Thursday, 6 July 2017

THURSDAY, 6 JULY 2017

THURSDAY, 6 JULY 2017

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Business Statement

Business Statement

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Deputy Leader of the House): When the House resumes on Tuesday, 25 July, the Government will look to make progress on the Appropriation (2017/18 Supplementary Estimates) Bill, the Commerce (Cartels and Other Matters) Amendment Bill, and a number of other bills on the Order Paper. Wednesday, 26 July will be a members’ day.

Points of Order

Nuclear Disarmament—Nuclear Weapons Prohibition Treaty Negotiations

Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to move a motion without notice or debate on the negotiations under way for a nuclear weapons prohibition treaty in New York.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to move a motion without notice and without debate. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Foster Carers—Recognition of Commitment

RON MARK (Deputy Leader—NZ First): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to move a motion without debate for foster families’ contribution.

Mr SPEAKER: I assume that is a motion without notice.

RON MARK: Correct.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to move that particular motion. Could the member explain again exactly what it is?

RON MARK: It is a motion without notice and without debate to recognise the huge commitment that foster parents make.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to move that motion without notice and without debate. Is there objection? There is objection.

Forest & Bird—Supreme Court Decision

METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to move a motion without notice or debate congratulating Forest & Bird on its successful defence of the Ruahine Forest Park in the Supreme Court. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The motion has been described. Leave is now sought to move that motion, also without notice and without debate. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Freshwater Management—Drinking-water Contamination

1. METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) to the Associate Minister of Health: Tokohia ngā tāngata i inu wai nā te E. coli i paihana, i ngā rā atu i te tahi o Hōngongoi, tau rua mano tekau mā rima, ki te toru tekau o Pipiri, tau rua mano tekau mā ono?

[How many people’s drinking water was contaminated with E. coli between 1 July 2015 to 30 June 2016?]

Hon PETER DUNNE (Associate Minister of Health): The annual report on drinking-water quality for 2015-16 says that approximately 45,000 people in that time received drinking water with excessive measures of E. coli transgressions. I would note that that amounted to 503 cases of gastroenteritis in 2015 and 512 cases in 2016, of which a small portion may have been attributable to E. coli.

Metiria Turei: Does the Minister believe that a system in which 45,000 people have poo in their drinking water at least once a year is good enough for New Zealand?

Hon PETER DUNNE: Obviously, one aims for perfection, but I would note that what the report also shows is that around 98 percent of people in that time received drinking water that was of acceptable quality. While there will always be incidents—there have been a number, over a period of time—the number of people who are adversely affected is very low. Clearly, we need to work with local councils to reduce that even further.

Metiria Turei: How can New Zealanders be sure that the water coming from their taps is not going to make them sick, when the same number of people as the population of Nelson have faecal contamination in their drinking water at least once a year?

Hon PETER DUNNE: The reticulation of water supplies is, of course, a matter for local authorities. Where central government has a role is in the enforcement of, if you like, overall standards. One of the ways we do that is through the annual monitor of drinking-water standards, to which I have referred in the primary answer, and, obviously, ongoing discussions with local government about incidents that occur that are having an adverse effect on the population.

Metiria Turei: How can he be confident that people living in small rural communities and at marae have the resources they need to make sure the water coming from their taps is safe to drink, when his Government cut funding for the drinking-water subsidy programme?

Hon PETER DUNNE: During the life of that subsidy programme, a huge number of small communities seeking to upgrade their water-supply systems were assisted. The number outstanding is comparatively small. I have had ongoing discussion with the Minister of Local Government about ways in which this might be addressed in the future.

Metiria Turei: How is it a good look for Punakaiki, a top tourist destination, to have contaminated drinking water, when tourists expect better from a clean, green New Zealand, which is supposed to be a wealthy country?

Hon PETER DUNNE: It is not a good look for anywhere to have contaminated water supplies for any period of time. But I make the point again that I made in response to an earlier supplementary question: in the specific case that the member refers to, the reticulation of those water supplies is a matter for the local authority.

Richard Prosser: Would it surprise the Minister that the New Zealand Public Health Surveillance Report, covering the first 3 months of 2017—otherwise known as summer—reveals two E. coli outbreaks involving four cases, which were all in Auckland and all in private homes?

Hon PETER DUNNE: In short, no. In fact, the advice I had indicated that there were two such specific outbreaks and that there is not clear evidence as to whether E. coli was involved in those instances.

Metiria Turei: Does the Minister think it is fair that 45,000 New Zealanders have poo in their drinking water at least once a year, while pristine artesian water is taken from underneath their feet, bottled, and sold back to those communities, as happened in Waimārama last year?

Hon PETER DUNNE: I think the issue of the provision of clean water supplies for communities is an important one. Ideally, it would be coming through the source of reticulation in the first instance, but in situations where that is not able to be achieved because of temporary problems, then it is desirable that people get their clean, fresh water from elsewhere.

Economy—Government Financial Position, Taxes, and Fuel and Electricity Markets

2. MELISSA LEE (National) to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on the Crown’s financial performance?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Finance): The Government accounts out this morning for the 11 months to 31 May show a surplus of $4.5 billion, which is $1.5 billion ahead of forecast. The good shape of the Government’s books reflects a strong economy that is responding well to the Government’s consistent economic plan. This result, following on from the buoyant confidence numbers released last week and early this week, indicate that the economy is growing well despite the best efforts of some commentators to talk New Zealand down.

Melissa Lee: Why are the Government’s accounts performing well?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Driving this rising operating balance before gains and losses surplus is stronger than forecast tax revenues, particularly company tax, which was $688 million above forecast. These results reflect strong consumer confidence and businesses getting ahead and growing jobs for New Zealanders. Our diversified economy is delivering across the country. While our surpluses are growing, they will be needed to meet the cost of the significant investments we have committed to, including the Government’s $32.5 billion infrastructure programme over the next 4 years.

Melissa Lee: What impact has the improving nature of the Government’s accounts had on core Crown net debt?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The core Crown net debt stands at $59.3 billion, or 22.4 percent of GDP, and is $1.2 billion lower than forecast. As we announced in April, our new target for reducing net debt is to between 10 and 15 percent of GDP by 2025. The good news about the Government’s strong fiscal position is that it gives us the ability to invest in growing social services, deliver a strong infrastructure programme, and lift family incomes from 1 April next year with the Family Incomes Package, as well as reducing net debt as a percentage of GDP.

Ron Mark: How much of this strong fiscal position is derived by his Government creaming off taxpayers on each litre of petrol, from the excise tax, the emissions trading scheme tax, and GST, which is a tax on a tax?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well, leaving aside the inaccuracy of the last part of that statement, in terms of excise tax, of course, that is hypothecated to the roading system. So the investments that we see—for example, in the Waterview tunnel, which is helping Aucklanders get about; the Kapiti Expressway, north of Wellington here; the motorway around Christchurch Airport; the bridge on the West Coast; and the Waikato Expressway—are all funded from that tax. I think that most New Zealanders would appreciate the fact—particularly those who use their vehicles—that the Government is making a massive investment in New Zealand’s roading system.

Melissa Lee: How does this country’s fiscal performance compare internationally?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: New Zealand is in a strong position compared with our international peers. We have balanced the Government’s books, and surpluses are now growing. Our net debt position has peaked and is tracking downwards as a percentage of our economy. This is a better performance than our friends in Australia, the UK, the US, and Canada, for example. We have achieved this by making responsible spending decisions over the last several years while supporting New Zealanders through the global financial crisis and the Canterbury earthquakes. Unfortunately, there are those, of course, who want to spend lots more money, with no willingness to think of the taxpayers of New Zealand.

Ron Mark: Given the very strong position of the New Zealand economy, what is it that the Government intends to do to reduce power prices in rural, provincial New Zealand and to get petrol prices down to a level that the Government itself thinks should be more appropriate given its attacks on the oil industry, which it—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Bring the question to a conclusion.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well, I am pleased to report to the member that the Government’s electricity reforms led by the former Minister of Energy and Resources my colleague Mr Brownlee have made a very positive outcome in terms of making sure that electricity prices stay down for all New Zealanders. In fact, it has been an excellent result in that respect. In terms of petrol prices, the current Minister of Energy and Resources, Minister Collins, is very focused on that and, in fact, just by speaking and organising a report she has managed to get petrol prices down.

Question time interrupted.

Points of Order

Business Statement—Appropriation (2017/18 Supplementary Estimates) Bill

CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have just received the emailed version of the business statement that the Leader of the House read earlier on, in which he indicates that the Government will look to make progress on the Appropriation (2017/18 Supplementary Estimates) Bill when the House resumes. As that bill will not be introduced until Budget day next year, I wonder whether he could indicate exactly what the progress is that the Government intends to make on it when the House resumes. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! If the member had had issue with the business statement, I would have hoped he would make it at that time. It is not a point of order.

Question time resumed.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Children in State Care—Historical Abuse, Inquiry

3. JACINDA ARDERN (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Prime Minister: Why has he as Prime Minister rejected calls from the Human Rights Commission, victims, and members of the public to conduct a full inquiry into historic abuse in State care?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: Because the Government is taking a practical approach to addressing the abhorrent abuse people suffered while in State care. An inquiry would not resolve the claims of individuals, provide payments, or offer personal apologies. The Government extended the Confidential Listening and Assistance Service, which has provided more help than an inquiry would. We have also taken steps to resolve claims directly and quickly in a way that is personal in each case.

Jacinda Ardern: When he stated “The question would be, would an inquiry add anything?”, did he think to ask survivors themselves that question?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: In the context that that statement was made, it is that we have acknowledged the past, listened to it, and those voices that we have heard have shaped the new ministry, its legislation, and the way it cares for children going forward—and it is in that context that it was meant.

Jacinda Ardern: Is he prepared to meet with victims of abuse in State care and repeat to them Anne Tolley’s claims that “We don’t need an inquiry now and no apology is needed because there’s no evidence that it was a systemic problem.”?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I meet with a range of New Zealanders all of the time and will continue to do so in my role.

Jacinda Ardern: Was there systemic abuse in State care?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Well, from what we have heard from the Confidential Listening and Assistance Service, from the way that we are settling claims, then there has been systemic abuse in State care.

Jacinda Ardern: If there was systemic abuse in State care, why did a Cabinet paper claim to the contrary, and why does the Government continue to use such claims to state that there is no reason or rationale for an inquiry?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Because it was in particular institutions and particular places, and we have been redressing that with individuals as their cases come forward, and that is how we have been dealing with it.

Jacinda Ardern: Given the strong call for an inquiry, including from the majority of political parties in this House, is his reluctance all about money instead of about people?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: No, because we have actually moved to resolve claims for individuals in the most effective and efficient way that we can for them to give them closure.

Jacinda Ardern: Why is he opposed to issuing a State apology for abuse in State care; not a letter from Anne Tolley, but a State apology?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Because I actually believe that it is far more powerful to actually have individual apologies than a general one.

Marama Fox: How will he respond to the 10,000 people who have signed this open letter put together from the Human Rights Commission, asking for an independent inquiry into the abuse of children in State care?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I expect that that petition will go through select committee, as it does, and the Government would respond to that appropriately.

Marama Fox: I seek leave to table the letter, written in Te Reo Māori and in English, the 10,000 signatures, and the hundreds of individual letters presented to me just now by people who have been abused in State care.

Mr SPEAKER: Can I just check that this is not a petition that has been presented to Parliament.

Marama Fox: No, this is an open letter.

Mr SPEAKER: On that basis, I will put the leave and the House will decide. Leave is sought to table the letter and the collation of petitioners. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is none.

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

Social Housing, Wellington—Housing Development

4. BRETT HUDSON (National) to the Minister for Social Housing: What recent announcements has she made regarding social housing in Wellington?

Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister for Social Housing): Today I announced that work has begun on 145 new social housing units to be built across five Wellington sites. This is a significant building programme that will help drive a transformation of our Wellington social houses, creating modern, fit-for-purpose homes. This represents an investment of $48.5 million and is part of our ongoing commitment to grow and improve our social housing stock across New Zealand.

Brett Hudson: What sorts of tenants are these new social houses designed for?

Hon AMY ADAMS: All of these new homes will be one-bedroom units, which is the main type of home needed in Wellington to respond to social housing demand at the moment, which is increasingly from single people and couples without children. In addition, the new homes at Hanson Street have been specifically designed for people with disabilities, as they will be located close to the hospital, social service agencies, shops, and bus routes. They are fully accessible and have a number of features like designated mobility scooter parking and charging areas.

Grant Robertson: Can the Minister confirm that the 34 flats to be built on the McLean Flats site in central Wellington were, in fact, announced on 13 September 2014; why has there been no activity since then?

Hon AMY ADAMS: Because redeveloping a building of that scale happens in several stages, and what we are announcing today is that the work, as it says in my release, Mr Robertson, is commencing today. Before you commence the work, you get a resource consent, you do a design, you get funding, and you talk to the community. We announced we were starting that. Now we are announcing that we are starting the building.

Hon Peter Dunne: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It was impossible to hear anything of that answer beyond the words “Mr Speaker” because of the noise. I wonder whether the Minister could repeat it.

Mr SPEAKER: It is not unreasonable, because I have no idea what the answer was because of the howling from my immediate left. So I am going to invite the Minister, if she wants to, to conclude the answer, but it will be without any interjection whatsoever from the members on my left.

Hon AMY ADAMS: Mr Speaker, thank you. I am very happy to advise the House that the process of building a large development, like is happening at McLean Flats and like is happening at the five sites across Wellington, is a multifaceted process that begins with resource consenting, funding, designing, and consulting with the community. What we have announced today—as we have said very clearly in the release—is that work is today beginning on the construction.

Todd Barclay—Southland Electorate Office Allegations, Ministerial Conduct

5. RON MARK (Deputy Leader—NZ First) to the Prime Minister: In so far as there is prime ministerial responsibility, with all the statements he has made on the Clutha-Southland electorate office issue, has he checked all the facts?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: As I have said previously, there are not any.

Ron Mark: Since the 20 June 2017, can he confirm that no current or former Minister has been informed verbally under the “no surprises principle” of any matters arising from the Clutha-Southland electorate office, in particular by the police?

Mr SPEAKER: The Hon Paula Bennett, on behalf of the Prime Minister and in so far as there may be prime ministerial responsibility.

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I have no prime ministerial responsibility for that.

Ron Mark: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. A clarification—the Cabinet Manual makes it quite clear that the Prime Minister has responsibility for all his Ministers.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! We have travelled this territory quite a lot over the last couple of weeks. As I have pointed out, only the Prime Minister now knows in what regard any answers have been made, and, in that case, the Deputy Prime Minister, on behalf of the Prime Minister, is saying there was no prime ministerial responsibility. That must be accepted.

Ron Mark: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. So are you saying that if the police, since 20 June 2017, had contacted a Minister on this matter, the Prime Minister has no responsibility for that?

Mr SPEAKER: No, no, I am saying to you—and I am being as clear as I can—that the Deputy Prime Minister, on behalf of the Prime Minister, has given an answer, and that is the answer. I am not responsible for the answer. I have got to conclude whether the answer has addressed the question, and I certainly have concluded that.

Ron Mark: Since 20 June 2017, has the Attorney-General made any comment, verbal or written, to the Prime Minister or the Government on any matter arising from the Clutha-Southland electorate office?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Not that I am aware of.

Ron Mark: Does he agree with this well-known New Zealander, who said “New Zealand politics stays clean because all politicians have presumed the public don’t tolerate corruption, and because politicians do not want the shame of being seen as anything but squeaky clean—until now that is.”; if not, why not?

Mr SPEAKER: The Hon Paula Bennett, on behalf of the Prime Minister, in so far as there may be prime ministerial responsibility.

Hon PAULA BENNETT: In the context of the statement that was made and parts of it, I am sure, yes.

Ron Mark: I seek leave to table a document that is not widely available, entitled “There is no shame”, written by the Hon Bill English—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! All I need is the source of the document.

Ron Mark: A letter—an article written by the Hon Bill English—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! If it is an article, it will have been published, and if the members want it, they can find it. I am not putting the leave.

Ron Mark: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can I draw your attention to Speaker’s ruling 164/2, made by your good self, given that this article is not widely published.

Mr SPEAKER: This is easily resolved. If the member wants me to put the leave on this occasion, I will put the leave. Leave is sought to table that particular article, which may not be easily available, according to the member. Is there any objection to it being tabled? There is objection.

District Health Boards—Disability Support Services, Funding

Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North): To the Associate Minister, has she seen a letter dated 5 May from five district health boards (DHBs) to the Ministry of Health entitled—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is just a little too much chatter and interjection. I am going to invite the member to start that question again.

Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North): Thank you. To the Associate Minister—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Of what?

Dr DAVID CLARK: —has she—health, Gerry. It is on the Order Paper.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I now understand why there was interjection. It is important, when the member rises to announce the question, that he does so fully, so that the House does know.

6. Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North) to the Associate Minister of Health: Has she received a letter dated 5 May from five district health boards to the Ministry of Health entitled “Critical under-resourcing in Regional Intellectual Disability Secure Care”; if not, would she be surprised to find it contains a warning that the Ministry of Health’s “failure to ensure adequate capacity within the sector is such that there is now a serious and in some areas imminent risk of harm to those individuals unable to access the appropriate care, as well as to service providers and their staff”?

Hon NICKY WAGNER (Associate Minister of Health): No, I have not received a letter, but I understand that the office of the Ministry of Health received a copy earlier this week. However, I am advised by the Ministry of Health that it has been able to manage growing pressure through regional responses and individual solutions. A new, national service is presently being developed for high-risk and high-needs individuals needing a secure and individualised placement, and a long-term solution will be finalised in due course.

Dr David Clark: What action has she taken to reassure the DHBs regarding their concern that “It is apparent that the current level of resourcing is not sufficient to enable the provisions within the IDCC&R Act to be fulfilled in accordance with the underlying purposes of the Act”, and just how satisfied were those DHBs with her response?

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

Hon NICKY WAGNER: DHBs are always entitled to raise any concerns. However, I have been advised that currently the ministry has access to up to 66 beds across the country. I am advised by the chief adviser of ID(CC&R) that, to date, the number of beds has been sufficient to meet demand at this time. However, there is always pressure in this area, and we are constantly monitoring capacity. As I said, a long-term solution is being formulated.

Dr David Clark: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I listened very carefully. I asked what action the Minister had taken.

Mr SPEAKER: And I would be inclined to have helped the member, except he broke the first rule—that a supplementary question should have one question. That one had two questions. As I listened to the questions, and the answer, I think that on this occasion I can conclude that the Minister addressed the second question, probably not the first. If the member wants to sharpen up his supplementary questions, I can try to help him.

Dr David Clark: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The second question was dependent on the action in the first, so—

Mr SPEAKER: No, the member is not listening. The member should not have a second question in the supplementary question. I let him do it, but then I advise members when they do that not to then complain if they do not get the answer they want.

Dr David Clark: Does she agree with Dr Jeremy Skipworth, clinical director at Auckland’s Regional Forensic Psychiatric Services at Waitematā DHB, that the lack of access to step-down beds “creates a major gap in the continuum of care”, and that “The risks in this process have been exposed by a number of serious incidents at the point of transition”?

Hon NICKY WAGNER: As I have said before, I have been advised by the chief adviser of ID(CC&R) that it is managing capacity with individualised solutions and 66 beds across the country. To date, they have been able to meet demand, but we are concerned about future pressures and we are working on a strategy to go forward.

Dr David Clark: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I listened carefully, and I did not ask a second question that time. I asked if she agreed with the particular bit of advice, which was about the exposure through serious—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have a way forward. I am going to allow the member on this occasion to ask the question again, but, in future, would he carefully look at Standing Order 380(1) and how he should then, in future, compose questions so that they are easily understood by the House and by the Minister. On this occasion I will let the member have one more go with that question.

Dr David Clark: Does she agree with Dr Jeremy Skipworth, clinical director at Auckland’s Regional Forensic Psychiatric Services at the Waitamatā DHB, that the lack of access to step-down beds “creates a major gap in the continuum of care”, and that “The risks in this process have been exposed by a number of serious incidents at the point of transition”?

Hon NICKY WAGNER: Every DHB manages its patients differently. But what I have been told by the chief adviser of ID(CC&R), to date, is that the number of beds across the country is meeting demand, although it is looking to pressure for the future and a new strategy.

Dr David Clark: Does she agree with Steve Bain, acting general manager of mental health and addiction at Southern DHB, that “their ward environment is not purpose-built and increasingly unsuitable, given the changing patient mix contributing to increased difficulty managing patient aggression on the ward”?

Hon NICKY WAGNER: All DHBs have a different way of managing their patients. It is interesting that Southern DHB is getting a new hospital in Dunedin. We know that there is pressure over these areas, and we know that the 66 beds across the country can manage that demand to date. However, we are concerned and monitoring demand, and looking to a new strategy to manage that.

Dr David Clark: Does she agree with Dr Peri Renison, the chief of psychiatry at Canterbury DHB, that “it appears we are in the midst of a national system failure”?

Hon NICKY WAGNER: I do not think there is a national system failure. I have been advised by the ministry that it continues to meet regularly with each of its district health boards to ensure that the issues relating to the resource constraints are managed effectively. The ministry is currently doing work on its budgets for 2017-18, and the regional intellectual disability secure services are included in this work.

Pacific Peoples—Recognised Seasonal Employer Scheme

7. TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty) to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: How is the Government supporting Pacific labour mobility?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Foreign Affairs): On Tuesday, the eve of the 10th anniversary of the Recognised Seasonal Employer (RSE) scheme, the Minister of Immigration and I announced a $10 million new funding expansion for the Pacific labour mobility scheme. This, along with $5 million of funding for the training of Pacific workers in New Zealand, was announced as part of the PACER-Plus trade deal, and delivers $15 million over the next 5 years to help New Zealand businesses while improving the lives of people in the Pacific and strengthening Pacific economies. The RSE scheme has been a huge success for New Zealand business, tens of thousands of Pacific Islanders, and the countries they travel from each year.

Todd Muller: How successful has the Recognised Seasonal Employer scheme been?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Since the scheme’s inception, 60,000 visas have been issued to Pacific workers who have taken up seasonal employment in New Zealand’s orchards and vineyards. These jobs improve standards and productivity in New Zealand. They also generate $40 million in remittances back to the Island countries. I have recently visited Fiji and Tonga, where I learnt firsthand the appreciation of the scheme in those countries. Their New Zealand income has enabled them to build more resilient homes, send their children to school, and contribute to their own community development. Countries involved in the labour mobility scheme have seen household incomes and school attendance rise. There is increasing access to health services, reduced unemployment, and, overall, less reliance on foreign aid.

Todd Muller: What changes to the Recognised Seasonal Employer scheme are being explored?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The Government has approved $10 million over an initial 5-year period to explore labour mobility opportunities in new sectors where there is continued high demand for workers. In particular, the Government will be exploring employment opportunities for Pacific women and developing prospects in semi-skilled higher-income occupations. The programme will continue to support growth in existing sectors, and will develop labour mobility opportunities in new sectors, such as construction, fisheries, and tourism. It is designed to be flexible, to respond to new opportunities in our dynamic labour market. We have already commenced a pilot programme for Pacific carpenters who are currently working on the Canterbury rebuild. We are confident that hard-working Pacific people will be in high demand from employers across the new sectors.

Drugs, Policy—Law Reform and Enforcement

8. JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green) to the Prime Minister: Why did he say that prisons are a “moral and fiscal failure”?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: Because that is his view.

Julie Anne Genter: Given that view, will his Government implement the proposal released yesterday by the New Zealand Drug Foundation, including the recommendations of the 2011 Law Commission report Controlling and Regulating Drugs, so we can stop incarcerating people for minor drug offences?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: No, because it is simply not true that our jails are overflowing with drug offenders. The vast majority of people in prison for drug offences are manufacturers or distributors.

Julie Anne Genter: Given that we spent $268 million in 2014-15 on enforcing our drug laws and only $78 million—a tiny fraction of that—on drug addiction - related health interventions, does he agree that there is an opportunity to help people with their additions rather than locking them up?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: There are two parts to that. The first part is that, actually, most of that money is being spent on clan-labs and those who are actually manufacturing and distributing things like P. So that is what that money is being spent on. But on the educational side, I am for that. I think that we can do more on the educational side of making sure that New Zealanders know the effects of addiction and how we can actually help them get off it.

Julie Anne Genter: I seek leave to table data that I received from the New Zealand Drug Foundation that shows that more money is spent for cannabis-related offences than for P.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that information. Is there any objection to it being tabled? There is not.

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

Julie Anne Genter: Will he take an evidence-based approach to regulating the personal use of cannabis, as experts at the Drug Foundation symposium have been urging here in Parliament all this week?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: My beliefs are that I do not believe in the liberalisation of cannabis.

Julie Anne Genter: Given that the evidence is all there that it will save us money, it will help people, it will reduce harm, and the New Zealand public supports it, why will this Government not listen to the evidence and finally modernise our drug laws?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Because there is a mix of evidence and we are quite clear on where we stand on it.

Housing, Auckland—Supply and Government Measures to Address

9. PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū) to the Minister for Building and Construction: Does he agree with the Auckland Council chief economist that an Auckland housing shortfall of almost 50,000 by 2023 is a conservative estimate?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Building and Construction): I have seen all sorts of estimates of the housing shortfall, ranging from as low as 15,000 to as high, from Shamubeel Eaqub, as 500,000 nationwide. The numbers depend dramatically on assumptions about population growth, household size, and the new home build rate. My focus has been on a policy to grow new home construction, which has increased over the last 5 years in Auckland from 3,000 homes per year to now over 10,000 homes per year.

Phil Twyford: Is it not true that Auckland Council’s estimated shortfall could, in fact, be much bigger than 50,000, given that it assumes population growth that is only half the current rate and a build rate of 11,000 a year, when Statistics New Zealand said today that only 8,642 homes were completed in the last 12 months?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The member should be apologising for his misrepresentation of the issues around building consenting. He claimed that the number of homes being built was 30 percent less than the number that was being consented. The report out today from Statistics New Zealand says that that number might be 2 or 3 percent—not 30. This is as big an embarrassment as the debacle over Chinese-sounding names.

Phil Twyford: Can he confirm that under the last Labour Government 77,596 homes were built in Auckland but under this National Government only 43,000 homes have been built in Auckland; does he still call that “the biggest building boom that the country has ever seen”?

Mr SPEAKER: There are two questions there—the Hon Dr Nick Smith.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I am very happy for the House to look at the comparison. In every one of Labour’s last 6 years in office, the number of homes being built dropped—it dropped from 10,000 a year to just 3,000 a year. In every one of the last 6 years, the number of homes being built in Auckland has grown. In fact, the last 6 years is the longest and strongest building boom in Auckland’s history.

Phil Twyford: Is 77,000 more or less than 43,000?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: It is true that when Labour first came into Government in 1999 we were building a large number of houses. Then, as Labour’s policies came into effect, like the metropolitan urban limit, it completely strangled new home construction. The building rate dropped every year from 2004 to the lowest level in more than 50 years when we became the Government. That number has gone up from 3,000 a year to over 10,000 a year under this Government.

Phil Twyford: When fewer than 2,000 homes have been built in his Auckland special housing areas in the 3 years since he announced that policy, and the shortfall of 35,000 homes built up on his watch is predicted to blow out to 50,000 in the next few years, is that not the definition of failure?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: There are 4,800 homes that have been consented in special housing areas in Auckland, and 2,500—2,500—of those have been completed. Right now, a third of the new homes being built in Auckland are in special housing areas. That is, if we did not have special housing areas, there would be 3,000 fewer homes per year being built in Auckland. So I say that has helped grow supply. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Question No. 10, Alastair Scott—[Interruption] Order! [Interruption] Order! Can I say to Mr Brownlee and Mr Twyford: if they want to go and have a chat, do it over a cup of coffee in the lounge.

Meat Industry—Chilled Meat Exports to China

10. ALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa) to the Minister for Primary Industries: How is the Government supporting red meat farmers to extract better value out of their produce?

Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister for Primary Industries): Last Friday at Auckland Airport I celebrated the first consignments of chilled red meat leave for China as a result of a successful 6-month trial negotiated by the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI). Chilled meat is worth around twice the value of frozen meat, and this is great news for our processors and farmers. These first shipments were air freighted, and utilise new air links established between our countries on the back of significant tourism growth.

Alastair Scott: How is the Government supporting red meat farmers to create more value inside the farm gate?

Hon NATHAN GUY: I have just given one example of that in the answer to the primary question. Of course the Government is partnering with the red meat industry to develop and select sheep that also thrive in hill country and are higher in healthier and tastier fats. Te Mana Lamb was launched by the Prime Minister recently in Hong Kong, and it is on the menu in top restaurants here in New Zealand. The programme is part of the Government’s Primary Growth Partnership. This Government is co-investing $25 million into this initiative, and it has already received very positive reviews.

Richard Prosser: If Chinese chilled meat exports only started after Silver Fern Farms fell into Chinese control, and red meat exports in the year to May 2017 are down 9.3 percent—or $616 million—can farmers summarise National’s plan as “We’re not retreating; we’re just advancing in a different direction.”?

Hon NATHAN GUY: No, they cannot. I know that New Zealand First has a very protectionist policy and is afraid of New Zealand actually reaching out to international countries that we actually welcome investing here. What the member should be aware of is that 10 plants have been listed for export of chilled meat into China, not just Silver Fern Farms.

Community Trust of Southland, Trustees—Potential Conflicts of Interest and Investigation

11. GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) to the Associate Minister of Finance: Does she have confidence in the trustees of the Community Trust of Southland?

Hon AMY ADAMS (Associate Minister of Finance): While I am aware of concerns that have been raised, the advice I have had is that based on the information received to date and my limited role under the Community Trusts Act, no formal action by me is appropriate at this time and, accordingly, the question of confidence does not arise.

Grant Robertson: Why has she refused to launch an investigation into the Community Trust of Southland despite being formally asked to do so by two former chairs of the trust, three former deputy chairs of the trust, and four former members of the trust who represent a period covering 1988 to 2015 in their membership?

Hon AMY ADAMS: First of all, I would point out that I have not refused. I have said the information provided to date does not reach the threshold that would be required. Secondly, I would point out to the member that under the Community Trusts Act I have very limited responsibilities, which focus on the appointment of trustees, decisions on adjustments to trust areas, trust mergers, and the establishment of new trusts.

Grant Robertson: What has she done to verify the allegations made in the letter to her of an irregular process in the exit of the chief executive and potential conflicts of interest from the trustees?

Hon AMY ADAMS: I would repeat what I said in the previous answer about my very limited role under the Community Trusts Act. What I would say to the member is that I have received advice from the administering agency, which is the Department of Internal Affairs, which has advised me that I follow the process that I have followed, which is to indicate that at this time the information provided does not establish any grounds for an investigation. What was discussed was essentially an employment issue and for me to be involved in that, according to the advice I have had, would not be appropriate.

Grant Robertson: Would she change her decision about an investigation if it were established that the departure of the chief executive came about as a result of a letter from the chair of the trust stating that the trustees had made a decision that the chief executive should resign even though no formal decision was taken to do that?

Hon AMY ADAMS: The advice that my officials have given me is that the threshold for mounting an investigation would be specific allegations in bases relating to governance failures, financial mismanagement, or illegal activities. What I have done is written to the trust’s chair and made it very clear that my expectations are that the trust is managed appropriately, in accordance with good governance standards, and I have written to the complainants and asked them to give me any further advice that they want to bring to my attention, and I have said that I would be very happy to consider that.

Grant Robertson: Has she or anyone from her office discussed the specific allegations in the letter from the former trustees with the current chair of the trust or any other trustees?

Hon AMY ADAMS: I just said in my previous answer that I have written to the current chair of the trust and made it very clear that I have received that letter and that I expect the trust to be managed to the highest standards of governance and professionalism, and I set out my expectations to her very clearly.

Grant Robertson: Is the reason she has decided not to investigate the trust that those who have driven the chief executive officer out have close links to the National Party, and that the chair of the trust is also the chair of the Clutha-Southland branch of the National Party?

Mr SPEAKER: In so far as there is ministerial responsibility—the Hon Amy Adams.

Hon AMY ADAMS: I completely refute that. The basis for my decision is exactly as I have set out, which is on the basis of the advice I have received from my officials and my very limited role under the Community Trusts Act.

Budget 2017—Auckland Schools, Capacity

12. Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National) to the Associate Minister of Education: What recent announcements has he made following Budget 2017 in regards to increasing capacity at Auckland schools?

Hon TIM MACINDOE (Associate Minister of Education): Recently, the Hon Nikki Kaye and I were pleased to announce that in the first tranche of roll growth funding from Budget 2017, eight Auckland schools will receive a combined $21 million to build 41 classrooms. This will see 34 new classrooms to increase capacity by around 680 student places and seven replacement classrooms. I am very pleased to inform both Dr Parmar and Mr Wood that Dominion Road School in the Mt Roskill electorate is set to receive $2 million to fund four new classrooms.

