which the sponsor of the bill, Joanne Hayes, and Poto Williams have alluded to as well already in this debate. As the lawmakers in this land, it is beholden on us to actually put an end to those practices, and so, as a part of that, this bill goes some way in doing that, in ensuring that actually not just parental consent is required for a 16- or a 17-year-old to get married but that, in fact, a court must determine that this is OK to occur.

I guess that in days gone by we always would have assumed—I presume when the Marriage Act was first put into place—that parents giving their consent would be adequate, because they would have the best interests of their children at heart. Evidence shows us that on occasion that is not the case. So now it is, obviously, beholden on the State, as I said, to get involved through the court process to ensure that the rights of these young people, and particularly these young women, are protected. So it will require a judgment from a judge in a court to ensure that protection is offered. This legislation in and of itself will not necessarily ensure that it will not happen, but it will put a step in place to stop parents who might be perpetrators of this—so that they actually think twice before they put their child up for one of these types of marriages because they are going to face the scrutiny of the court. If that can stop even one from occurring, then this process will have been worth it.

I think it is also good to look at this legislation in the context of other legislation that is currently before the House, namely the Family and Whānau Violence Legislation Bill, which is currently before the Justice and Electoral Committee. This legislation brings into place a new offence of coercion to marry, and that will make it an offence for anyone to coerce any person, regardless of their age, into a marriage relationship. It is good to see that occurring.

It is one of the great privileges we have in the Justice and Electoral Committee to have this type of legislation coming through—where we can work, as I said before, across the Parliament to ensure that we can put laws in place that will protect the vulnerable people within our society. I look forward at the Justice and Electoral Committee to hearing further evidence around this bill. I am sure I probably will not enjoy hearing some of the stories that are likely to come through, but I think it will be important for us to get a greater understanding of the ramifications of what is going on now so that we can ensure that the rights and the mana of the young people in this country are protected.

Again, I commend those who have been behind bringing this legislation to the House. I look forward to us examining it more closely within the select committee context, and I look forward to this—along with the Family and Whānau Violence Legislation Bill—passing to ensure that young people in our country no longer have to fear the type of abuse that can occur when these things go on. I commend this bill to the House.

JAN LOGIE (Green): It is a great pleasure to rise and speak on behalf of the Green Party in support of Joanne Hayes’ member’s bill, the Marriage (Court Consent to Marriage of Minors) Amendment Bill. I would just like to acknowledge her for having the luck that managed to get this pulled from the ballot. I would also like to acknowledge the advocacy work that she has been doing up to this point to gain support for and understanding of this issue, which is work that was initially started by Dr Jackie Blue, the Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner, who drafted this bill initially, in 2012.

It is slightly confusing to me, when there is unanimous support across this House for this bill, that this has come to the House through a member’s bill 5 years on from when it was first written. I think there was a petition in support of this, signed by 82 members of this House a couple of years ago, and every woman in every party is, from my understanding, on the record as supporting this. It does seem a bit strange that it has taken a member’s bill—though, at the same time, there is a tiny bit where it is nice, actually, to acknowledge the personal work that has gone into it, and a member’s bill enables us to do that. So thank you.

For me, I think this is about getting to the point where forced child marriage is—we are talking about slavery; that is what it is. If you are forced into a relationship for life or for years, where you have no control and it is against your will, and where you are in a relationship of subservience, that is a form of slavery. That has no place in our society. We know that, in these relationships, if it is against the child’s will, then there is going to be, in all likelihood, a relationship filled with sexual violence because it is against that child’s will. So it is critically important for us, as a society, to say: “Actually, this has no place. We do not want this in our society. We want all of our children”—and this is mostly about girls—“to be able to be free, to make their own decisions, and to have the bodily integrity and opportunities in life.”

