Wednesday, 8 November 2017

WEDNESDAY, 8 NOVEMBER 2017

WEDNESDAY, 8 NOVEMBER 2017

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 10.30 a.m.

Karakia.

Election of Speaker

Election of Speaker

Mr SPEAKER: I have to report that, accompanied by members, I waited on Her Excellency the Governor-General at Government House yesterday, when I addressed Her Excellency as follows:

Following Your Excellency’s request, the House of Representatives has elected me as Speaker and I now present myself for Your Excellency’s confirmation.

Her Excellency replied,

Mr Speaker, it is with much pleasure that I confirm the choice by the House of Representatives of you as its Speaker.

I congratulate you on your election to this distinguished office, marking as it does the appreciation of the House of Representatives of your impartiality and ability.

I then replied to Her Excellency,

I thank Your Excellency for your confirmation of the choice made by the House of Representatives of me to be its Speaker.

I now, on behalf of the House, lay claim to all its privileges, and especially to freedom of speech in debate, to free access to Your Excellency whenever occasion may require it, and to the most favourable construction being put on all its proceedings.

Her Excellency replied as follows:

Mr Speaker, I confirm all the rights and privileges of the House of Representatives which have ever been granted. I assure you that the House of Representatives shall always have ready access to me, and that I will at all times place the most favourable construction upon its proceedings.

Authority to Administer Oath

Authority to Administer Oath

Mr SPEAKER: I have received the following authorisation from Her Excellency the Governor-General to administer the oath or affirmation prescribed by law to be taken or made by members of the House:

Pursuant to section 11 of the Constitution Act 1986, I, The Right Honourable Dame Patsy Reddy, Governor-General of New Zealand, hereby authorise you,

The Right Honourable Trevor Colin Mallard

Speaker of the House of Representatives

to administer to members of Parliament the Oath or Affirmation of Allegiance to Her Majesty The Queen required to be taken or made by every such member before that member shall be permitted to sit or vote in the House of Representatives.

Jacinda Ardern, Prime Minister.

Obituaries

Rangi McGarvey

Mr SPEAKER: Members, it is with regret that I inform the House of the death, on 12 October 2017, of Rangi McGarvey, who was a long-serving interpreter for the House and for the select committees. I desire, on behalf of the House, to express our sense of the loss we have suffered and our sympathy with the relatives of the late Rangi McGarvey.

Mihi

Mihi

Mr SPEAKER: I now call on the senior Māori member to give a mihi.

Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Minister for Crown/Māori Relations): “He rūrū anō te rūrū, he kāeaea anō te kāeaea. Tēnā ko au ko Māui Tikitiki-o-te-Rangi, he takawae whiti, he takawae tai. He tū whai pō, he tū whai ao, he tapu tawake i whānakenake ki te papa o Wahieroa. Ka tangi te kura i te ata o Waikau, he ata amohanga, he ata kite paerangi. Kia hui e te kura pō i tīwhaona ki te paparei o te iho rangi e iri iho nei. Kī e, ka ao ka ao, ka ao te rā, tihi-wa mauri ora!”

E Te Māngai o Te Whare, tuatahi ake māku e huri atu ki a koe nāu nei i whiwhi tēnei tūranga. Mōhio ana tātou he tino tohunga koe kei roto i ngā tikanga me ngā ture o tēnei Whare, mōhio hoki ana tātou, ahakoa Kāwanatanga, āhakoa Āpitihanga, ā, ka tāpaehia e koe aua tikanga, aua ture i runga i te tika me te pono, nā reira, kei te mihi atu ki a koe.

Kai te huri ngā whakaaro ki te wāhi ngāro, ko tērā te kaumātua o Te Kāwanatanga a Lewis Moeau, kua tangohia, ko tērā hoki tō tātou whanaunga, tō tātou hoa, tō tātou kaiwhakapākehā, a Rangi McGarvey. Nā reira, kua hoea atu rāua i ō rāua waka wairua, atu i tēnei Whare, kua hoea hoki atu ō rāua waka wairua, atu o ō rāua iwi, kua tae atu ki Te Rererenga Wairua. Atu i reira ki ngā Hawaiki o ō tātou mātua tupuna: a Hawaiki nui, Hawaiki roa, Hawaiki pāmamoa, nā reira kourua ōku rangatira, haere, haere, haere atu rā!