Grant Robertson: I apologise. I meant to do this at the end of my question. I seek leave of the House to table a letter written on 29 May 2017 by nine former trustees of the Community Trust of Southland to Amy Adams, urging an urgent investigation into happenings at the trust.

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

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

Simon O’Connor: How will this investment benefit Auckland schools and their pupils?

Hon TIM MACINDOE: The eight Auckland schools receiving new and replacement classrooms include two in the Tāmaki electorate, represented by Simon O’Connor. These are Meadowbank School, which will be getting four new classrooms, and St Thomas School, which will be getting nine classrooms, five of which will be new and four being replacement classrooms. This also follows our announcement a few weeks ago that Stonefield School, also in the member’s electorate, will receive funding for expansion. Pupils from Beachlands School, Bairds Mainfreight Primary School, Rowandale School, Te Kura Kaupapa Māori o Te Kotuku, and Onehunga Primary School will also benefit from new modern classrooms to help them to learn and achieve to the best of their ability. The good news is that this is just tranche one of roll growth funding announcements for Auckland, and we still have two more tranches to come.

Bills

Criminal Records (Expungement of Convictions for Historical Homosexual Offences) Bill

First Reading

Apology

Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister of Justice): I move, That the Criminal Records (Expungement of Convictions for Historical Homosexual Offences) Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Justice and Electoral Committee to consider the bill. I also move, That this House apologise to those homosexual New Zealanders who were convicted for consensual adult activity, and recognise the tremendous hurt and suffering those men and their families have gone through, and the continued effects the convictions have had on them. Today we are putting on the record that this House deeply regrets the hurt and stigma suffered by the many hundreds of New Zealand men who were turned into criminals by a law that was profoundly wrong, and for that we are sorry. We are acknowledging that these men should never have been burdened with criminal convictions, and we are recognising the continued effects that the convictions have had on their lives and the lives of their families. New Zealand has a proud reputation for fairness, freedom, and diversity. It is unimaginable today that we would criminalise consensual sexual activity between adults.

Almost 4 years ago this Parliament passed the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Act 2013 to allow same-sex couples to legally marry, and I was proud to vote in favour of it. Today is another historic day for the New Zealand gay community and their families as Parliament formally apologises for the hurt caused by the convictions and takes the first reading of a bill to expunge those convictions. It is never too late to apologise. While we cannot ever erase the injustice, this apology is a symbolic but an important act that we hope will help address the harm and right this historic wrong.

The Homosexual Law Reform Act 1986 decriminalised sexual conduct between consenting males aged 16 and older. The right to be free from discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation was later recognised in the Human Rights Act 1993. However, convictions for those offences remain on record. This means that they can appear in criminal history checks, and those New Zealanders continue to be tainted with the stigma that such convictions carry.

This bill seeks to address the ongoing stigma, prejudice, and other negative effects arising from a conviction for a historical homosexual offence by creating a statutory scheme for a convicted person, or a representative on their behalf if that person is deceased, to apply for the conviction to be expunged. This is the first expungement scheme ever to be created in New Zealand, reflecting the uniqueness of the situation. I cannot think of any other situation where a Government in this country would seek to rewrite criminal histories based on changes in societal views.

It is clear that the laws under which the men affected were convicted have not represented the views of most New Zealanders for many years, and it is right that we now formally recognise that. While it is impossible to know the exact numbers, it is estimated that around a thousand people may be eligible to apply under the scheme. This is based on analysis of conviction data published by the then Department of Statistics on people convicted of indecency between males, which was the most common offence prosecuted between 1965 and 1986.

The bill provides that the Secretary for Justice will be the decision maker in expungement applications. The secretary will determine, on the balance of probabilities, whether the application meets the test for expungement. If the application is successful, the conviction will not appear on a criminal history check, and the person will not be required to disclose information about the expunged conviction for any purpose. It will be as if they were never convicted. They will be free to apply for an expungement, and the test will be that the conduct constituting the offence would not be an offence under today’s law. This test is necessary to ensure that historical convictions are not expunged if the conduct was non-consensual or the parties were not of legal age—in other words, if the behaviour would still be considered criminal today.

Five historical homosexual offences are covered by this bill. These include offences under the Crimes Act 1961 that were repealed by the Homosexual Law Reform Act of 1986, and the predecessors of those offences under the Crimes Act 1908. The offences involve those of indecency between males, sodomy, and the keeping of places of resort for homosexual acts. The scheme will be open to applications from people with historical convictions for offences relating to sexual conduct between consenting men. If the person is deceased, a representative such as a family member or partner will be able to make the application on their behalf.

The primary obligation to provide information in support of an application will fall on the applicant, and the Secretary for Justice will be able to obtain any further information he or she considers necessary to make a proper assessment of the application. The applicant will not be required to make any appearance in person, nor will the fact of the application be made public, to protect the privacy of those involved.

The bill is modelled on a number of schemes in Australian states, England, and Wales. The New Zealand scheme is more closely aligned with those in Australian states, where people can apply to have their convictions disregarded. It would not be appropriate to go further and create a blanket pardon for all historical convictions for homosexual offences. It is possible that people convicted under the repealed offences would have been convicted for conduct that is still illegal today—for example, if the activities concerned were not consensual. A case by case assessment of the facts of each case is therefore necessary to clarify whether the conduct would be lawful under the current law.

The bill relies on an application by the affected person or their representative, because not every convicted person will want an investigation into the history of their conviction. There is a need to respect the privacy of those who choose, for whatever reason, not to pursue the option of having a conviction expunged. In addition, there will be real limitations on the ability to investigate a case without the cooperation of the affected person, as they will often be the primary source of information for the decision maker.

Let me once again acknowledge the enormous pain that the New Zealanders affected by these convictions have lived with. It is my hope that this bill and Parliament’s apology will go some way towards addressing that. As well as acting to once and for all remove the taint and the label of criminality, we want, by these actions, to formally acknowledge and put on record both the hurt and the damage caused, and the fact that those convictions should not have occurred. I proudly commend the bill to the House.

Waiata

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): I want to thank the Minister of Justice for her motion and the bill that she is bringing before the House today, and for her personal leadership in bringing this important matter before us. It is hard, from a perspective of 2017, to comprehend a world in which it was a crime for two adult men to love one another. It is harder still to imagine the feelings of anxiety, fear, despair, and depression that such a law engendered.

I cannot say it better than one of the submitters on Wiremu Demchick’s petition. He quoted a man whose conviction forced him to resign from the army. These are his words: “This conviction still leads, after 53 years, to self-hatred, worthlessness, unjustified guilt and shame. To relieve the anguish and pain, chronic drinking and self-destruction took control over the next 10-15 years, until the realization that I wasn’t a two headed monster, and there were many others like me throughout the world.” He goes on: “I love my country, but live in fear of being ‘found out’, of further humiliation, panic attacks when I see a uniformed police officer, and a general feeling of being unworthy to be myself, something few others would understand. Should this petition be … approved, it would allow me at this late point in my life to respect myself, and feel some dignity in my final years.” We owe him and thousands like him not just an apology but our respect and a sense of dignity. This apology and this bill begin to do that.

Two weekends ago I had the honour of attending a service to mark the 50th anniversary of the delivery of a sermon by Rev. Godfrey Wilson, at St Peter’s Church on Willis Street in June 1967, highlighting the treatment of homosexuals. It was a radical call for acceptance and inclusion at that time. The core of the sermon was about a man named John, who is met by a prison chaplain. John is an able person and intelligent. He works in a bank, but he is now in prison. He had found love with Colin and they had moved into a flat together. It was not easy. There were tensions and quarrels, but there was also love. After being together a year, the landlord gave them notice. Another tenant had complained about pansies in the building. In the stress that followed, the relationship between John and Colin ended. John became depressed and his life spiralled down until he was imprisoned for 12 months for his homosexual activities. John said to the chaplain: “If you fall in love and marry, that’s fine. But if I fall in love and want to share it, that’s perversion and must be persecuted and punished. Do you wonder that I have thought of suicide? What is there for me? Who cares about me?”.

Let us be clear. The illegality of homosexuality, the arrests and the imprisonments, and the fear of that happening did not just ruin lives and destroy potential; it killed people. Hundreds, or possibly thousands, of lives have been lost because men could not bear the shame, the stigma, and the hurt caused by this Parliament and the way that society viewed them as criminals. It is for all of that that we must apologise, as a Government and as a Parliament, to those men who are still alive and to those who have passed on and their families. To those families, it is important that you take the opportunity afforded by this legislation to give dignity in death to your relatives that this Parliament did not allow them in life.

I also want to speak today to those gay men who were not convicted in this period, but, rather, lived through it in the face of discrimination, in the face of hate, and in the face of stigma. We also owe all of you an apology. Whether you were convicted or not, this law was wrong and made your lives worse. I want to salute the bravery and courage of all of those homosexual men who lived through that, and then protested and brought that to the attention of the world. I think of those gay men who, in 1986, signed a letter in the New Zealand Herald that put their names to their sexuality and put at risk their lives and their careers. That bravery and courage should be acknowledged today as well.

On a personal note, to all those men, I add my apology, but I want to do more than that. I want to say that I respect you, I honour you, and I stand on your shoulders today. The fact that I, as a gay man, can be out and proud and a member of Parliament is but a small tribute to you. But, more than that, next year Alf and I will celebrate 20 years of being together and, early the next year, 10 years of our civil union, and next week we will get to look after our grandchildren in the school holidays. Those are all things that would have been unimaginable to you, yet they are your legacy. We owe to you as well that we will continue to fight for inclusion and fairness for all in our society.

Turning to the bill itself, in the last 30 years much has been achieved, from homosexual law reform to the Human Rights Act, civil unions, and marriage equality, and it was right that those things were done, but now is the right time to make this wrong right and expunge for all time those unwarranted and hurtful convictions. Creating a process to do this is going to be difficult. Other countries and jurisdictions have grappled with how to make this work. I look forward to a select committee process on this bill that finds a process that is as fair and as quick as it can be.

In the UK they have found categories of convictions that are easily identifiable as simply being the result of lewd conduct. I acknowledge in New Zealand it is not as easy to separate that out, and we need look no further than the life of one of our greatest authors, Frank Sargeson, for this. Frank began life as Norris Davey, a gay man. Norris had a number of casual relationships with men, and in the late 1920s in Wellington, he went home with another man named Leonard Hollobon. Police had been monitoring Mr Hollobon, and burst into his room when he and Frank were in bed together. They were arrested for committing indecent assault. They were, of course, not, but, rather, they were two consenting adults. In any event, in return for a suspended sentence, Frank was convinced to testify that he was an innocent party, whereas Mr Hollobon got 5 years’ hard labour at New Plymouth Prison. How on earth do we untangle cases such as this where everything is not as it appears? I think the committee will need to work hard to find a process that is not unnecessarily burdensome and that in it has an element of trust in those who survived and their families.

I wanted, in my final period of time, to look towards the future. The other issue that the committee is going to have to deal with is that of compensation. This is a fraught issue. I know that in other countries—particularly in Germany, in just the last few weeks—they have established systems of compensation. I encourage the committee to look carefully at this issue to see what is possible and to even consider the option of being a little creative about the possibility of using some form of funding and money to support those who come out today, and those who grapple with their gender identity today, because what we should do on this occasion today is not just apologise for the wrongs of the past but make a commitment to take the journey from our current tolerance of difference and diversity to one of acceptance, embracing and celebrating diversity.

For all of the legislation that we have passed and the opportunities we have created, we are not there yet, because even today the shame and hurt of being different from the majority still exists. Young people are still given the message that being who they are and simply being in love is something that the rest of society is tolerating, putting up with, or allowing. That is not good enough. Today not just gay men but lesbian, bisexual, transgender, intersex, and all the colours of the rainbow need to know that we love them for who they are and the rich and amazing contributions that they make. Today is a day to celebrate progress, but if there is chance to make right that wrong of the past, we must give the ultimate legacy of a country that includes, embraces, and cares for all our people.

PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): E Te Mana Whakawā Tuarua, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou katoa e ngā mema o Te Whare Pāremata o Aotearoa. In speaking to the Criminal Records (Expungement of Convictions for Historical Homosexual Offences) Bill, I want to begin by thanking the chair of the Justice and Electoral Committee, Sarah Dowie, for yielding to me what would be, traditionally, her call in this debate. As the first openly gay member of the National caucus, I am very proud that it is a National Government that has taken this step to do the right thing and to make some amends for these historic wrongs that we are discussing today.

I want also to observe that it is a very strong female Minister of Justice who follows in a strong tradition of female members who have brought justice and clarity in these regards. I am talking, of course, about Dame Fran Wilde, who was the driving force behind decriminalisation in the 1980s. I am talking about the Hon Katherine O’Regan, who, as Associate Minister of Health, made the crucial contribution that saw discrimination against people on the basis of sexuality being made illegal in 1993. I also acknowledge across the aisle in the House today Louisa Wall, whose bill brought in marriage equality. Today the Hon Amy Adams, as Minister of Justice, is seeking to expunge the criminal records of those who apply for it, in what I think is a very important piece of legislation.

Grant Robertson—who said nothing I disagree with in his speech; it is the first time ever, probably, in this House—observed that in the past, people were stigmatised, not just those who were convicted of offences but the entire LGBT community, and that by passing this legislation we may actually give dignity to those people. Well, I actually think it will also restore dignity to this House.

I am a very proud supporter of our relationship with the United Kingdom. We inherited much that is good from our colonial and imperial forebears, but the persecution of gay men, in particular, was one of those things that we inherited through our Crimes Act. It was embedded by an Act of this Parliament in 1908, and further embedded in 1961, and, frankly, in my view, those were measures that actually brought shame upon this House and diminished our mana as a legislature that should have pride in being fair-minded, in treating people equally, and in supporting a country that values diversity. I think in considering this bill today, we are going some way to restoring mana to this House that might otherwise have been diminished by those steps in the past.

This is not just a theoretical or symbolic measure; it will have a practical effect for a number of New Zealanders. Last year I met a gentleman who had a historical conviction for homosexual offences and who is a teacher. He is still a teacher. He is in his 60s now, and every 5 years he has to renew his teaching certificate with the Education Council of Aotearoa New Zealand, or, previously, the Teachers Council. This is a gentleman who has to, on a 5-yearly basis, explain to whomever is his principal at the time why his criminal record comes back from the Ministry of Justice with a historical sexual offence listed. This is embarrassing and upsetting for him, and, obviously, a cause for concern in any school when it is going through the proper process of verifying that its teachers are safe people to have around young New Zealanders, our children of this country. This is an example of a real person who, through the passage of this bill and once his application is processed, will not face that unnecessary stigma that he has to live with today.

I think there are some challenges involved in this. We on the Justice and Electoral Committee had the advantage of visiting Sydney and discussing with the justice officials of the state of New South Wales the process it went through when it considered its version of this bill. But I think those issues can easily be overcome through the hard-working efforts of the Justice and Electoral Committee.

This bill fixes, or at least gives some redress to, a real issue for several hundred New Zealanders who are still affected by these historical convictions. It also sends, I think, a powerful message to our LGBT community in New Zealand—particularly the younger members of that community—that they are valued, that their lives are worthwhile, that we as a Parliament do care, that we want to see every New Zealander treated fairly, and that we want to right the wrongs of the past. I think it is an excellent bill. I commend my colleague the Hon Amy Adams for getting it through to this point, and I hope it will be passed unopposed in this House. Thank you.

Hon ANNETTE KING (Labour—Rongotai): This is a red-letter day. It is a day that is both noteworthy and will be memorable for many—memorable for gay men persecuted and prosecuted for having consensual sex with another man, and for men who were isolated and alienated and were forced to seek relationships in places like public toilets, in secrecy and in fear. This day will be memorable for family and friends who have waited since the passage of the Homosexual Law Reform Bill on 11 July 1986—31 years on. It is 31 years since a politician in this House told gay men to go back to the sewers where they belonged, and 31 years since consensual sex stopped being a criminal offence with terms of imprisonment.

There are very few of us left in this House today who supported homosexual law reform back in 1986. It is so much easier now, I have to say. Trevor Mallard, Peter Dunne, and I are the last remaining members who voted for that bill. I also want to acknowledge Ruth Dyson, who did a lot of work for this bill, working for Fran Wilde. She was stuck in Fran’s house for week after week, working on submissions.