Therefore, this bill gives us a sense of protection, because we know that that is not the case at the moment. There are girls, mostly, and potentially from looking at some of the numbers, some boys as well, who may be living those lives. We have heard from advocates in Shakti who have been in touch with some of these young women who have been forced into these lives of slavery and who, because of the way our laws exist at the moment, really have very, very little protection. So to build in a step where, if there is going to be a marriage before the age of 18, a judge has oversight of that; where the applicant, both parties, has the opportunity to be heard; where, as far as reasonably practical, we also hear from the parents as well in that process; where there would be able to be lawyers involved in that discussion; and where this is to be a private process that happens in the court, not under the eye of the media—because I do think there is a potential for these discussions and for the situation, while it is very significant and severe, to be sensationalised and to become an issue that could feed racism and could actually make it harder for some women in some situations to come forward and get help when they need it. I do also, on that note, want to echo the call from my colleague Poto Williams for the need to fund Shakti. That is the organisation that has the most ability to work effectively with women from the communities most likely affected, and we need to make sure they are properly resourced to do this work.

But this is a great bill. It is about time. We need to make a stand as a country against the exploitation of women and girls.

PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): I take great pleasure in rising to support my friend and colleague MP Jo Hayes’ excellent member’s bill, which seeks to require Family Court approval for the marriage of 16-year-old children and 17-year-old children—minors, I think it is—in New Zealand. I think it is a necessary measure, and I have to commend the member for bringing this bill to the House. It is something she has worked assiduously on now for a number of years.

I also want to welcome the cross-party agreement that has broken out over this, I think, useful and necessary piece of legislation. As the Pacific-regional representative for the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association I want to commend our female counterpart group the Commonwealth Women Parliamentarians, who have worked so successfully across party lines to engage with the community and draft a set of measures that, sadly, are necessary given the prevalence of forced cultural marriage without the child’s consent.

In a previous life I worked overseas and had some dealings with an immigration case where the applicant later turned out to be a people trafficker, a drug dealer, and someone who offended against New Zealand citizens here in New Zealand. It should have been picked up immediately that this person was not a fit person and was not of good character to come to this country when it was recorded on his initial immigration application many years ago that he had married a girl who was then age 9, in a country where it was legal to do so. It may remain legal in a few dark and desperate parts of the world to marry a child as young as the age of 9, but this is an alien concept in New Zealand and something that we cannot accept under whatever guise it is presented, whether it be as a cultural norm or something that is legally permitted.

Let us not focus just on certain parts of the world that get a lot of media attention, such as the Middle East and Africa. I would note that there are at least two US states where it is legal for girls—girls, specifically—as young as 12 and 13 to marry. In the same state there are special provisions if the girl is pregnant where very little approval or oversight is needed for that marriage, whereas in those same states the age for boys is 14. So there is a disjunct there.

I think this is legislation that will be particularly protective of girls, because we know that of the thousand or so teenagers—that is, people 19 years old and younger—who marry in New Zealand, there is a predomination of female victims of this practice. So I welcome the bill, I commend my colleague, and I hope it passes forthwith.

TRACEY MARTIN (NZ First): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to support the Marriage (Court Consent to Marriage of Minors) Amendment Bill. Can I just pick up on a comment about cross-party accord breaking out. There is no accord that has “broken out”; the Commonwealth Women Parliamentarians have all been working on this piece of legislation for some time and, actually, they attempted to have this piece of legislation brought to the House last year, I think—or the year before.

It asked the Speaker 2 years ago whether we could put it in with a woman’s name from every single party inside this House. Unfortunately, the Speaker, I believe, ruled that there was no capacity to do that. So this House has no capacity for a cross-party accord that has been working together for some time to bring this piece of legislation or any other piece of legislation to this House—

Hon Simon Bridges: Yeah, but we’re doing it now, so what are you talking about?

TRACEY MARTIN: —and so, Mr Bridges—

Hon Simon Bridges: It’s what we’re doing right now.

TRACEY MARTIN: —Mr Bridges—perhaps that is something that needs to be looked at for the future.

Hon Simon Bridges: But why? We’re doing it now.