Nā, ka hoki mai tātou ki te hunga ora huri rauna i tēnei Whare, e Te Perēmia, te Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern, tēnei te mihi atu ki a koe nāu nei i tae ki tēnei tūranga. Mōhio ana tātou ki ō whāinga kia mahi mō te motu whānui, kia kore tētahi e mahue ki muri. Ki ngā tumuaki o ngā pāti atu, ki te Rt Hon Winston Peters, te Hon James Shaw, te Rt Hon Bill English, te honourable member David Seymour, tēnei ahau e mihi ana ki a koutou ngā tumuaki o ō koutou pāti. Ā, ki ngā mema huri rauna i tō tātou Whare, nau mai, hoki mai! Ko koutou ngā waewae tapu, tēnā rā koutou, nau mai, haere mai. Nā reira, e kore au e tōroangia i tēnei tū engari, e manakohia ana ka mahi tātou hei hāpai i Te Motu whānui, i ngā tangata katoa o Aotearoa. E Te Māngai, kei te mihi hoki au ki a koe. Nāu nei i tīmata tō tātou huihuinga mā tēnā karakia i roto i tō tātou Reo Rangatira, nā reira, kei te mihi atu au ki a koe. Nā reira, tātou mā huri rauna, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[“Lolling the head aimlessly is one thing, and looking avaricious is another. Here I am, Māui Tikitiki-o-te-Rangi, moisture from humidity and moisture from the sea. I am steadfast at night as well as in the day, a sacred growth that has developed from the lands of Wahieroa. The treasured one calls out at the dawning of Waikau, a heavy dawning beyond the horizon to meet the treasured night darkened by the spread of the heavens that hang there yonder. Let the call go, there is light, there is light, there is dawning, behold, there is life!”

Mr Speaker, the first thing for me is to turn to you who acquired this position. We know that you are a real expert in regard to procedures and rulings of this House, and also know that, regardless of whether it is the Government or the Opposition, you will apply those procedures and rulings properly and correctly, therefore, I acknowledge you.

Thoughts turn to the unseen place, to that elder of the Government Lewis Moeau, who has been taken, and also that relation of ours, our colleague, our interpreter into English, Rangi McGarvey. Therefore, they have paddled their spiritual canoes away from this House and away from their tribes, and have arrived at the leaping place of spirits, Cape Rēinga. From there, the spiritual canoes will journey on to the Hawaikis of our ancestors: the great Hawaiki, the long Hawaiki, and the distant Hawaiki. And so to you two, my esteemed ones, depart, journey on, go forth indeed!

Now then, coming back to us, the living ones throughout this House, to the Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern, I congratulate you who achieved this position. We know about your aspirations to work for the whole nation so that no one is left behind. To the leaders of other parties, to the Rt Hon Winston Peters, the Hon James Shaw, the Rt Hon Bill English, and the honourable member David Seymour, I acknowledge you, the leaders of your parties. To the members throughout our House, welcome, welcome back! To you the newcomers, salutations to you indeed, welcome, come hither. Therefore, I won’t prolong this address but hope that we will work together to support the country at large and all the people of New Zealand. Mr Speaker, I also congratulate you. You began our gathering with that prayer in our esteemed language, and so well done to you! Therefore, to us all right around, acknowledgments, accolades, and congratulations to you collectively and to us all.]

Waiata

Nā reira, kāti mā huri rauna, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia orā mai anō tātou.

[Therefore, enough for now, and so to all of us throughout, congratulations and accolades to you collectively and thank you once again to all of us.]

State Opening

State Opening

A message from Her Excellency the Governor-General desiring the immediate attendance of honourable members in the Legislative Council Chamber was delivered by the Acting Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod.

Accordingly, Mr Speaker and honourable members, preceded by the Serjeant-at-Arms, proceeded to the Legislative Council Chamber, and, after a short absence, returned.

Speaker’s Observations

Chambers, Lobbies, and Galleries—Conduct in the Chamber

Mr SPEAKER: Before we get into the more formal business, I do want to make a brief apology to the House. It is a tradition of this House that when the Speaker comes in, he or she bows to the Government and bows to the Opposition and praises the country. I omitted to bow to both sides, and I apologise for that. [Interruption] Order!

Governor-General’s Speech

Governor-General’s Speech

Mr SPEAKER: After Her Excellency the Governor-General made a speech to the House in the Legislative Council Chamber today, she handed me the text of the speech, and I now lay this on the Table of the House.

Honourable Members of the House of Representatives

Tuhia ki te rangi

Tuhia ki te whenua

Tuhia ki te ngakau o nga tangata

Ko te mea nui

Ko te aroha

Tihei mauri ora!

E nga mema honore o te whare nei, te whare paremata o Aotearoa, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kā nui te mihi ki a koutou.