For members today, it is hard to imagine the fierceness of the debate of the time. There was month after month of foul rhetoric and intense pressure put on members of Parliament not to vote for the bill. There were the threats and the months of filibuster by the opponents. I was a new member of Parliament in a rural seat in New Zealand—the seat of Horowhenua—and I was told that if I voted for homosexual law reform, I would lose my seat. In fact, at the following election, I increased my majority.

I want to commend the courage of the campaigners for reform from before the Homosexual Law Reform Bill was passed right through to today. They are our heroes. They were on the streets. They campaigned, they petitioned, and they never stopped. Today, knowing that Fran Wilde is not in New Zealand at the moment, I want to commend her courage. She was perhaps the most courageous member of Parliament whom I have ever met.

So, on 11 July 1986, a bill was passed. The war was won, but not the battle. That is taking longer. There are still human rights to be addressed, and I just want to mention one particular group: transsexual people and transgender people. I think there is still too much discrimination and too much stigmatisation of this very vulnerable group, and I look forward to when we can remove that discrimination for these people as well.

I commend the Minister for bringing the bill and the apology to this House. I hope that it was a report that I sent to her—which I am going to read part of in a moment—from one of my constituents that led her to change her mind about having an expunging bill, because she did write to me in April last year saying that she had no plans to have such a bill. I sent her a signed statement from a constituent who has been visiting me since 1998, and I have to say that since 1998, I have been advocating for there to be such a bill. I am sorry that we could not, and did not, in our clean slate bill of 2004 include such a provision, because between 1980 and 1986, the Ministry of Justice shows that just in that small period alone there were 879 convictions for men who had consensual sex with men.

My constituent came to me once again 18 months ago, and I said: “Put down exactly what you went through, and I will give it to the Minister.” We both signed the statement. I am not going to identify my constituent, and I am not going to read all of it, but I want you to hear this part: “I met X at the end of 1968 when I was 18 years old, in my first year at university. I had known for several years that I was gay, and we began a relationship and I frequently stayed overnight in his flat. An ex-flatmate informed the police that we were queers. That night we went to bed and we were woken at 5 a.m. by a torch being flashed in our faces and being gruffly told by two male police officers to get out of bed. We were arrested and taken to the police station.

“The end result was X and I were charged and convicted of indecent assault on each other, and we were sentenced to 18 months’ probation. We were directed by the magistrate to never see each other again, to report regularly to the CIB office, and to take psychiatric help as directed. I was sent to a psychiatric hospital, where I was psychoanalysed, and after 2 weeks I was told by the psychologist that I was more sane than most people outside. But my self-esteem had been shattered. I was very upset, and my parents were troubled by the arrest.

“Because of the deep embarrassment I have felt about the conviction, I have never travelled to a country which would require a visa. I have never worked overseas, which I would very much like to do. I have had no other convictions since 1969. It may seem strange to somebody who has not experienced this, but I feel I am haunted by it. I think about it every day. Every night I spend time locking doors and windows before I go to bed to ensure no intruder will enter again while I am asleep.

“I have never told anybody, but at times I feel unworthy, wondering what people would say about somebody if they knew about the charge ‘indecent assault on a male” and not understanding what really happened. For 28 years I did not feel able to discuss it with anybody, except two friends.”

This has been signed by my constituent but also by his lover at the time, and I hope that this bill will expunge this man’s conviction, because that is what it must do. I am not saying it is going to be easy, because there is a process that must be gone through and there is going to be a decision made by somebody else that it has to be expunged, but I hope that we are on the right track with this bill.

I also applaud the apology. It is a very fulsome apology. I would just put one little note in here. I found it sort of ironic that on the day of this apology, the Deputy Prime Minister has said she does not believe in mass apologies and she thinks only of individual ones when it comes to those who are asking for help and who have been discriminated against in institutions.

But this is, I say to Minister Amy Adams, a very good apology, and we are a generous people. We have apologised before. A Labour Government apologised to the Chinese in New Zealand, who were forced to pay a poll tax because they were Chinese. We apologised to Samoa for the suppression of its nationalistic movement when it was under our rule. We have apologised for other things. We are a generous people.

This is an apology that is long overdue. I know that it will be welcomed by so many people. I certainly welcome it, and in my dying days of being in this Parliament I am just so pleased to see that we have such an apology and a bill to finish this part of what has been discrimination over so many decades—in fact, generations. So I commend the Minister, and I commend this House and hope that every member of it will vote for the bill and support the apology. The people who have suffered for so long deserve nothing less.

SARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill): It truly is an honour and a privilege to rise in support of this motion of apology and in favour of the Criminal Records (Expungement of Convictions for Historical Homosexual Offences) Bill in its first reading. The significance of this day is not lost on me. It is significant for New Zealand. It is significant for the LGBT community, and it goes to start the process of healing, to start overcoming some of the hurt that these men have experienced and some of the prejudice that these men have experienced. They were consenting adults but were convicted of a crime.

Quite frankly, I cannot imagine a New Zealand back in the day when, if you were a consenting adult, you could not love a person because they were the same sex or they may have been from a different race, or whatever the prejudice may have been. I certainly cannot imagine a New Zealand back in those times. To live through that must have been incredibly distressing, to be punished for it must have been horrific, and the ramifications of such convictions must have been life changing as those men walked through life. But, as I said, this is a significant day for New Zealand, for the LGBT community, and for this House as we start to right the wrongs of the past and move forward.

I am very, very pleased to be the chair of the Justice and Electoral Committee, to lead this process as we do so, and I want to pay tribute to the Justice and Electoral Committee members, who have heard from Wiremu Demchick, the petitioner who called for this very subject to be investigated—for us as a committee, too, to visit Australia to look at their expungement schemes on this issue, to compare and contrast. I feel that our collegial committee is best placed to start looking at the issues of these schemes, to look at the advantages and disadvantages, to look at the evidence on the papers, to look at evidence on the balance of probabilities, and to look at some of the old offences that some of these men were charged with, and see what that would bring about and what that would look like as a final scheme for expungement. I feel that we are best placed to debate that fairly and to look at that in an analytical way, to bring about the best result for these people, who have been subjected to this prejudice, which we all know is, as I said before, distressing and quite wrong.

So I look forward to this bill coming to our select committee. I look forward to us calling for submissions, including what the petitioner has brought to our committee by way of information, and processing them and working collegially to get the best result for these people and for New Zealand moving forward. As such, again, I say it is a significant day for New Zealand and the LGBT community, and I commend this bill to the House.

JAN LOGIE (Green): It is a huge honour for me to be able to stand and speak in support of this legislation today, and I want to start by acknowledging the community presence here today—hi. I know it was organised at late notice on a work day, but I think it signifies the importance of this to all of us in the community. I think you do honour to our elders, whom we are acknowledging today, and also we are recognising that the shame that they have been carrying has been felt by all of us. So thank you for being here, and for your waiata.

I also want to specifically thank Wiremu Demchick and the campaign to pardon gays in Aotearoa. He presented the Green Party MP Kevin Hague with the petition that was the immediate catalyst for this apology and the expungement that will follow—well done, you.

It was not a matter of chance, I suspect, that Kevin received the petition, considering the Greens had always voted unanimously in support of progressive LGBTIQA legislation, and it is also, I assume, because Kevin was an out gay man in the 1980s, living under the cloud of these oppressive laws and campaigning for decriminalisation. He was one of those men who put his life at risk for this campaign and for our collective well-being. Kevin—who, sadly, is not able to be here today because he is no longer in Parliament—asked me to let people know that he is watching, and he asked me to acknowledge the work of Jen Lawless, Rhydian Thomas, and Sam Carter, who worked in his office assisting with the set-up of this petition as it went along.

Today’s apology to the bisexual and gay men convicted for consensual adult activities is a statement from this Parliament. It was the parliaments in 1905 and 1961 that introduced, or legalised, homophobia. Those laws overrode indigenous laws, which held that both same attraction practices and people and diverse gender expression were natural. That was the status quo before the Government introduced legislation to introduce homophobia. Parliament passed the laws that made these men and so many others outlaws, so it is appropriate that we collectively apologise.

On the petition, the Justice and Electoral Committee heard from men whose lives were ruined by these laws and heard their experiences of being convicted. We heard of men whose lives were made small when they could have been huge, because of these convictions. We heard of people isolated and stigmatised and beaten and abused because of these laws and these convictions, and we know that people died as a result of this homophobia. Surely, this legislation supported the legitimisation of seeing homosexuality as a mental illness, which saw gay people being institutionalised and subjected to ECT throughout the 1960s and 1970s. We know that through the same period when men were being sent to jail, they were also being institutionalised, tied up and drugged, and given electrocution through the State’s institutionalised homophobia.

We need to acknowledge the harm that has been created before we can undo it, and that is a lesson that I hope this Parliament sits and absorbs, because it goes beyond this piece of legislation. We need to consider that in many other contexts, and we are being asked to at the moment.

To those men who were criminalised and irreparably hurt and who have been left, in the words of one submitter, with “self-hatred, worthlessness, unjustified guilt and shame”, I want to say clearly, on behalf of the Green Party, that the shame does not belong with you. The shame belongs with this Parliament and our society for robbing you of your inherent and inalienable rights. We cannot undo the damage, but we have listened and heard. We hope that today represents another step towards healing for you.

I also hope this House and our country take today as a moment to reflect. There is still much work to do to eliminate the prejudice, fear, and hatred that these laws established and embedded in our society. Surely, the impact of these laws can be the only explanation for the failure of successive Governments to ensure access to healthcare for trans people, for the failure to ensure our young people are not made invisible in our schools, and for the failure to ensure the basic safety of our children at school. This Parliament still does not seem to have absorbed the fact that, actually, we still seem to carry a sense of shame associated with our existence because of these laws. We still need to unpack that, dissociate from that shame, and embrace our diversity in this country, because we would all be better off for it.

In the final minutes that I have, I want to address the specific provisions in this bill. The bill will create a system where men convicted of indecency between males, of sodomy, or of keeping places of resort for homosexual activities can apply in writing to the Secretary of Justice to have their criminal record expunged. Families of convicted people will also be able to apply on their behalf, and I hope that through the select committee process we will have a chance to consider whether the definition of a “family” in that sense needs to be a biological family or our sense of family to be able to apply for our brothers who might not still be with us.

I do want to acknowledge that this was not what Wiremu Demchick and the petitioners were hoping for. They were hoping that there would be proactive action taken by the State to review all of the cases and pardon those who were eligible and that it would not be reliant on people applying for this. I do want to acknowledge that. The evidence from the officials was that they considered that proactively identifying people with convictions would probably be too expensive and might be re-traumatising for the people involved. For the Greens—always—the test of whether something is going to be re-traumatising is to ask. You know, I think that is really the best test, and it would have been ideal to be able to check that out a little more thoroughly.

I am not sure whether this has ended up exactly on the right side of it, but this is a good first step. I do want to acknowledge that the Minister of Justice initially said it would be too hard to even do this because these convictions were tied up with offences like child abuse and other terrible sex offences, and it was great to hear the petitioners clearly saying: “That is the reason to do this, because our people”—our family members—“have been lumped in with people who committed grievous harm against others, just for being themselves.”

On that note, again, I say the shame does not belong with you. This is the start of more work to unpack that shame for all of us. Kia ora.

DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): New Zealand First fully supports the motion for an apology, and I would like to thank Minister Adams for being willing to give it on behalf of the whole Parliament and also for the way in which she expressed it. New Zealand First also supports the bill in its entirety.

Convictions for homosexual offences, except for those involving minors under 16 and except for those involving genuine public order offences, were based on bad law—law that was contrary to natural reason, law that was contrary to natural law. They were evil laws with tragic effects for those who suffered the convictions under them. Those laws and the convictions pursuant to them were, and still are, an utter disgrace, and they were a fundamental and extreme breach of human rights. That is now, of course, confirmed under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and also the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Therefore, the apology is very well-deserved and grossly overdue, but, as the Minister said, it is never too late to apologise, and today we are seeing that happening. But it is, of course, too late to avoid the massive damage caused by those evil laws. By the apology and through this bill, we will address at least some of that, but certainly not all of it.

The bill itself is very welcome because it enables an application for expungement through the Secretary for Justice by an eligible person, not only for a living person but also—and I think this is very important—by the personal representative of a deceased person. I think that post-mortem expungement is just as important—in fact, maybe even, in some ways, more important—as that on behalf of living persons. The basis of the test for expungement is that the conduct constituting the offence would not constitute an offence under the law of New Zealand right now, today. I think that is the appropriate way to deal with it.

I want to mention what I think are the three main values for this bill and what it achieves. The first is this: it reconfirms the freedom of people to lawfully express their sexuality and to be free from prejudice and legal sanction for doing so—it reconfirms that.

Secondly, it avoids the huge disadvantage of a person suffering such a conviction from being required to disclose that conviction for employment purposes and other such purposes, and, of course, there is the whole issue of criminal history checks as well. A conviction of this kind, as we know, can hugely limit a person’s opportunities for employment, and I think it is worth just reading out clause 9(5): “Any criminal record of the expunged conviction, or the non-disclosure of any criminal record of the expunged conviction, is not a proper ground for—(a) refusing the convicted person any appointment, post, status, or privilege; or (b) revoking any appointment, status, or privilege held by the convicted person, or dismissing the convicted person from any post.” I think that sums it up very well indeed.

The third of those values that I spoke of is this, and it is the most important one of all: it restores self-esteem and enhances the mental health and the self-worth of the people who suffered those terrible convictions. As we all know, many suicides will have resulted from that, and I hope that finally we will see an end of that sort of tragic consequence of those evil laws.

What the bill itself actually does—for those who are not aware—is, if a person’s application is approved under the scheme, then, firstly, the person’s criminal record will be amended to ensure the conviction does not appear on a criminal history check for any purpose in New Zealand. Secondly, the person will be entitled to declare that they have no conviction. I think that is incredibly important. It is an absolute right, and it will be law in New Zealand when this bill passes. So, for all practical purposes, within New Zealand those convictions will be treated as if the person had never been convicted at all—the best-possible result.

The expungement scheme will apply to only specified repealed offences, and those are listed in clause 5(2). The scheme will not apply, of course, to people convicted of public order offences or those involving participants who were under the age of 16 years, and that is obviously appropriate. The Secretary for Justice will have responsibility for determining the applications for the expungement of the specified offences, and they will do that in a very simple way on the basis of papers provided, without the need for an oral hearing, except where there are exceptional circumstances, and then an oral hearing could be held. But, normally, you would not expect that an oral hearing would be necessary, and it is good to see that that can be avoided. It is also good to see that under clause 13, any person who unlawfully discloses any expunged offence commits an offence and may be liable to a fine of up to $20,000. That sort of sanction would be well-deserved if that actually happened.

So it is a very good bill, one that New Zealand First fully supports, and I want to reiterate, also, New Zealand First’s full support and appreciation for the apology made by the Minister. I do hope that with the passing of this legislation, a whole chapter—a whole sad chapter—of New Zealand’s history can finally be put behind us and that the people who are directly affected will now feel that they can get rid of that stigma and any record of the offences, which they should never have been convicted of in the first place. The passing of this bill will be a proud day for this Parliament and a proud day for New Zealand. I look forward to the final reading, when it eventually comes through. Thank you.

JONO NAYLOR (National): It has been interesting to listen to the debate as it has been going through so far this afternoon. I was thinking back to 1986, when the law passed to actually legalise homosexual behaviour. In 1986 I was a 19-year-old Massey University student who wore gumboots to lectures. I do not actually recall what my views were at the time. Seriously—I remember the issue going on, but I cannot actually recall what my personal views about it were, although New Zealand was clearly divided at the time. The fact that I cannot recall which way I thought about it obviously suggests to me that it was not important enough for me personally, at that stage, to engage with it. I was happy enough to march against the Springbok Tour—that got my blood to boil—but, sadly, this issue, I guess, did not get me out of bed to do something about it.

I say that because right now I have got a 19-year-old son who also attends Massey University. Thankfully, he is smart enough that he does not wear gumboots to lectures, and is a little more sophisticated than I ever was at that age. But it is fantastic, I think, that my son has grown up in a society in New Zealand where it is inconceivable to him that, actually, this behaviour was ever against the law, and I am grateful that as a society we have moved on to the point where we can understand that this law should never have been in place in the first place.

It was a privilege to be a part of the Justice and Electoral Committee and to hear submitters on the Wiremu Demchick petition, because we heard some stories that would make most people’s blood curdle. It was just horrible to hear of some of the things that some men were subjected to because of the laws of New Zealand. I think, as a nation, we have got to stand up now and say that was not OK. It was never OK that they should ever have been convicted in the first place, and the way they were treated afterwards definitely was not OK. There was that old L V Martin ad back in the 1980s as well, where he said: “If something’s not right, I’ll put it right because it’s the putting right that matters.”