TRACEY MARTIN: Regarding this piece of legislation—Mr Bridges—let us be clear that up until 1933 you could be 12 or 14 in this country and be able to marry. So it has been only since 1933 that a 16- and 17-year-old—the age got lifted then and their parents were able to actually give permission or consent for that to happen. We are interested—New Zealand First is interested—in why this is not included inside the family and whānau violence legislation. We understand how it got to be a member’s bill. We were intimately involved in getting it to that point. But the fact is that there is another mechanism by which it could be recognised, because this is violence against children. So the fact that it stands to one side, away from that piece of legislation, interests us.

I also want to make sure that when this goes to the select committee we look at the fact that this is not just young people from another nation who may be brought here. I hope that there might be some scope inside either this piece of legislation or the Family and Whānau Violence Legislation Bill to have a look at being able to lay charges against parents who do the following: I know intimately young women who have actually been sent back to Iraq at the age of 15, were married, and produced two children, and were brought back to New Zealand because they carried a New Zealand passport. They brought that husband with them, who was some years older than them. They did so against their will, but their parents took them there.

What is the opportunity for that young woman to come back to New Zealand where she is safe and actually lay charges against those people who forced her into that situation? The family attempted to do the same thing to her younger sister, and her younger sister fled with the support of Women’s Refuge and left behind the two children that the older sister had had and every piece of family that they had had in this country. They were originally refugees, they were New Zealand citizens, and this took place. Have we got any scope to make sure that justice can be sought by New Zealand citizens who are manipulated and used in this way? If not, then where would they seek justice from?

So we stand in support because we know that this has to happen. It is not new though. I just want to put another piece of information in. In the 1970s, 285 boys and 2,304 girls aged 16 or 17 were wed in New Zealand. Times have changed. The reasons for which these young people are being married now are completely different, and that is what we have to address. We have to address the reasons why these marriages are being entered into. We have to recognise that force is taking place, and somewhere down the line we are going to have to address, if these are children—and this Government has argued, even, that the age of responsibility should be raised for criminals—what they are doing in a sexual relationship that is being condoned by the State under the guise of marriage?

Chris Bishop: You don’t know it’s sexual.

TRACEY MARTIN: It is a conversation internationally, Mr Bishop; you might want to catch up, all right? We are going to have to address this. It raises issues around the age of consent. It raises other issues. But at some stage—this is merely a step on the way forward and we are going to have to catch up with the rest of the developed world and talk about why these children are in marriage in the first instance. Kia ora.

CHRIS BISHOP (National): Thank you very much, Mr Assistant Speaker, and—

Kris Faafoi: Don’t call it dull and worthy.

CHRIS BISHOP: Ha, ha! I am not going to call it dull but worthy. Kris Faafoi is making mention of how I described my colleague Stuart Smith’s member’s bill about credit unions and friendly societies earlier on.

Hon Simon Bridges: I thought you were talking about Kris’ career.

CHRIS BISHOP: Ha, ha! I am not talking about Mr Faafoi’s career, either. It has certainly been worthy—at least up to this point. This bill is not actually a bill like that. This bill is actually a really important bill. I want to congratulate my colleague Jo Hayes on her important work in bringing it to the House. Before I came down to speak on this bill I was watching the debate in my office, and it seems there has been a bit of discussion around the process, which is, you know, debate around how the bill has got to this point. We have had a bit of debate about whether or not it should be included in the family violence legislation that is actually before our Justice and Electoral Committee, which I serve on, at the moment. We have had a discussion, including from Tracey Martin just before, about how the bill should or should not have come here. But the point is that it is here, and I think there is cross-party agreement that it is a sensible step forward.

I think it is something that the Justice and Electoral Committee is going to take a good look at. I have got to say, we have got a pretty busy schedule at the moment. We have got the family violence reform going through, and also some of what it probably would be fair to say are dull but worthy bills. The Private International Law (Choice of Law in Tort) Bill has just come through our committee.