It is a privilege for me to exercise the prerogative of Her Majesty the Queen and open the 52nd Parliament.

In September, New Zealanders cast their votes in the general election. After final results were announced on October 7, negotiations began towards the formation of a new government. That government has been formed by way of a Coalition Agreement between the New Zealand Labour Party and the New Zealand First Party, and a Confidence and Supply Agreement between the New Zealand Labour Party and the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand. The government took office when I swore in the Prime Minister the Right Honourable Jacinda Ardern, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Right Honourable Winston Peters, and other Ministers from the Labour, New Zealand First, and Green parties.

The government enjoys the confidence of a clear majority of members in the House of Representatives. It also enjoys the confidence of a majority of New Zealanders who voted in the general election. Its formation marks an important moment in the evolution of the mixed member proportional representation system – a system that was designed to ensure that governments could only be formed with the support of a majority of voters.

This new government was formed by negotiation – but it was a negotiation that allowed each party to remain true to its values and honour its core election commitments. This government will not be a government of parties acting separately, it will act clearly as one government in the best interests of all New Zealanders.

Honourable members.

The programme I will outline today is ambitious. It draws on the priorities of the parties. In the first 100 days, this government will put in place the building blocks for this programme of work.

This government is committed to major investments in housing, health, education, police, and infrastructure. The Government will protect the environment, create more jobs and lift the incomes of families to reduce child poverty, while running surpluses and paying down debt.

In the last nine years, New Zealand has changed a great deal. Ours is a great country still. But it could be even greater. In our society today, no one should have to live in a car or on the street. No one should have to beg for their next meal. No child should be experiencing poverty. That kind of inequality is degrading to us all.

This will be a government of inclusion. All who live in this country are entitled to respect and dignity; all are entitled to live meaningful lives; all are entitled to care and compassion. Everyone should have a roof over their head and be warm in winter. Everyone should have food and a table to put it on.

This will be a government of transformation. It will lift up those who have been forgotten or neglected, it will take action on child poverty and homelessness, it will restore funding to education and the health systems to allow access for all, it will protect the environment and take action on climate change, and it will build a truly prosperous nation and a fair society, together.

This will be a government of aspiration. It aspires to make this a nation where all cultures and human rights are valued, where everyone can have decent housing and meaningful work, where education is free and good ideas flourish, where children live surrounded by creativity and love, and are encouraged to reach their full potential, and where we become world leaders on environmental issues and climate change.

This government aspires for this to be a country where all are accepted, no matter who they are, where they come from, how they live or what their religious beliefs are.

To do this, we must focus on what is most important to us and what unites and connects us. For we are all connected, and the way we live has an impact on others. And so, this government will take an approach that looks across all areas to truly understand the interconnections. This government knows that the economy cannot be looked at separately from its impacts on the environment and society.

Honourable members.

This government is committed to building a strong economy, to being fiscally responsible and to providing certainty. It will work within the Budget Responsibility Rules that include running sustainable operating surpluses across the economic cycle, reducing net debt to 20% of GDP within five years and keeping government expenditure as a percentage of GDP in line with historic trends. There will be a clear focus on sustainable economic development, supporting regional economies, increasing exports, lifting wages and reducing inequality.

This government will work with business to deliver shared prosperity for all. It will encourage the economy to flourish, but not at the expense of damaging our natural resources or people’s well-being.

New Zealand needs to measure success in new ways. We need to move beyond narrow measures and views of value and broaden the definition of progress. The economic strategy will focus on how we improve the wellbeing and living standards of all New Zealanders. As agreed between Labour and the Green Party, this government will develop a comprehensive set of environmental, social and economic sustainability indicators to better show how we are doing as a country.

There will be a progressive tax system where everyone pays their fair share, according to their means, so together we have the resources to provide quality public services for all New Zealanders.

The government will review the tax system, looking at all options to improve its structure, fairness and balance, including better supporting regions and exporters, addressing the capital gain associated with property speculation and ensuring that multinationals contribute their share. Penalties for corporate fraud and tax evasion will increase. Personal income taxes, taxes on the family home and GST will remain at the same rates as they are today.

As pledged during the election campaign, any significant decisions on tax changes will not take effect until the 2021 tax year.

Contributions to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund will resume immediately to help safeguard the provision of universal superannuation at age 65, and as part of the Agreement with New Zealand First, the government will introduce a new-generation SuperGold smartcard containing entitlements and concessions.