We can never eliminate the experiences that those people had at the hands of the New Zealand law—we cannot undo it. But we can apologise, we can ensure that it never happens again, and we can ensure, by passing this legislation, that those convictions that they had no longer victimise them because they have to keep declaring it.

This is a good bill. It is an important apology. I commend it to the House and, while the chances are that I will not be here when it goes through the Justice and Electoral Committee, I have full confidence in the Parliament of New Zealand in this age and this time to do the right thing. I commend this bill to the House.

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

MARAMA DAVIDSON (Green): It is incredibly humbling to be here, to be able to stand in support today. It is a special day. I will start by acknowledging the petition of Wiremu Demchick. The petition asks “That, in the matter of those who were convicted of consensual homosexual acts prior to the Homosexual Law Reform Act 1986, the House, (a) promptly issue an official apology to those convicted, and (b) pass legislation which sets out a process for reversing the convictions of those convicted, both living and deceased, in a manner which upholds the mana and dignity of those convicted.” That is why we are here today.

I had the honour of hosting Wiremu Demchick in my office today. Even he himself admits that it was not purely him but a whole lot of people who have campaigned and have caused us to be standing here on such an important day, when we return the mana to people who are just us. They are just our family, they are just our friends, they are just our elders, and they are just part of our communities and our homes and our society.

I want to acknowledge, in particular, a young man who was murdered for being gay when I was a young girl. Homophobia has killed too many people, and even more than killing people, it has harmed people in a way that has been traumatic for generations, actually. I cannot stand today without thinking about a particular man who was killed for being gay. I think about what he lost in his life. Maybe he might have chosen to be a father with a lover or with a husband. Maybe he might have been an amazing uncle. Maybe he might have been a grandfather. Who knows, because he lost his life. I send my love to his family because the person who stole his life was my family. Homophobia has taken too many lives, and today it is an honour to put some mana back into the lives that we have taken.

I want to acknowledge the people in Te Ao Māori who have continued to fight to return to our pre-colonised notions of what sexuality, homosexuality, and whānau actually are. If we had all, as a world, held on to the more inclusive notions that define you, starting from your whakapapa, we would all be better off today. If we had all welcomed the less narrow and restricting definitions of who stands with mana, we would all be better off today—people like Dr Leonie Pīhama, Dr Mera Penehira, and Ngāhuia Te Awekōtuku, alongside so many others who are working so hard to restore those true meanings of whānau, of whakapapa, of sexuality, of gender, and of what the definition of “family” is.

There is a lot of healing that, hopefully, can be recognised. Today is one important—possibly small, but important—start of the work that we all have to keep doing. The lives damaged by homophobia, the lives damaged by the legalised homophobia, that the House of Representatives upheld for far too long—one second of that legislation was far too long, and we upheld it for far longer than one second.

I look forward to the changes that this action, and many other actions, makes of recognising that those people are just ours—that we belong to them and they belong to us. I look forward to the work that we will continue to do together, including expunging the criminal records of people who are just our whānau.

I want to finish up by again sending my love to the family of the young man whose life was taken by my uncle. We lost two men to homophobia. Thank you.

MARAMA FOX (Co-Leader—Māori Party): Ā, tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā. E tika rawa ngā kōrero kua whārikihia i roto i Te Whare i tēnei rangi; te ātaahua hoki o ngā kōrero o tērā o ngā mema a Grant Robertson rāua ko Annette, me ō rāua whakaaro ki te hītori o tēnei Whare.

[And so thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. The contributions that were spread out in the House today were absolutely fitting; the contribution by that member, Grant Robertson, and by Annette, plus their thoughts about the history of this House were also beautiful.]

Today is absolutely a historic day and should be recognised. You can just tell, some days. You can just tell when you come into the House some days that it is special—that we are doing something good and right and just, and I feel like that today. However, like Annette King said, it feels a little bit ironic that while outside we were receiving a petition and letters from thousands who were sexually abused in State care and we were refusing to apologise or hold an inquiry, yet we do this today. But it is still right to do, so let us celebrate.

I want to acknowledge the collegiality of our Justice and Electoral Committee. When we received Wiremu Demchick’s petition we worked really hard. There was not one dissenting voice at any time—at any time. It was never an issue that we were going to get there; we just needed to find the way. So we took it very seriously, as we do most of the things in our committee, because they are serious issues. We heard from submitters about the abhorrent treatment—torture, isolation, beatings—that was carried out by our officials after they were arrested. The stigma and the shame then continued to hurt the lives of these men, on and on and on and on. No matter what we think—it shocked me today to find out because I did not understand that we made homophobia illegal only in the 1960s.

Earlier in the term I got to travel to Gisborne and see a group of young people who had received some suicide prevention money. They called themselves Qmunity. They are a group of mainly Māori young people who are struggling with their own sexuality and the depression that that causes, and their fight to overcome their suicidal thoughts and tendencies while they struggle to understand their sexuality and to find a place and have someone listen. They made a documentary. They made a documentary on the history of homosexual law reform in this country. They documented Fran Wilde’s fight, the protests, the arrests, and the marriage equality bill. They said “This is what this country’s overcome, and now we’re young and we want to find our place and be accepted.”, and they told their own stories. It was so healing for them to do that. I have felt like a bit of a proud mum, having fought for that putea that allowed them to do it.

No matter what your personal feelings are with this—and I understand that people might have religious ideals that differ—arresting somebody for simply loving whom they love is not right. I am so proud to be part of this Government, which has agreed to expunge these records and to apologise. When we alleviate the stigma, then we alleviate the harm and the hurt and the pain, and people can start to heal. We cannot make up for the years that have been wasted coming to this point—we cannot—but we can help to lift the burden, and we can help to send a message to our young people of today that, actually, you do not have to be ashamed. You can stand proud and you can find support. You do not have to hide and you do not have to worry about being arrested.

So the Māori Party absolutely supports this bill, and we look forward to it coming to the Justice and Electoral Committee so that we can ensure that the passage of it is well defined and the process by which these convictions can be expunged can be done as simply as possible. We understand it is going to be an effort, but we are willing to give it a go. Kia ora.

CHRIS BISHOP (National): I was born in 1983, and 3 years later, Fran Wilde and her colleagues in that reforming fourth Labour Government led the charge on homosexual law reform. I have read the Hansard of that period, I have read the newspaper articles, and I have talked to people who lived through that experience. I have seen the photos of the alleged 800,000 people who signed the petition against that bill presenting it on the forecourt of Parliament. I have seen the language. It is unimaginable in 2017 to look back and think that just 30 and a bit more years ago New Zealanders could behave that way and say those things, and that the Parliament could be so divided on what is fundamentally a human rights issue. How far we have come since 1986, but also—echoing Grant Robertson’s excellent contribution in the House—how far we have still to go. Today’s motion and this bill are one step on that journey towards equality, respect, dignity, and human rights.

The machinery of this law and the proposal are a bit complex, but at their core is a very simple notion. It is the Parliament saying that these laws should never have been the law. It is the Parliament saying that those laws were wrong. It is the Parliament saying to the homosexual community that you should not bear the stigma and the shame any longer, and we are going to put right what was wrong. So at the core of this bill is a very simple notion, a correct notion, and a morally right notion, and that is why I am so proud to support it.

Allied to this bill is an apology. There was some debate about whether or not the Parliament should do this and whether or not that motion should accompany the bill. I think it was the right thing to do—I genuinely do—because what the Parliament is doing is saying sorry. To the men who were convicted of offences that criminalised love by two men, the Parliament says sorry. To the families of men who suffered trauma and despair, and some who even took their lives, the Parliament says sorry. To the LGBTIQ community generally, for the shame and the stigma, and for the persecution—State-sanctioned persecution—the Parliament says sorry.

I will freely admit to the House that initially when I was confronted with this issue, I did struggle with the notion of expungement, for a couple of reasons. One is, as members have adverted to in their speeches, the difficulty of trying to unpick and untangle offences that criminalised consenting behaviour that should never have been a crime from behaviour that should definitely be a crime—sexual abuse and violent offences. The evidence from officials was that that was tricky. So that was the first issue.

Secondly, I will freely admit that I struggled with the notion of trying to rewrite history. Whether we like it or not—and I for one, and I think the Parliament agrees that those laws should never have been in place—those laws were in place. That was the law of New Zealand up until homosexual law reform in 1987. In some ways it is a difficult thing to grasp—that history should, basically, be revised, so that we say that those laws were never actually in place when, in fact, they were. I struggled with that as a concept.

But the thing that got me was the people who turned up at our committee and gave heartbreaking evidence and testimony that just made you want to cry, about the ongoing anger and pain and shame and suffering that they and their families have endured because of these laws. I decided, essentially, that the ongoing pain and harm that has been caused by these laws means that they should go, or means that we should act as if they were never in place. We need to expunge them, and expunge those records from history.

The Parliament has done this before—that is the other thing. This is reasonably novel, but it is not completely novel. The Parliament has done this before, and we need to do it again. The Parliament has done this before in relation to a narrow, niche class of people. I forget the actual legislation, but it is from the early 2000s—to do with military offences in the early 2000s. So Parliament has done this before, and we can do it again. We can untangle the offences that genuinely should never have been crimes and those offences that still remain crimes, but we can do that at the same time as saying to the homosexual community that what was in place prior to 1987 was wrong, and it was immoral. It was inhumane, and the Parliament says sorry to you for those laws. I commend this bill to the House.

LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. It is my pleasure, as a member of the Justice and Electoral Committee, to speak on the Criminal Records (Expungement of Convictions for Historical Homosexual Offences) Bill in this, its first reading. I particularly want to start with an acknowledgment of a colleague who is no longer here, and that is Kevin Hague, who a year ago today presented the petition of Wiremu Demchick and 2,111 others that—as my colleague Marama Davidson read out earlier—asked this House to “promptly issue an official apology to those convicted”, and, secondly, to “pass legislation which sets out a process for reversing the convictions of those convicted, both living and deceased, in a manner which upholds the mana and dignity of those convicted.” Wow!

So that process started, for Wiremu and all those involved in collecting the signatures, in December 2014. I think we should put it into a global context, actually, because in 2013, Alan Turing was, by royal pardon, given a pardon for a conviction for gross indecency. That gross indecency offence was part of the legislation that we inherited in our country. It started a process in the UK that, on 31 January this year, saw more than 15,000 UK men who were convicted of gross indecency having those offences expunged. What that led to, around the world, was jurisdictions and our communities in Australia, in Canada, in Germany, and all over the world seeking the same recourse that had been given to Alan Turing. It had been given to him because of his contribution to the World War II events—because of his, I guess, service to the country, he was given a pardon.

When I look at the convictions in New Zealand—actually, under the Offences Against the Person Act of 1867, if you were convicted, you could spend your whole life in prison for committing gross indecency. That was then altered in 1893, when if you were convicted of sodomy, it was punishable by life imprisonment with hard labour, but the interesting thing is that indecency between males also provided an opportunity for them to be flogged and whipped. I say that because in Aceh this year we have had men who were flogged and whipped because they were caught having sex. So we have moved a long way to where we are today. In 1986, under the Homosexual Law Reform Act, we decriminalised male same-sex consensual intercourse, but what we also did was equalise the age—we made us equal to other New Zealanders.

In highlighting Kevin’s involvement with the petition from Wiremu, I also want to talk about some of the things that he talked about at the time. He was the only MP who was in the House who could have been convicted—and I acknowledge my colleague Grant Robertson, who is too young, but he is sitting beside me now—and he said that the impact on those who were caught was massive. They lost their jobs, they lost their houses, and they lost their families. A lot of them were isolated. You can imagine how that dispossession then contributed to how most of them lived the rest of their lives—in poverty, as people addicted to drugs and alcohol, as depressed people. Some of them did commit suicide.

But the one thing that struck me with what Kevin shared was that when they were convicted, their private lives were read out in a summary of facts in court and, on sentencing, their names were published in the local newspaper for all to see. So they were outed. It was not a private thing that happened; it was actually an incredibly public thing to happen. For a lot of them, they lost their entire family and community network, which is why a lot of our whānau fled to Australia to start a new life.

I also want to highlight where I think this bill emanated from, because Minister Adams, when the petition was initially presented to the House, stated that it could require a case by case investigation and that it could be too difficult. But what she also said was that she would wait for our Justice and Electoral Committee to consider the petition before she made any decision. I would like to acknowledge my colleagues on the Justice and Electoral Committee who are members of the Government—so I want to acknowledge Sarah Dowie, our chair; I want to acknowledge Chris Bishop; I want to acknowledge Paul Foster-Bell; I want to acknowledge Jono Naylor; and I want to acknowledge Maureen Pugh, and also Marama Fox, because you obviously kept the Minister abreast with what was happening before the select committee in terms of the petition, and I actually think that is what drove her and the Government to bring this piece of legislation to the House.

It also says something to me about the process of this House and the value of petitions and the process that happens in select committees to lead to an output such as a piece of legislation that is, in effect, going to implement everything that the petition asked for. That is an incredibly valuable thing, and I think we should all cherish the moment because it says our democracy works.

You know, we have all contributed to this bill being here today, on the backs of our ancestors—all those who have come before us. So I am going to take an opportunity, because we are going to also, very soon, be talking about another very important piece of legislation. What I want to highlight in the Oranga Tamariki legislation that we are about to debate—and it is wonderful that the Minister is in the House at the moment—is that under the Oranga Tamariki legislation we have recognised the child and young person’s right to their sexual orientation and gender identity. I think that is an incredibly profound thing.

I just want to read a quote from Lord McNally, talking about Alan Turing’s royal pardon: “the law at the time required a prosecution and, as such, long-standing policy has been to accept that such convictions took place and, rather than trying to alter the historical context and to put right what cannot be put right, ensure instead that we never again return to those times.” The reason I highlight that is that children in care now have the right to their sexual orientation and gender identity. What that then means for us and for the Public Service and the public sector is that those children, who may be intersex and may be trans, deserve access to health services that are going to ensure that their identity is supported. They should not have to face and return to times where they are discriminated against, where they are persecuted, and where, actually, they are invisible.

That is why, as a member of our cross-party rainbow group, we have been fighting for visibility in the education sector, which is why we have said to the Education Review Office: “Why aren’t you specifically looking at the well-being of our LGBTIQ when you go to our high schools?”. That is why we have highlighted in the health sector—and I have got a meeting with Minister Coleman coming up—that our intersex children’s health needs are not being met and that our trans children’s health needs are not being met. So, for me, that is what this provides. It provides, now, another platform where we continue to springboard forward. So this is never the end. I mean, for me it is always like ka whawhai tonu mātou—you know, struggle without end—because there are always discriminations in our law and in our system that need to addressed and rectified.

Today is an incredibly special day. I also want to commend the Government for the apology. Annette King highlighted that we have done this previously with the Chinese community and with the Samoan community, and so it is appropriate today that we also acknowledge that our LGBTIQ, our homosexual community in Aotearoa New Zealand, deserve an apology from the State because we are not criminals, we never were, and we never should have been. Kia ora.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): The question is that this House apologise to those homosexual New Zealanders who were convicted for consensual adult activity, and recognise the tremendous hurt and suffering those men and their families have gone through, and the continued effects the convictions have had on them.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Children, Young Persons, and Their Families (Oranga Tamariki) Legislation Bill

Vulnerable Children Amendment Bill

Third Readings

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Children): I move, That the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families (Oranga Tamariki) Legislation Bill and the Vulnerable Children Amendment Bill be now read a third time. I am so pleased to be here as the Minister for Children to move the third reading of this legislation. It marks a significant step in what has been, and will continue to be, a considerable journey to transform the way we care for and protect our most vulnerable children and young people. In April 2016 I released the independent expert panel’s report on the state of our care and protection and youth justice system. The report made it very clear that the system that was supposed to protect our most vulnerable children and young people was broken. It made a clear case for change and it proposed a bold set of recommendations. The Government responded to these recommendations by agreeing to major reform. This legislation is the second significant piece of legislation in this reform and it represents the biggest change to the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989 in its nearly 30-year history.

Right throughout this journey I have made it clear I did not want adult political agendas to dictate the shape of this legislation. These are changes that affect our children and young people, which means it is their voices and their experiences we must listen to if we are going to get this right. To the members of our Youth Advisory Panel, many of whom were here yesterday for the Committee of the whole House, and their supporters, I want to thank them for their contribution to this legislation. I thank them for every story they bravely shared and I thank them for every piece of feedback they have given me. Their voices have been, and continue to be, central to the changes we are making, and they have been invaluable in helping me to understand what more we can do to provide all children with safe, stable, and loving homes—and I always add, preferably with their own family.