Paul Foster-Bell: Very important.

CHRIS BISHOP: It is a very important bill, my colleague Paul Foster-Bell, who is in charge of the bill, says. So we have got a busy schedule, but we are going to take a very good look at this.

When I was first talking to my colleague Jo Hayes about this bill, I was surprised to learn that what the bill proposes to enact is not already the law, actually. I was surprised to learn that 16- and 17-year-olds in New Zealand could get married with parental consent. I actually thought the status quo was what the bill proposes will be the new status quo, which is that you need the permission of the court. As Tracey Martin, I think, quite eloquently pointed out in her contribution to the debate, these are minors and, actually, there are real worries around the vulnerability of these children and there are real worries around the concept of coercion and of force in doing this, and so I think it is an appropriate step forward. I actually think that what Ms Martin said in her contribution is right. There are wider issues around this, and I think the select committee is the appropriate place to ventilate some of those concerns. I am not sure how much we will be able to get through before the election, but I am sure this is the sort of bill that will carry over into the new Parliament. We will be considering it, as Ms Martin said, at the same time as the family violence piece of legislation, which is a Government bill in Amy Adams’ name. I commend this bill to the House.

JENNY SALESA (Labour—Manukau East): Thank you so much, Mr Assistant Speaker, for this opportunity. I would like to commend Jo Hayes for bringing this bill to the House, but also for getting agreement. It sounds like most of the parties in this House are going to agree to this bill. It is a very, very good bill.

One forced marriage in Aotearoa New Zealand is one too many. What we know is that we have at least 80 forced marriages in this country right now. This bill is really good in that it will give the consent over to the Family Court, but I worry—and I hope that the select committee will actually discuss this—what of those families who do not utilise our systems right now? What we know, from Shakti and from other organisations that deal with a lot of these under-age marriages, is that a lot of them do not even happen with marriage celebrants. They do not come through churches. These marriages happen either at home or in other—they do not actually happen with folks who are registered. That would be one of the questions that I hope the committee will come up with some possible responses to.

As I say, it is one thing to think that in this country we do not have under-age marriages. But, you know, one of the things that really shocked me a few days ago was when I was reading an article that told me that the country I was born and raised in had 50 under-age marriages, as young as 15 years of age. It shocked me because I did not know that there were that many people, that many young people, especially young women, in my home country, which has an overall population 100,000—50 of them. Some of these people as young as 15 and 16 are getting married, even here in New Zealand. But I wanted to say that it is for a similar reason as some of the reasons we have heard from organisations like Shakti: a lot of these young women are getting married that young because they are pregnant.

New Zealand is one of those countries that has signed up to a lot of international conventions. We have said that we will protect our young people. All of our young people have human rights—and that is also one of the things that I commend you for, Jo Hayes, with this particular bill.

One of the examples that Shakti gave in one of its submissions was an example of a young lady who has been in New Zealand, as a New Zealand citizen, since she was 4 years old. She is now 18, but she sought assistance and help from Shakti because her family had her engaged as young as 12 years of age. At 12 years of age she was supposed to go back to Afghanistan and marry another cousin. This young girl became suicidal. There are, unfortunately, quite a number of young people like her.

There is another case, of a young woman who came to this country in a forced marriage. She was 16 when she was brought here. She was married, had a child, but, similar to what Tracey Martin and my Green Party colleague spoke of before, it was slave labour. She had to do everything in the house. It got to a point where she got so sick of it that she went and jumped into the river. She did not know how to swim but, fortunately for her, someone saw her, rescued her, and took her to Shakti. This particular woman is now living an independent life.

So, again, forced marriage has no place in Aotearoa New Zealand. I just want to make one point, though: a forced marriage is different from an arranged marriage. An arranged marriage is usually one where the families take a leading role in choosing the partner in a marriage, but both of those individuals concerned usually still have a choice as to whether or not to go through with the marriage. There are some cultures in New Zealand that have arranged marriages. I wanted to just make sure that we cover off—that we are not, actually, in this bill, talking about arranged marriages. Thank you.