Building a truly prosperous country means sharing the wealth generated by our economy with a wider range of New Zealanders. As agreed in the coalition agreement between Labour and New Zealand First, the government’s 100 Day Plan includes a commitment to raise the minimum wage to $16.50 an hour from April 1, rising to $20 an hour by 2020. We must aspire to be more than a low wage economy.

Honourable members.

A shift is required to create a more productive economy. This government will support those who produce goods and services, export and provide decent jobs for New Zealanders. This does not mean increasing productivity through more people working more hours to increase outputs, while eroding our natural and social assets.

This means working smarter, with new technologies, reducing the export of raw commodities and adding more value in New Zealand. For example, by securing the supply for forestry processing, greater investment in fishing and aquaculture, increasing skills and training, and more research and development to add value to dairy and other products and to create new technologies.

Monetary policy will be reformed. The Reserve Bank Act will be reviewed, and a new objective added to include a commitment to maximising employment. The Bank’s decision-making processes will be changed so that a committee, including external appointees, will be responsible for setting the Official Cash Rate, improving transparency. Price stability will continue to be a focus, with the same inflation goals as now.

High quality trade agreements that benefit our exporters, at the same time as protecting New Zealand’s sovereignty, will be supported. This government will make sure New Zealand always retains the right to make laws in the public interest. This includes seeking to renegotiate the Trans Pacific Partnership to exclude investor state dispute mechanisms and avoid their inclusion in all future agreements. This government will also pursue new trade opportunities, including with Russia and its Custom Union partners, Europe and the United Kingdom post-Brexit.

The benefits of economic prosperity will be fairly shared with the regions, so people have the resources they need to deliver on their potential, wherever they live. This government will invest in regional infrastructure and broadband.

The coalition agreement between Labour and New Zealand First commits this government to a $1 billion per annum Regional Development (Provincial Growth) Fund. This includes significant investment in regional rail and other large capital projects. The future of the upper North Island Ports, including examination of whether Ports of Auckland should be moved to Northport, near Whangarei, will be considered as part of a wider ports strategy,

Some government services will be regionalised. The New Zealand Forestry Service will be re-established and located in regional New Zealand. This government is committed to a new planting programme, planting 100 million trees a year to reach a billion more trees in ten years. This New Zealand First initiative also connects directly to this government’s determination to take action on climate change.

Honourable members.

Climate change is the greatest challenge facing the world. If we do not urgently reduce our emissions of greenhouse gases, warming will disrupt the climate which our agriculture and other industries depend upon, and sea-level rise will affect our coastal cities, along with other profound changes.

New Zealand must do its part, as the cost of doing nothing is too high. This government will set a target of a Net Zero Carbon Emissions Economy by 2050, with legally binding emissions reduction targets and carbon budgets to keep New Zealand on track to this goal.

An independent Climate Commission will be established to recommend interim emissions reduction targets and provide advice, focusing on policy development and initiatives in transport, urban form, energy and primary industries.

This government will restore an effective pricing mechanism for climate pollution, with the Climate Commission to determine more details, including how to transition to 100 per cent renewable electricity by 2035, and how to bring agriculture into the scheme.

This government will support a just transition for workers in industries that need to reduce emissions, and it will support the creation of jobs in sectors that are carbon-free or carbon sinks, such as forestry. Farmers operating at best practice will be credited for emissions reductions.

The agreement between Labour and the Green Party also provides for up to $1 billion of new investment to be stimulated in low carbon industries by 2020, kick-started by a government-backed Green Investment Fund of $100 million.

This ambitious plan to take real action on climate change will involve all New Zealanders. This government will act as a role model, showing leadership by requiring State-owned enterprises and other government organisations to pursue low-carbon options and technologies, including electric vehicles for all Government vehicle fleets. Young people will be encouraged to take part in a Youth Climate Change Challenge.

There are other environmental challenges to be faced. This government is conscious of increasing pressure on our natural resources, as environmental pressure points are reached. It is clear New Zealand needs to improve the way it manages natural resources.

Our lakes and rivers need to be protected and restored, which can only happen if all water users and the government work together. The government will offer young people without jobs the opportunity to work to improve the health of this country’s waterways, with the aim of restoring them to a swimmable state within a generation.

Support will be given to regional councils to better monitor and control nutrients and sediments in waterways. The agriculture sector will also be assisted to improve water quality and to shift to more sustainable land uses, such as forestry.

Existing Crown investments in irrigation will be honoured, but government support for irrigation will not grow. Commercial users who profit from bottling water and exporting it overseas will pay a royalty. Action will also be taken on improving cities’ water quality, with higher water quality standards for both urban and rural areas.