As I said in the House last week, I made a promise to this country’s children and young people that their voices would be cemented into legislation and that their safety and best interests would be at the heart of everything we do. That is exactly what this legislation will achieve. This legislation seeks to provide the foundations for a child-centred care and protection and youth justice system and will support the core services of the Ministry for Vulnerable Children, Oranga Tamariki. These changes signal a significant shift from responding to a crisis to a much greater emphasis on prevention, early intervention, and transition support to independence.

We have got a lot of work ahead of us over the next 4 to 5 years if we are to deliver lasting and significant change for our most vulnerable children and young people, but this legislation undeniably represents a major milestone. To provide the foundation for the new child-centred system, it revitalises the purposes and principles of the Act to embed a truly child-centred approach. Being child-centred is about elevating the status of children’s interests, rights, well-being, and views. It is about listening to them and putting their need for safety, stability, and support at the centre of all decisions and actions. Everyone agrees a child’s safety must come first, but this does not need to be at the exclusion of wider whānau who are able to provide a safe, stable, and loving home.

During the progress of the legislation I have engaged widely with community groups, NGOs, and iwi right across the country to ensure the legislation clearly articulates this. We know no child exists in isolation, which is why the legislation highlights the concepts of mana tamaiti, whakapapa, and whanaungatanga. These concepts acknowledge that all children have their own intrinsic value and that they are part of a wider group. Children are not only part of their own immediate family but also part of their wider family group, their community, their culture, and their whakapapa. Together, these help give children an identity, a place, and a sense of belonging, and, because of this, this legislation recognises the need to strengthen families to care for their children.

We know that six out of 10 children in care are Māori and young Māori are overrepresented in the youth justice system. This legislation specifically seeks to improve outcomes for Māori. It places a set of duties on the chief executive to give a practical commitment to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, including an obligation to seek to develop strategic partnerships with iwi and Māori organisations. And it requires regular public reporting on how well we are improving these outcomes for young Māori.

This legislation also enhances support for young people to transition to independence. We know a parent’s role does not end the day a young person turns 18. As parents, we stick around to give our children the advice and support they need as they start to make their way in the world, and the State needs to do the same. That is why this legislation will allow young people to remain with or return to a caregiver up to the age of 21, with the possibility of receiving additional advice and assistance up to the age of 25.

The legislation creates an information-sharing framework to enable timely and appropriate exchange of information about vulnerable children to promote their safety and well-being. For years, those working to protect children have told us that a major barrier to keeping them safe is the lack of an active and consistent approach to information sharing between agencies and professionals. Within strong safeguards, this framework will allow information to flow as required to those who need it, when they need it, so we can keep children safe from harm.

This legislation also improves support for young people at risk of offending or reoffending. Significantly, it includes 17-year-olds in the youth justice system, but makes it clear that those charged with serious and repetitive offences are to be dealt with in the adult courts. It is a change I am very proud of. We know, from the evidence, that this will set these young people on a better path long term while also reducing risk and harm in our communities.

This legislation also changes the name of the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989 to the Oranga Tamariki Act 1989. It is a change that reflects the aspirations that we hold for New Zealand’s most vulnerable children, and one that recognises that their well-being and voices must be at the centre of all we do.

As I have said time and time again, these legislative changes are just one part of the Government’s response. Through strategic partnering, a trauma-informed practice framework, wider engagement with communities, and better support for families, whānau, and caregivers, we will build on these changes so that we can establish a truly child-centred system. Ultimately, this is what is needed to help ensure our most vulnerable children and young people have the best chance to have happy and healthy childhoods, develop a sense of belonging and identity, and grow into flourishing adults.

I would like to acknowledge the Social Services Committee for its consideration of this legislation. The changes it has recommended have greatly improved its clarity. I also want to thank the many individuals, organisations, and iwi who made written and oral submissions on the legislation. It is always encouraging to hear how passionate New Zealanders are about making a difference in the lives of our children and young people, and I sincerely believe the changes in this legislation will help make that difference.

As I conclude today, I want to once again thank those young people who have been involved in this journey. It has been nearly 2 years since I was sitting in my office talking to our first panel of young people, who gave up their time to me and the panel and gave the expert panel a first-hand insight into our care system. I remember them telling me that this is happening to them, it is their lives, but no one ever asks what they want or what is best for them. To them, to the current Youth Advisory Panel members, and to the members of VOYCE - Whakarongo Mai, thank you. I hereby commend the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families (Oranga Tamariki) Legislation Bill and the Vulnerable Children Amendment Bill to the House.

CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston): It is with great regret that the Labour Party will not be able to commend this legislation to the House. I do want to go into some detail about the aspects that we do support in this legislation, because I do not want the perception out there to be that we disagree with everything that is being proposed here. I will go into some detail on the reasons why we cannot support the legislation.

But I want to start by acknowledging the submitters. We had over 400 submissions come to the select committee on this, an indication of the passion and commitment out there to this, to children. We had submissions from individuals, academics, lawyers, social workers, and also individuals who had personal experience of being involved with the care, protection, or youth justice systems as children, parents, or caregivers. We had submissions from NGOs, iwi authorities and affiliates, health and/or social service providers, and a variety of other organisations. And they all submitted because they care. They all submitted because they are sick, like so many of the public, if not all of the New Zealand public, of seeing stories of James Whakaruru, Delcelia Witikā—stories like Isaiah Neil, which we heard recently through the media.

As legislators, our role is to shape the legislative changes, using an evidence base, and to ensure that we do not repeat the mistakes of the past. But based on some of the comments last night in the debate, which did get quite heated, I do want to say that we do not have the monopoly in this House on caring for children. There is no one party, I think, that cares more about children than any other. We just have different ideas on how we achieve the end result.

Last night the Minister for Social Development said that every child deserves to be loved. Well, no one in this House would disagree with that. But, as far as we are concerned, that love is not just confined to this one particular legislation that we have in front of us. So I do want to put it into context: when we are talking about love for children, we are talking about protecting them from abuse. But we are also talking about ensuring that they do not live in poverty, that they do have adequate, healthy homes to live in, and that their families have incomes and time so that they are able to provide the care that those children need. If we talk only about love, in isolation, with regard to this legislation, then we are never going to be able to provide that overall care that the children we are talking about need and deserve.

We have heard throughout the journey of this legislation through the House, from the Minister, that the focus has to be on putting children at the centre, and, again, no one would disagree with that. We all want children to be at the centre of this legislation. But we cannot take that approach with regard to just this particular legislation if we are going to be able to provide the care that we want for those children.

I am going to refer to an amendment that I put forward on the Social Security Act rewrite in respect of amending the principles. The amendment that I put forward included a principle about ensuring that the well-being of children is upheld, and that would mean that every policy in the Social Security Act would, actually, have to be analysed in respect of ensuring that in no way is there any detrimental impact on children. But the Minister has already said she will not be supporting that. Again, unfortunately, what we see is a view on children that in isolation, just in regard to the children who may be affected by this particular legislation, really sets us up to fail, and that is my point. If we do not have that holistic approach and we are not looking at every area that we can improve to improve the lives of children, then we are setting ourselves up to fail, and that is the concern that we have on this side of the House.

A message that was really clear with the submissions that came through was that, actually, the consultation process in regard to this was less than adequate, particularly in regard to Māori, who were really only consulted after the fact—after they made some noise about the fact that they had not been consulted in the first place. So when we hear the Minister talk about the consultation that she undertook with Māori families, with iwi, with hapū, and with Māori communities, we do roll our eyes because she actually did that after the complaints came rolling in. She did not undertake that consultation at the get-go—

Jono Naylor: Are they happy now?

CARMEL SEPULONI: —which is what she should have done—please do not talk, Jono Naylor—particularly given that 61 percent of the children who go into State care and 71 percent of those who end up in the youth justice system are Māori. Why did it not enter her mind to consult earlier? But she did it after the fact. So I do want to point out that the consultation was flawed on this, and then it was even after the fact.

One of the biggest issues that Māori and that we on this side of the House have with this legislation that the Minister has drafted was the removal of the “whānau first” principle. It was so confusing in the Committee of the whole House last night, because we had the Minister saying “No, I did put it back in.”, and then we had tweets where we saw the Minister saying: “I will not put this back in.” Then, unfortunately, our children’s spokesperson and deputy leader, Jacinda Ardern, confirmed—and the Minister agreed—that it does not have the power of the original family-first principle. She has watered it down and there is a word in there—that is, “preference”—that really does not push or hold the ministry to account with regard to trying its very best to actually place children with their whānau, hapū, or iwi, if they have to be removed from their caregivers.

The debate went back and forwards last night, and I think the inference was that those of us who thought that the family-first principle should have remained intact were putting that above the safety of children, when of course that is not the case. What we are saying is to look widely—look widely. Look widely amongst that child’s family, hapū, and iwi to find an appropriate safe place for that child to go to. That is all we are saying, and we want that commitment in our legislation. But the Minister for Social Development has removed that commitment. That concerns us, and it is one of the major reasons that we on this side of the House cannot vote for the legislation.

There are other areas that we have concerns about, and I raised this last night—particularly given that I have been on it for about 6 months—and that is the issue around data collection and data sharing. There was a very strong submission made by the Privacy Commissioner on the flaws in this legislation and the dangers of the data-sharing provisions, and yet again we see this Minister ignoring the Privacy Commissioner’s recommendations. What happened last time she ignored the Privacy Commissioner’s recommendations? She ended up having an IT system portal, where she was doing her individual client level data collection—where that information was being uploaded—shut down because there was a security breach on it. If she had just listened to the Privacy Commissioner earlier, then we would not have been in the position where we were putting people’s information at risk of being exposed publicly or amongst people who should not have access to that information. So here we now find ourselves in the same position, where the Minister is ignoring the expert advice because she thinks she knows best.

The Minister has said that she wanted to hear firsthand from children about what their experiences were and what they wanted, and none of us underestimate the importance of that—we all do. But can we also acknowledge that many of the submitters who put submissions in on this legislation were actually formerly in State care, so they may be adults. She said that she did not want any adult political agendas to dictate what happened here. They may be adults now, but they were affected. They themselves were affected by the legislation and the issues with the ministry. They have first-hand experience.

The disappointment here is that we have a Minister who was all set for changing the legislation to fix the system, when the reality is that there are cultural issues and there are resourcing issues that the Minister has yet to address. Unless those things are addressed, then, unfortunately—unfortunately—we are going to continue to see the cases we have recently seen, like the Isaiah Neil case.

JOANNE HAYES (National): I rise to support the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families (Oranga Tamariki) Legislation Bill and the Vulnerable Children Amendment Bill in their third readings. These bills represent the most far-reaching reform to the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989 since it was introduced 30 years ago. Why? Because the expert panel, after its research, found that the old system did not place children at the centre of its services. It did not meet the needs of vulnerable children, it was fragmented, it lacked clear accountability, and it was not organised around a common purpose.

Last night, when we were going through the Committee of the whole House, I felt that the debate was very rigorous, and vigorous. People got to say what they needed to say, and I want to thank them all for that. I especially want to thank Ron Mark and Ria Bond for sharing their stories with us, as wards of the State back in those days, as young children who, due to issues in their families, were placed under care with foster parents. I applaud Ron Mark’s proposal this afternoon in the House, lauding the foster parents of children—who looked after him and Ria Bond and others.

It has been an interesting time in the Social Services Committee, as Carmel said, with over 440 written and oral submissions, of which 98 came to the select committee. We heard what they had to say, and those were very interesting comments that they made.

I want to also point out some of the areas around the purpose and principles of the Act that give explicit recognition to the Treaty of Waitangi, and especially to our mana tamaiti, mana tamariki, whakapapa, and whanaungatanga for tamariki Māori. That is very, very key to this bill, and I want to applaud the Minister and the expert panel for actually making sure that this is part and parcel of the Oranga Tamariki bill.

I will not go on, because I am going to lose my voice very shortly. All I have to say is that I am very proud of the work that the Minister has done and of what the select committee has gone through. I commend the legislation to the House. Kia ora.

POTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East): Today out on the steps of Parliament there was a gathering of men and women who had been harmed while they were in the care of the State. It was a very moving time to be out there amongst them. Many of them have had very damaged lives, a lot of them have got criminal convictions, and they all have a story to tell about how the State has been a poor parent to them. I got to speak to some of them. I have to say that it was quite moving because many of them are my age, and in talking to them I felt there but by the grace of God go I. They talked about how their home lives, while not perfect, were their home lives where they felt safe and happy, and how the moment that they were uplifted their lives changed and they were no longer the same.

Many of them held photos of themselves as children before they were taken from their families. Now, I am not saying that the family environments they were in were entirely adequate and appropriate, but imagine if we had taken the time to deal with the issues that the parents were dealing with—perhaps the life outcomes for those people who were outside on the steps of our Parliament today may have been different.

I just want to give you a couple of reflections from two of the men I spoke to. When I said that we were going to be debating the third readings of the Oranga Tamariki legislation this afternoon, one of them said to me: “How can you say now that you’ve got it right when you don’t recognise what you’ve done wrong?”. Another one said to me: “Gangs didn’t make gangs; Governments made gangs.” When his whānau was stripped from him, his whānau became the gangs. So how can you say that it is right when you do not recognise what you have done wrong?

Last night I was hoping to get another call during the Committee of the whole House in this debate, because there was one aspect of this bill that was not examined, and that was the criteria by which children would come to the notice of the State, in terms of being uplifted. There is one significant difference between the previous legislation and this legislation, in that what is included is domestic violence. So the experience of domestic violence in a child’s life now becomes a criterion by which they could potentially be assessed for uplift into the care of the State.

As Labour’s spokesperson on family and sexual violence, I have a little bit of understanding about what that might mean in terms of the numbers that may now come under the purview of this legislation. I just want to share this with you if I can—share it with the House. In a previous role, as manager of Waves Trust, a family violence network organisation, a piece of research was undertaken whereby we looked at all of the police call-outs to homes where family violence had occurred in 1 year—a 12-month period—in the Waitakere police command area. So we looked at all the police reports. Of those police reports, we identified that there were 3,500 children in the Waitakere police area who were either present or normally resident in a house where the police had been called out to a family violence incident—3,500 children in the Waitakere police area.

There are 35 police areas across the country, so if you extrapolate that, there is a potential for 122,500 children who would come to the notice of the police because family violence occurs in their house and the police have attended. This is what the police already know. It is documented. We already know it. We know also that there are about 46,000 notifications to Child, Youth and Family of which examinations are conducted, and those children may or may not require support by Oranga Tamariki, as it is now. But if we think that there is a potential for 122,000 children to now come into the view of Oranga Tamariki—we did not get an opportunity to discuss with the Minister yesterday, and like many things in this piece of legislation, we have not had sufficient opportunity to ensure that there are safeguards for those families to deal with the issues that they face rather than run the risk of having their children uplifted from them.

There is another statistic that came out of this research, and it is important. If we think about those 3,500 children in Waitakere who were identified as being present or normally resident in a house where police were called out to a family violence incident, do you know how many of those children actually received any support or care? Well, I know, and I am going to tell you. Of those 3,500 children, about 10 percent were then notified to Child, Youth and Family. That is roughly about 330 children. Of those 330 children, less than half were then provided support, in some form, by Child, Youth and Family—so they were allocated to a social worker. Of those, only 55 children received any therapeutic intervention for the violence they had experienced in their home.

Let me start at the beginning. A total of 3,500 kids in Waitakere are identified as living in a house where family violence has occurred, and only 55 get any therapeutic intervention. So what happens to those other children for whom family violence is a very real, traumatic experience that is going to impact them for the rest of their life? What about them? So, Minister, I am sorry that I was not able to discuss this yesterday, because I would really have loved to get an answer about that.

This is the crux of our argument—the system is so broken that a piece of legislation is not going to fix it, particularly if you are not consulting with the people who are going to be the most damaged by it. And they were out on the steps of Parliament today. They were the ones who have been uplifted into the care of the State, and they have lived the consequence of our policies—of Government policies. And we all share the responsibility for that, as politicians. Those are the people whom we needed to talk to about this legislation. The 3,450-odd children in Waitakere who do not receive any support despite the fact that they are impacted by family violence—those are the people whom we need to speak to.