MELISSA LEE (National): On that note, I just want to follow on from the speaker who has just taken her seat, Jenny Salesa. We are, in fact, not talking about arranged marriages. Speaking as someone who almost got married in an arranged marriage quite a few years ago, we are not suggesting that arranged marriages are wrong. There are many different cultures that have those kinds of marriages.

What we are talking about is actually child marriage. In New Zealand, child marriage is illegal. If you are under the age of 16, you cannot get married. We are talking about the age between 16 and 18. It is legally possible to marry when you are 18, but there are some instances in New Zealand where children—well, they are children, because they are 16 and 17; my son is 18 and I still think of him as a child. To imagine that a child who is younger than my child could possibly be forced into marriage—and it does actually happen—is wrong.

I commend all of the speakers who have spoken on this bill, the Marriage (Court Consent to Marriage of Minors) Amendment Bill. I commend the work of the Commonwealth Women Parliamentarians (CWP). I remember having discussions in the CWP meeting about this particular bill. I congratulate Jo on having this bill drawn from the ballot.

In New Zealand, for those children between the ages of 16 and 18, who cannot get married legally, they are still able to get married if they have parental consent. That is perfectly fine. But we just want to put an extra barrier in place just in case there is abuse in the system, whether it is cultural or religious or whatever, where the child themselves does not want to get married and they are being coerced, forced—whether it is with physical threat, emotional threat, financial threat, sexual threat, whatever it is—into a marriage that they do not actually want to consent to. We want to make sure that these children are doubly protected.

We would like to think that all parents want to protect their children, but sometimes even the parents cannot help themselves. They are in a situation, whether they are in debt to the other family perhaps, in a cultural context, or maybe they are indebted for generations—I do not know. We are not suggesting that those cultural practices are wrong. It is just that we need to protect our children who do not have the voice that they should have in this country. Those children who are under the age of 18 who do not want to get married should not be able to get married—even if their parents want to force them to get married.

We need to be able to protect these children so that there is a boundary, there is a barrier against someone trying to force them to actually do something that they do not will or wish to actually happen. I think it is wonderful to see everyone in this House agreeing on this bill. It is probably the first time in a very long time that we actually agree on a particular bill. I congratulate the member, and I commend the bill to the House. But let us remember—

Hon Simon Bridges: Most of us agreed on the Family Incomes Package.

MELISSA LEE: Sorry?

Hon Simon Bridges: No, don’t worry.

MELISSA LEE: I did not hear you. A little while ago, I was just talking to my colleague next to me, Paul Foster-Bell, about the fact that many decades ago, in 1950, when the Korean War happened, navy seamen—boys—were so young they lied about their age, and often they went to war and they fought a war when they were so young. And there are children who actually want to get married. If they do want to get married and they want to get the consent of their parents, they should also convince the court as well that they should get married. It is just a protection mechanism that we want to put in place, to make sure that those who do not want to do it cannot do so and cannot be forced to do so. Thank you. I commend the bill to the House.

David Clendon: Mr Assistant Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Sorry—David Clendon. I am sorry, David. I just could not remember your surname. Clendon, David.

DAVID CLENDON (Green): That is fine, Mr Mallard. I am sure you know it deep down somewhere. I should probably begin my short contribution on this bill with something of a mea culpa, and perhaps even an apology to the member, Joanne Hayes, who has brought it to the House. I confess that when I first saw the title and just read the top line, it occurred to me that the bill might be something of a solution in search of a problem. It simply proposed that 16- and 17-year-olds who wish to marry must go to the court. I have been aware, all of my life anyway, that 16- and 17-year-olds could marry with parental consent. I thought: if a system is not broken, why fix it? Clearly, I have learnt something in the intervening few weeks, and more so this evening, hearing the contributions from members—that, actually, there is a serious problem that young people are being forced into marriage, and that is something we cannot tolerate in this country, clearly.