There was so much promise in this legislation. There was so much opportunity, and it has been wasted. It has been wasted because we have not examined what we should do. My colleague Carmel Sepuloni talked about this not being just about the experience of children but being about ensuring that the homes that they live in are warm and dry. It is about ensuring that their parents have sufficient funds to support them. It is about ensuring that there is food on the table and that there is enough money in the house to pay for the electricity bill to keep them warm. None of those systemic issues has been addressed at all, and, I am afraid, none of the issues that those men and women told us about today has been addressed in this legislation. It is a shame to us all that we did not do better on this.

JONO NAYLOR (National): I actually stand with a sense of pride and support this change in legislation. Can I just start by saying I find it really disappointing when I hear that a lot of the arguments for not passing this legislation are based on the fact that the system is broken now and we are not doing enough. So, then, when an opportunity comes for us to change and do better, people are going to vote against it. They would rather, then, that nothing happened, and it remained broken, and that we continue to have those outcomes. That is, effectively, what they are saying by not supporting this, and I find that incredibly disappointing.

The State cannot always deliver the same results for a child when it takes on that child as a good, stable parent, but it needs to do much better than it has been doing. The statistics of levels of achievement and outcomes for young people who have been in care are actually despicable. I want to congratulate—

Marama Fox: What about the statistics for suicide?

JONO NAYLOR: Well, actually, they are not just statistics, as Marama Fox points out. They are actually people. They have had terrible things happen in their lives, and we have got to make sure that we do everything in our power to make sure that we deliver better outcomes for their lives.

I want to acknowledge and commend the Minister for Children for a couple of things—firstly, for taking the initiative to say: “It is not good enough, what is happening now, and we are actually going to try to do better and do more.” I also want to commend her for taking on board those changes that came out of the Social Services Committee to make the legislation that she put up even better, and for her acknowledgment of that. I also want to acknowledge and thank those submitters, those 400 individual and group submitters, who actually came to the select committee and said: “Yes, we need to do better for the vulnerable children and young people in New Zealand. We’re not so sure that you’ve got this legislation exactly right, and here’s how we think you should improve it.” It has been a pleasure to be able to take on board a number of the things that they have suggested, so that we can do a better job.

I want to acknowledge and I want to thank, particularly, some of the people who have been through the process of being wards of the State—of being clients of Child, Youth and Family in its various iterations over the years. The trauma that they have suffered has been significant at different times. In the very short stint that I had as a care and protection social worker for Child, Youth and Family, I think back to how traumatic I found it at times—uplifting children and the like. I can only imagine what it was like for them.

We do need to do better, and we will do better. This legislation gives much more room for Oranga Tamariki to be able to work in the areas of prevention, to work in the areas of intensive support and intervention for people, to improve youth justice outcomes, and to lift that level of transitional support that young people will now be able to access as a result of this legislation. Will we get it perfectly right every time? I would like to say that we will, but I doubt that we will, because there are always humans involved in this process, whether they be perpetrators of abuse, or whether they be social workers who are doing their very best—and I want to acknowledge the great work that is done by care and protection social workers in New Zealand. Will we get it perfect? No, we will not. But this legislation will go a long way to ensuring that we do far better than we have done before, and I commend it to the House.

JAN LOGIE (Green): I rise to take a call on the third reading of this incredibly important piece of legislation, which I believe everyone in this House cares about really deeply. It is with great sadness that I register the Green Party’s opposition to this important piece of legislation.

Like the previous Labour speaker, Poto Williams, I was on the forecourt of Parliament today listening to the experiences of people, who seemed to range in age from their 60s to their 20s, I think, who have experienced pain, abuse, rape, and torture within our collective care—within the State system. We were told very clearly today that this abuse is not just historical; this is still happening now.

We know, too, that the Government is being asked to have an independent inquiry so that we can learn the lessons and so that the people who have experienced this can feel heard and can have a sense of confidence that the solutions being proposed by Government will ensure—as they kept on telling us, this is not about them; this is about their grandchildren and their mokopuna, and about ensuring that this never happens again. Those people do not have that confidence. They do not feel as if they have been listened to. They have been fighting every step of the way through that service in the negotiations with the Crown to get any acknowledgment, and it has not felt, for so many people I have spoken to, authentic. They feel as if the Government has been covering its butt rather than caring for them or for the future, and the Green Party believes that that needs to change.

I really want to just suggest to this House that those people’s presence and the sharing of their stories and their coming with images of themselves as children, and acknowledging—some of the stories that really got me were the men who talked about having been turned into violent people through the harm that was done to them. They talked about how they abused their partners and their children because they had been turned into those people by the damage done to them by the State, and how they now, as individuals, are blamed for that—there has been no responsibility taken for our creating that situation. They are giving us a gift, by being brave enough to tell those stories. They are giving this country a gift, an opportunity to actually, properly redress the wrongs—to listen and to learn, and to make sure that we are no longer sweeping this under the carpet, but can create, together, a system that will protect our future generations and our children now.

I really think it is important in this debate, in comparing the legislation that we have been given versus what could be, to acknowledge that in this country the history of child protection services has been a history of colonisation—that tamariki Māori have been taken from families and severed from their whakapapa, and that consequences of that have been profound for those children who were turned into violent people and for the entire whānau, hapū, and iwi. There has been no acknowledgment of that. Indeed, when this Government came up with the process to create transformational legislation and reforms, it established an expert advisory group that involved no Māori. Not just a small number, but not one Māori member on an expert advisory group—

Marama Fox: No experts. No experts in Māoridom.

JAN LOGIE: No experts—no experts, exactly—despite the fact of that history of this being used as colonisation, with over 60 percent of children in care being Māori. But, no, their perspectives did not matter and were not valued. How can we have any confidence that this is the right answer, when the actual knowledge has not been respected?

The Green Party would have actually started by having any reforms being informed by a process similar to Pūao-te-ata-tū, actually going back to the people and letting the people decide what needs to happen to undo the harm and protect the future. That process would have acknowledged the vital role that tikanga plays in protecting Māori children—not setting it up as an opposition to the safety of children, as I still hear in the subtext of the Minister’s every speech. Within our legislation we would recognise that change happens through relationships of trust.

We would not be basing reforms on the idea that if we collect enough data and tick enough boxes, then suddenly, magically, everything is going to be OK, which is also at the heart of this Government’s offering, despite the fact that we know, through institutional racism, that so much of the existing information that is now going to be widely shared has a racist bias to it. We really risk putting tamariki and whānau at further risk through this legislation.

We would instead work on building relationships of trust, and ensure that the resources were not tied to specific budgets set ahead of time. Actually, we would look and consider going back to the way it used to be done, when a social worker would find out what a family needed and then go and apply for the amount of money to be able to deliver that, rather than going to a manager who has set budget limits to be able to meet their performance targets, which are all grounded on screwing down the amount of money that is provided in support of families. If we hear the words out of the Minister’s mouth about how we are going to be supporting these families so that children are not having to be taken, but they are not doing anything about changing the resource available for those families to address the poverty, to make sure that there are people who are able to be there to support people in that really difficult process of change, to deal with the harm that has been done to them, then does anyone think there is a chance that we are going to get a different result to what we have got now? I think that if you think that, then you are living on another planet.

We would also set up a system that is holistic, that recognises that Government plays a role within a community and that certain fundamentals, sometimes called the social determinants of health—like income; good warm, dry housing; being able to put down roots in a community; being able to access good space for children to grow and play—are actually also just as important and are more important in ensuring the well-being of our children. The Government’s approach, which is saying that this is about the individual, is actually missing the point, missing the context and the opportunity for us to really get on top of this abuse and create a society where all of our children are safe, happy, healthy, and well—indeed, create the conditions for love to blossom rather than being determined in a court. We would understand the intersection between domestic violence and child abuse, and build that into this legislation, because there is complete overlap and this legislation misses that entirely, which, again, puts children at risk of being unnecessarily, inappropriately uplifted and separated from the parents who care for them.

DARROCH BALL (NZ First): It is a pleasure to rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on this legislation. Right from the start, we will not be supporting this, as we have not throughout the process. I do not think that anyone can really disagree, in this House, that this is one of the most important pieces of legislation that will be going through this House this year, if not this term. It is a very difficult subject, a very difficult area—very complex—and it is a huge ask for any Government to try to tackle that and to try to correct things. I think that—and it has been said in this House multiple times—every single person in this House, every single party in this House, wants to make things better. It is our collective responsibility to ensure that that is the case.

I want to pick up on something that the Minister for Social Development said, and has been saying throughout this whole process, about trying to avoid adult agendas. It was highlighted, and has been highlighted, especially through the Committee of the whole House stage, that there are many points of view, both from parties’ points of view about what the right answer is and the way that the legislation should be written and also individual points of view. What I saw today when I was standing outside with the delivery of that petition was the centre and, really, the heart of why we are doing what we are doing, why we are going through this process, and the changes that have to be made, that need to be made. Really, what it highlighted for me, hearing all of those harrowing stories from men and women who have been in State care and have been abused, is that my personal perspective rates a zero on the perspective of theirs, and of the people who have lived through this, on what this legislation means to them and how important it is not only for them—and they said it on the steps today—but for future generations, for their children, and for their grandchildren as well. That has really hammered home the importance for us to get it right in here.

I said yesterday when I was speaking in the Committee of the whole House that it is vitally important, especially in this legislation, to ensure that it is 100 percent clear what the priorities are for this legislation. It is a large piece of legislation, there are a lot of things in it, but the No. 1 concern for every party that has been brought up was the “family first” clause and issue, and the lack of clarity that the legislation actually provides for people. It has been highlighted because the Minister and the National Government stand up and they look at the exact same piece of legislation and have an entirely different point of view from the Labour Party, from the Māori Party, from the Green Party, and from the New Zealand First Party. It is entirely different. That is the main issue that we need to try to avoid. Unfortunately, we believe that the Minister actually had it right the first time—the priority was clear, and she has repeated it in this House as well. In these third readings she stood up and said that no one can deny that the priority is the safety—the care and protection of the children.

But—and then there is always a but or a proviso—that is where the ambiguity comes in. The translation of what she says to what is written in legislation does not occur. She says that the “family first” priority is written clearly, but there is ambiguity in this House when discussing it. I asked yesterday in the House—and I believe that everyone agreed, including the Minister, that there was ambiguity. The Minister said that she was going to come back and address it, and she has not. The fact is that nothing has changed in the legislation. We have identified a huge problem through this process about the lack of clarity in the legislation, no matter which opinion or angle or consideration you want to have—whether you think that “family first” clause or ideal should be the priority, whether you think that the care and protection should be a priority, or whether you think it should be both. It is just not clear in the legislation. That is the problem that New Zealand First has with this.

I would genuinely like to ask any member of the National Government who is going to stand up: for a second, put aside the bullet points that you have been given, put aside all of the notes that have been passed to you by the Minister, and stand up with the legislation and point out where it states that the No. 1 priority is clear and it is this. It does not exist. If we understand that at this late stage of this process, then it is inevitable that there are going to be future issues. It is absolutely inevitable. The worry is, for us, and, I think, for this whole House, including the National Government, is that things will not change. We know now that things are not changing. We are still seeing the exact same things that have been happening for a very, very long time. That is what ties in to the need for an inquiry. Just like it has been highlighted before, how can we move forward and correct the mistakes that we have been making if we cannot identify what those mistakes were in the first place?

The second issue that just does not get discussed in here, and that New Zealand First has an issue with, is the youth justice aspect. It was briefly mentioned that it is a good thing that 17-year-olds are included, but that is probably the end of the discussion for everyone else in this House. The problem that we have got with that is that, really, it is just ideology and rhetoric. The opinion of people who stand up in this House and say that 17-year-olds should be included in the youth justice system is not based on evidence and is not based on fact.

Hon Members: Yes, it is.

DARROCH BALL: It absolutely is not. I have stood up in this House multiple times and read out the evidence that has been provided, which people use when they want to say that there is proof that 17-year-olds should be included in the youth justice system, and it is contradictory. It is absolutely contradictory. What I challenge everybody in the Opposition who do want 17-year-olds to be included in the youth justice system to do is stand up and state what flaws there are in the youth justice system. Acknowledge that there are flaws in the youth justice system. Right now, we have got an 80 to 90 percent reoffending rate in the Youth Court. The main reason why that occurs is that those young offenders do not get into the court system until they have offended and offended and offended and offended. It is written and acknowledged that the Youth Court is for highly recidivist individuals or high-level offenders. Is there any wonder why there is an 80 to 90 percent reoffending rate? They have offended 10 or 12 or 15 times before they get to the Youth Court. This Government’s aim and intent in putting 17-year-olds into that court system is to target the highly recidivist, high-level offending 17-year-olds. It wants to stop them from reoffending, but it is putting them back into a failing system. It is a failing system.

We heard from Jacinda Ardern yesterday, complaining that there are not enough resources because of holding young people in remand in prisons in the youth justice system—lack of resources. Then, in the next sentence, she wants to extend the youth justice system with the same lack of resources. I am not saying that the problem with the youth justice system is not resources, because it is. What I am saying is that that is only a small part of it. The whole system does not stop young people from getting to the courts in the first place and does not stop them from offending and getting put into the residence in the first place. That is why half of our adult prison population had previously been through the youth justice system—that is a fact. Including 17-year-olds in that will not solve the issue.

We cannot support this legislation. We probably would have if the 17-year-olds issue in the youth justice system was sorted and if clarity was given in the legislation that stated what the priority was.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: Mr Speaker.

Maureen Pugh: Mr Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Dr Parmjeet Parmar, after a bit of debate—very good to see so many members keen.

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National): I am taking this call to support the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families (Oranga Tamariki) Legislation Bill in its third reading. I have to say that I am really proud to support this bill, and I am really proud of the work of our Minister for Vulnerable Children, the Hon Anne Tolley, in this space. The Youth Advisory Panel that was set up to advise the Ministers said several things, but one thing I want to highlight here is that it said that the need for support does not stop just because someone has turned 17. I know that every individual is different. Some 17-year-olds might be OK, and be very independent, but there will be some who will need support until the age of 21, and others will need support until the age of 25.

So I believe that this part of the legislation is the most far-reaching reform of the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989, as we are increasing the age of care from 17 to 21, and increasing the age for transition, support, and advice. That will be available to these young people until the age of 25. Until the age of 21 they can come back and be with their caretaker, and until the age of 25 they can be dependent for any advice that they need. This is going to be a very effective way of helping these young people get into independence.

I remember the Minister Anne Tolley saying that children who are being raised in their own families—when they leave their parents’ home it does not mean they are completely cut off. They can come back to their parents’ home when they need to. They can call them for support and advice. So why should these children who are in State care be seen differently? This help and advice should be available to them until the age of 25.

With this approach of a child-focused operating model that we have, which this legislation is to support, including children in decision making is another very important component of this bill. Yes, I know that the Youth Advisory Panel was consulted, and I know that the expert panel consulted young people, but ongoing consultation and allowing the participation of young people is important. It is wrong for someone to think that young people cannot think for themselves and that only older people can make decisions for these young people.

The other thing the Youth Advisory Panel said was that there were things happening to them. They did not know why these things were happening to them. No one was telling them what was happening to them, and everybody around them expected them to behave in a normal manner, without providing them with any tools to cope with their fast-changing circumstances. So it is important to allow these young people to have a say. They should be listened to.

I am really surprised to see that the Labour Party and the other Opposition parties are not supporting this bill, which is to reduce the number of young people in State care becoming dependent on benefit, having some contact with the justice system, going through a community sentence, going through a custodial sentence, and not being able to achieve NCEA level 2. But I am really proud to support this legislation because we want to do well for these young people who come to the State for care and protection. I support this bill and commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

MARAMA DAVIDSON (Green): This is the third reading of the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families (Oranga Tamariki) Legislation Bill and the Vulnerable Children Amendment Bill. We are opposing this legislation, and my colleague Jan Logie has been outstanding in outlining our Green Party positions on many of the aspects of the legislation that concern us.

My particular focus, from the very start, has been on this misnomer that the well-being of children can be separate from the well-being of families—any children, actually. But the fact that over 60 percent of the tamariki in Child, Youth and Family’s care are Māori makes this incredibly important. As many of our colleagues have spoken about today, we were out on the steps of Parliament, face to face, hūpē to hūpē, tangi to tangi, with a lot of the people who have come through this system, abused and harmed, and it has not just stopped with them. Their wairua has been affected, their children have been affected, and their grandchildren have been affected. And this was at the hands of the State.

This issue of wanting to ensure that all of our tamariki are taken care of is right in front of us—right in front of us today, and every day. It would have been nice to see any member of the Government come out and be face to face, hūpē to hūpē, with the men and the women who told their stories of being abused at the hands of the State when they were children. I want to endorse what my colleague—I think it was Carmel Sepuloni—was referring to. They were once those children, and their words as adults are as important to us today as they should have been back then.