I think Tracey Martin indicated 1933 as the point at which—

Hon Simon Bridges: Winston was born?

DAVID CLENDON: —we allowed 16- and 17-year-olds—ha! That is unkind, Mr Bridges. It was the point at which 16- and 17-year-olds could marry with parental consent. This will raise the bar, clearly. It is sad to acknowledge that, in some instances, clearly, parental consent is given even against the wishes of the young people involved. Marriage is, at least nominally, a life-long commitment, and people should only enter into it obviously wishing to and at least with consent. I am aware, of course, that some people enjoy marriage so much that they try it several times, but let us not go there.

I think the process that the bill describes is a straightforward one. The Family Court is, obviously, the appropriate place to hear these matters. It is not a matter of dealing with offending or crimes, obviously; it is actually about preventing something from happening that really would be in the nature of a crime. As I say, the process is laid out. The applicant must be given an opportunity to put their case. Ideally, the parents of the applicant ought to be there, as is only reasonable, because, obviously, parents always will and should have a view on these matters. It enables the presence of a lawyer, and, of course, at some Family Court proceedings lawyers are either discouraged or not allowed in some instances. I think it is important that people do have legal representation, because some of these situations could, obviously, be quite fraught.

It excludes members of the public or media. The last thing one wants in these situations is any sort of a circus or any sensationalisation of a situation. It would be a very difficult and often very painful situation, I suspect, for people to go through these sorts of things. So I think that the process laid out—finally, too, that the court may hear evidence that may not otherwise be admissible. The strict laws of evidence do not apply in these instances. Again, I think that is appropriate given that it is likely to be members of the public with very little experience or understanding. It gives the judges the widest-possible scope to make decisions on these matters. So I do think the process has clearly been thought through fairly carefully and is appropriate to the task.

The point has been made by the MP—by Jo Hayes—that the problem exists primarily in the Pacific and Asian communities. I think it is important that we do differentiate between accepted or cultural practice, and forced marriages, which are not acceptable, I suspect, certainly in New Zealand culture more generally. It is also important that we do not get into any sort of a blame game, to suggest that any particular cultural or ethnic group—that their practices around birth, death, marriage, coming of age—is better or worse than any other. Every culture, every ethnicity has these practices, has these norms, and that is as it should be. What a dull world it would be if we all did exactly the same thing.

This bill clearly differentiates between traditional practice, cultural practice, and the notion of forced marriages. Forcing young people, 16- and 17-year-olds—though I am loath to call them children, because many people of that age obviously do not consider themselves children. But the fact is, in the greater scheme of things, they are very young people and they are very vulnerable in some situations, so it is important they not be coerced into these matters.

Just two minor things to wrap up that occur to me: the numbers here are not great, but I am also aware that the Family Court is running very close to maximum a lot of the time. I think the issue of resourcing the Family Court might be something the select committee might take up, and also, perhaps, support for people after these proceedings. Thank you.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): I do again apologise to the member. It was just a straight mental blank.

JOANNE HAYES (National): I just want to thank everybody for their contributions here tonight, supporting the first reading of this bill. I look forward to it getting through the vote and heading off to the Justice and Electoral Committee, where we will listen to more testimony and information that will come. Without any further ado, I commend the bill to the House.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee.

Sittings of the House

Sittings of the House

DAVID CLENDON (Musterer—Green): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): A point of order, David Clendon.

DAVID CLENDON: Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker—yes, with a “C”, thank you. The House has made good progress this evening. We have come to a natural break in proceedings. I would like to seek the leave of the House for the House to rise for the day at this point.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Is there any objection to that? No member is foolish enough, and seeing as we have the rare occasion of the Assistant Speaker celebrating a blue win over reds, and the proud son of Wainuiōmata, Tana Umaga, coaching the team to the first victory of this series over the Lions, we will adjourn until 2 o’clock tomorrow.

The House adjourned at 9.45 p.m.