The priority to ensure the “whānau first” placement for tamariki Māori has been removed from this bill and it has not been put back. It has not been put back, despite what the Minister says when she tries to talk about that priority for “whānau first” placement being put back in there. It has not. The sort of language that it has been replaced with is weak, watery words, like “should” and “where practicable”. That is not strong enough, and because that is not strong enough, it continues to uphold a damaging narrative—the very narrative that harmed those people out on the steps of Parliament today—that said that (1) the State knows better where you should be placed as a Māori child, and (2) we will not provide the support for your whānau to feel strong or even the foster families who took you on. The support was not provided.

So the fact that the Minister stands up and espouses a “children first” priority is actually incredibly hard to take, sitting here in the House. Children as a first priority, and she could not even come to meet those very children. She has refused to apologise to those very children. This is relevant, because she then sits here and says that this legislation is about tamariki first, and that that requires removing them from whānau Māori, when what we want is to make sure that everybody understands that most whānau Māori are safe, and we can always find one. We just have to support the process better. We have to support the process for all whāngai processes and foster parent processes to be stronger. There is always safe whānau Māori, and if we have not found them, that is on us.

The intrinsic value of whakapapa to tamariki Māori is essential to their well-being. So that has, from the very start, been my main contribution to my role as Māori development spokesperson, as to the Green Party opposition of this legislation. It saddens me that we continue to pass this legislation while knowing full well that our families need more support. We will continue to oppose this legislation, and we will continue to work hard to provide the real support that families actually need. Thank you.

MARAMA FOX (Co-Leader—Māori Party): Tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā. You know, this is a third reading, and when it first came into this House, I had one goal—one goal and that was it—and that was to improve the lives of our children. I actually sat down and tried to figure out how to write a “love at home” bill. I was thinking: how do we create that? How do we do the reverse of penalising people who get it wrong, but encourage people to get it right? I thought about that for a while. It took a while. We are still thinking about that.

What we do is we write legislation with the worst possible scenario in mind, and try to protect against it, which means we are always penalising dumb stuff that happens, rather than encouraging better stuff to happen. We think that by making the penalties stronger or harder, that will somehow incentivise people to do better. Has that worked? No, it has not. So now we are faced with a bill that everybody wants to work. Everybody wants to get this right. It is widely talked about that this is a largely Māori issue—disproportionately so—and it is.

After Moko was killed, Alan Duff came out and said the problem with Māori is they have got that warrior gene and they scrap too much—something like that; I am paraphrasing. Sorry, Alan Duff. But, after him, Professor Anne Salmond came out and she said: “Well, let’s have a look, shall we, at what is the traditional way of bringing up children in Māori cultural custom.” She said: “I’m not going to try and debate with you; I’m going to give you the letters of the settlers who came to this country and let them tell you from their journals and their own letters.” One of them said: “No sooner had the child been weaned from the breast of its mother that it was taught to twine its arms around the neck of its father, and there they stayed all the day long, and their fathers catered to their every need.” If they dared to come to the table of a great, important hui, or the paepae, if they asked a question, they were afforded just as much respect in the answering of that question as if they were a chief themselves.

Hurting our children—physically, mentally, sexually—is not our way. It is not our cultural custom. If we were able to create a piece of legislation that ensured we always kept our children safe, then that is exactly what we would be wanting to do. We do not believe that this does it. We want it to, and we want to help, but it is not cognisant of the issues that have plagued us. Those issues were borne out today on the steps of Parliament, by Papa Stanley, who stood up and said that for 69 years he had been waiting to address the issue of abuse. He found himself in State care because the family who adopted him no longer wanted him at 18 months and put him back into State care. Did he come from an abusive home? Did he come from somewhere where he was being sexually abused or belittled? No.

I met another man out there today who said he was taken home one day by the police because he was wagging school. He was 8 years old. There was no one home, because they were at work, and he was taken straight to a boys’ home and never went back. I have my own family members who were taken into care by the public health nurse to give their mother respite—6 of them, the youngest of whom was a baby; the eldest of which was 11. They never went home, ever—not ever. When they had no room for them in foster care, after being shipped around, after being abused and running away, they put the eldest girl—at that time 14—into Arohata Women’s Prison. That was a while ago, but I heard about the young boy: 8 years old, in a Wiri boys’ home because there was nowhere else for him to go. This legislation does not change that possibility from happening, and we just want to help make it stronger. Kia ora.

MAUREEN PUGH (National): I stand in support of the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families (Oranga Tamariki) Legislation Bill today, in its third and final reading. I do acknowledge the Hon Anne Tolley for her passion and her absolute commitment to do the very best for our most vulnerable young people. It is indeed a privilege to be speaking in support of this bill as it nears the end of its parliamentary process.

In one way, this is a very positive step, but, on the other hand, I take my colleague Marama Fox’s point that it is a sad day when we actually need this type of legislation. In an ideal world, ideally, we would not hurt each other—people would not hurt each other—but, sadly, they continue to do so. So what these reforms set out to do is to break that cycle of violence and neglect within families and empower families and young people to find a better way. We are all looking forward to the transformational change that this bill will deliver—that it ensures the long-term positive outcomes for our most vulnerable children and young people; positive long-term outcomes that our young people deserve. This is nothing less than they deserve, and our support systems are now reconfiguring to ensure that our most vulnerable children and young people, and their families, are supported to give them the best chance that a child-centred State care and protection system can provide. I have great pleasure in commending this bill to the House.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Michael Wood—5-minute call.

MICHAEL WOOD (Labour—Mt Roskill): About a month ago I ran a public meeting in my constituency about the issue of crime. We got on to a discussion with people in the audience about the growth of the methamphetamine industry and the serious social consequences that stem from that. A woman in the audience stood up to speak to this issue. She was a Māori woman, probably in her 40s, who later in life has decided to, at considerable sacrifice and cost, train to be a social worker. She saw a need in the community and is trying to meet that.

What she relayed in her heartfelt comments to that public meeting was the way in which failings in our system of State care over the years—in particular, the uplifting of Māori children and the uprooting of them from their whānau and their hapū and their community—had caused irredeemable damage to those young people, particularly the young men. She related that it had left them without a sense of identity, and had often led to situations of abuse and disconnection, to the point where those young men were easy prey to the gangs—the gangs that have gone on to form such a pernicious part of the criminal underworld in our society. Her story was incredibly powerful and has shaped my thinking in respect of this legislation. She told us what we have got wrong. No one is saying that what we have got at the moment is perfect, and I must say that at this point.

I contrasted that with one of the very best—very short—submissions I read as part of preparing for this legislation. It was from a woman called Ana Morrison, and I just want to read directly out of it because it speaks to what we can do when we get it right. She says: “Our whanau has a personal experience of where the current system nearly failed for our mokopuna. In our case it was the CYF case worker having a personal knowledge of whakapapa (they were from the same hapu as our whanau) and them complying with the strong legislative requirement”—that is, in the current Act—“to look to the wider (very extended) whanau and hapu for placement options—that prevented our nephew being lost to the system.”, as the young men I just spoke about in the other example were. “He now has been adopted by his Great Aunt and has the life he is entitled to—he is connected with his wider whanau, participates in iwi activities, attends a rumaki unit (learning te reo and tikanga), knows his whakapapa, has cousins of similar age that he now has contact and strong relationships with and is a thriving happy Māori boy with a bright future, and most importantly … has not had to experience life as a ward of the State …”.

Those are the contrasts, and what I know is that every member of this House wants that outcome. I know that. I do not think there is any member who comes to this House wanting anything other than that. So it is with more a sense of sorrow than anger that the Labour Party says that we have to stand and oppose this legislation today because of what it does in respect of reducing the obligations that we have for appropriate whānau and hapū placement. Then there are the Minister’s comments throughout the course of the difference stages of debate. We have heard her at different times say “No, no, no—it’s still in there.” Well, I am afraid that when we are dealing with a situation in which 60 percent of the children who are uplifted are Māori, we should be listening to the Māori voice in this debate. When we have people like Prue Kapua from the Māori Women’s Welfare League stating very clearly that this legislation “is really focused around one or two things which, if we boil it down, [is] a safe, loving and stable family,”—good—“and early intervention”—good—“for which you really read early removal, so people don’t have a number of placements,”.

The absolute view that has come through submission after submission from considered practitioners in this area—social workers; Andrew Becroft, the Children’s Commissioner; Prue Kapua; and most iwi and hapū groups who have submitted—is that this legislation waters down those obligations, those important obligations, for whānau and hapū placement that Ana Morrison spoke about.

There would be good will enough across this House—and across the community—to work through this issue. There are good things in this legislation that the Labour Party has acknowledged through the different stages of debate, but this question of whānau and hapū placement and the way it has been diminished within this legislation is so fundamental that we simply cannot stand and support this legislation, and that for us is a matter of considerable regret. A Labour Government will come back to this issue. We have got to get it right. But the approach we will take is one to listen. We have to have a little bit of humility within this issue—the capacity and the willingness to listen to those who know this area, to listen to those who submitted so passionately about this issue, and that is what the Labour Government will do after September. Thank you.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Louisa Wall—again, 5 minutes.

LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. It is my pleasure to speak on this third reading of the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families (Oranga Tamariki) Legislation Bill and the Vulnerable Children Amendment Bill.

I would like to take us back to August 2013. In August 2013 the Hon Paula Bennett, who was then the Minister for Social Development, went to the Iwi Leaders Forum. And what did she say? She said to iwi leaders: “You need to take these children and you need to be responsible for them.” That is all. Imagine if that conversation was the beginning of a partnership. Imagine if she had gone to that iwi leaders’ hui and said: “We’ve identified over 3,000 children in our care and protection system who are Māori, and we, the Government, want to partner with you iwi to create a better pathway forward for our children and our families who, for whatever reason, are coming into the care of the State.” That was within a context where we knew that the current system was not effective in intervening early to provide the support that children and families deserve.

The Children’s Commissioner, 2 years later, came out and talked about the ineffective case management system, the care placements breaking down, the difficulty in recruiting and retaining staff, and the casual workforce who are insufficiently trained and supported. But I just now have to wonder what would have happened if there had been a partnership approach to this issue that could have led to an expert panel that comprised 50 percent Māori, who sat together—

Marama Davidson: Imagine that!

LOUISA WALL: Imagine it. You know, I imagine what this legislation could have been, what we could be doing right now, based on that principle of partnership in the Treaty of Waitangi, rather than the Minister going and saying: “Take these kids. They’re your kids. They’re your responsibility. They’re a burden on the State.” Actually, what has driven all of this is statistics like 90 percent of children who were born in 1991 who entered the care and protection system were on a benefit when they reached 21 years of age—25 percent of them were on a benefit with a child. That is what has driven it from the Government’s perspective: actually limiting their fiscal liability.

But imagine if we had gone from a different base, a base of actually caring about the circumstance of the children, and their families, of wanting to work in partnership with iwi, with Māori groups, and actually saying: “Hey, how about we all work together, because it is in all of our interests for our tamariki and our mokopuna not to be on a benefit, with 83 percent of them in prison, with all those negative statistics.” If the drivers over that side actually were about putting children at the centre of a piece of legislation, then we would be in a different place.

But the reality is that you have removed the “whānau first” principle, because what you have distilled from those statistics is that by putting our children in “whānau first”, that is what has resulted in the re-abuse, all the placements that have broken down, all those sorts of things. You have just blamed it solely on that principle, and we cannot look at it in isolation, because what you have done is created the “home for life”.

We acknowledge the work of our 2,000 foster families. They are doing fantastic work, but the priority for all of us, as we have been saying throughout this whole journey, is that because 61 percent of the children in the care and protection system are Māori, we want those children to be placed within their whānau, hapū, and iwi. It is not a radical thought. And the reality is, and Judge Henwood said this, it was the State that picked the wrong alternative whānau to look after those children. It was the State that re-abused those children. But what the State has done again is abdicated its responsibility and has blamed it on the Māori whānau.

So it is a very sad day. We wish we were supporting this legislation, but as we have said consistently, we will not support legislation that fundamentally strips away Māori children’s Māori identity. Kia ora.

MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): I commend the legislation to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families (Oranga Tamariki) Legislation Bill be now read a third time.

Ayes 60

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

Noes 59

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

Bill read a third time.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Vulnerable Children Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

Ayes 60

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

Noes 59

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

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Brokering (Weapons and Related Items) Controls Bill

First Reading

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Foreign Affairs): I move, That the Brokering (Weapons and Related Items) Controls Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee to consider the bill. The bill establishes a regime to regulate the brokering of arms and military equipment by New Zealanders and New Zealand - based entities. Brokering is where arms are transferred from one foreign country to another. This bill regulates the brokering of arms and military equipment in order to help prevent arms ending up in the wrong hands. New Zealand is firmly committed to addressing the devastating impacts that illegal arms trading and transfers have on regional and international security and development.

New Zealand was a strong supporter of the Arms Trade Treaty. This is a landmark global instrument that regulates the international trade in conventional arms, from small arms and light weapons, such as machine-guns, to tanks, warships, and combat aircraft. It is widely recognised that the brokering of conventional arms can assist the movement of arms and military equipment to illegitimate users or undesirable locations, and in today’s world it is not hard to think where those places might be. This includes transferring arms to countries under United Nations’ arms embargoes or into conflict zones. The Arms Trade Treaty, therefore, requires States parties to take measures to regulate the brokering of conventional arms that takes place within their jurisdiction. New Zealand currently has an interim voluntary registration scheme for New Zealand - based brokers, but we have no legislative controls on brokering.

Regulating brokering will support compliance with New Zealand’s obligations under the Arms Trade Treaty, which we joined in 2014. The bill reflects the international best practice. It will introduce more comprehensive controls on arms brokering and will prevent New Zealanders and New Zealand - based entities from engaging in brokering contrary to our international obligations. For the purposes of this bill, brokering involves negotiating, arranging, or facilitating the international transfer of arms and military equipment from one foreign country to another foreign country. It does not include imports, exports, or internal movements of arms and military equipment within New Zealand. These are already regulated by the Arms Act 1983 and by the export controls regime under the Customs and Excise Act 1996.

The weapons and related items that this bill covers are arms, military equipment, and civilian goods that may have a military end use. The bill requires New Zealanders and New Zealand - based entities wishing to engage in brokering, firstly, to register with the Government, and, secondly, to obtain a permit for each brokering activity. It will enable conditions to be placed on a brokering registration permit. Such conditions may, for example, ensure that the transaction is consistent with New Zealand’s security, defence, and international relations or international obligations.

Given the global economy and the cross-border nature of brokering, the brokering regime will apply extraterritorially to New Zealanders and New Zealand entities operating abroad. Given the extraterritorial nature of the brokering regime, the Attorney-General’s consent is required for any proceedings. The bill creates offences for engaging in conduct that breaches its requirements, including engaging in brokering without being registered as a broker and having a permit, breaching the conditions of the registration or permit, failing to keep or produce records to answer questions, and providing false or misleading information in connection with a registration or permit. It includes appropriate criminal offences in line with comparable legislation in New Zealand and in other countries such as Australia. It also enables civil penalties such as formal warnings, enforceable undertakings, and injunctions to be imposed in appropriate cases by decisions of the Attorney-General.

While the scale of brokering taking place in New Zealand is limited, without legislative controls we risk facilitating the illegitimate movement of arms and military equipment. We also seek to avoid having illicit arms brokers shift their activities to New Zealand. This bill will ensure that there are appropriate controls on New Zealanders and New Zealand - based entities that engage in brokering and will contribute to the establishment of an effective international regime governing brokering. New Zealand is a strong supporter of disarmament, arms control, and counter-proliferation. Advancing this bill is consistent with the leadership role we have played in the negotiation and implementation of the Arms Trade Treaty.

The notes I have just read are to make sure that any record that might be referred to by the bench at any time in the future contains all that we wish to say about this bill in an official sense. But the common-sense aspect of it is that the prospect of New Zealanders engaging in the transfer of illegal arms legally in this country is intolerable, and for that reason the bill will close that prospect to New Zealanders or New Zealand entities and ensure that where they do legitimately want to get involved in those activities, there is a legal process for them to be able to do so, and to do so in a way that will mean that we have oversight of where those arms or armaments or any other aspects of this military equipment mentioned in this bill are tracking to.

I commend the Brokering (Weapons and Related Items) Controls Bill to the House and look forward to the select committee’s consideration when the bill is returned to the House later in the year.

MATT DOOCEY (Third Whip—National): I seek leave of the House to adjourn early.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Is anyone going to be foolish enough to object to that? No. It is so agreed.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 5.56 p.m.