Other environment initiatives include a commitment to minimising waste to landfill and a fund to take action on old tyres.

This government will increase funding for the Department of Conservation, to reduce the extinction risk for 3,000 threatened plant and wildlife species. More support will be given for National Science Challenges, including piloting alternatives to 1080 and countering myrtle rust and kauri dieback. There will be no new mines on conservation land.

This government will take steps to improve our resource management system, with better spatial planning and better enforcement. An urban development agency will be introduced, and more emphasis placed on public transport and light rail.

This government will remove the Auckland urban growth boundary and free up density controls. New developments, both in Auckland and the rest of New Zealand, will be able to be funded through innovative new financing methods like infrastructure bonds. This government will also give Auckland Council the ability to implement a regional fuel tax.

To help ease pressures on our housing, infrastructure and public services, this government will make sure we get our immigration settings right. It will cut down on low quality international education courses and will ensure work visas issued reflect genuine skill shortages.

Housing is a top priority for this government. Action will be taken to address homelessness. State house sell offs will stop. And the State will take the lead in building affordable houses. Through its Kiwibuild programme, this government pledges to build 100,000 high quality, affordable homes over the next 10 years; half of them in Auckland.

A Housing Commission will work with the private sector, councils and iwi to cut through red tape, undertake major projects and ensure new, affordable homes are built rapidly.

This work will begin immediately, as part of this government’s 100 Day Plan. To boost the workforce, employers will be financially supported to train 4000 young people as apprentices, including on-the-job construction training.

High demand for housing will be dealt with by cracking down on speculators who are pushing prices out of reach of first home buyers. Foreign speculators will be banned from buying existing New Zealand homes. A comprehensive register of foreign-owned land and housing will be created, and the Overseas Investment Act will be strengthened.

The ‘bright line test’ will be extended, so income tax is paid on any gains from the sale of residential property bought and sold within five years. Speculators will also no longer be able to use tax losses on rental properties to offset tax on other income.

This government will make life better for renters. A ‘Rent to Own’ scheme will be developed. All rental properties will be required to meet standards for insulation, heating and drainage. Funding for home insulation in general will be boosted and a Winter Energy payment will be introduced for superannuitants and those receiving main benefits. This government aims to ensure that every New Zealander has access to a warm, dry, safe home.

Honourable members.

This government will address the social deficit in this country and it will start with children. About 290,000 children live in poverty in New Zealand, in many cases without adequate food, healthcare and housing. Poverty hurts everyone, but it hurts children the most. Every child should be able to grow up free from poverty. To show the importance of this issue, the Prime Minister the Right Honourable Jacinda Ardern will take on the newly created role of Minister for Child Poverty Reduction.

Child poverty is a moral issue but it is also an economic one. Infometrics has estimated that poor investment in children in their early years costs the country between $6 billion and $8 billion per annum.

This government will put child poverty at the heart of government policy development and decision-making. It will establish targets to reduce the impact of child poverty and it will put these into law. A work programme will be put in place across all relevant areas of government to achieve these targets. Heads of government departments will be required to work together to deliver real reductions in child poverty.

To deliver genuine change for children, transparent mechanisms are needed to hold the government to account on poverty reduction. This government will also change the Public Finance Act so that, every Budget, New Zealanders will hear about how many kids have been lifted out of poverty and we can all see clearly what more needs to be done.

If we put child well-being at the heart of what we do, then the well-being of all New Zealanders will be lifted.

This government will invest in children and in families, increasing working for families, extending paid parental leave and bringing back the family benefit in the form of the Best Start package. This legislation will be introduced in the first 100 days, to take effect from July 1.

This government will repeal the tax cuts proposed by the previous government which would have seen $400 million a year going to the highest income earners. Instead, the government’s new Families’ Package will see 70 per cent of families with children better off, and will lift 30,000 more children out of poverty.

This government will ensure access to entitlements and remove excessive sanctions in the welfare system. But it will also go further. This government will consider the long-term changes which need to occur to our systems of welfare and employment and education, to look at how we value people, how we define decent employment and how we ensure people have sustainable incomes. It will eliminate the gender pay gap within the core public sector and encourage the private sector to do the same.

Honourable members.

One of the keys to better lives is education.

As well as being committed to increasing skills and training, this government will ensure our education system provides what is needed for the young people of New Zealand to do well in this rapidly changing world.

This government will revolutionise education by placing young people and their needs at the centre of the system and increasing funding at all levels. It will invest an additional $6 billion over four years in modernising our education system, including $1.8 billion to deliver more teachers, better professional development and more learning resources. This scale and focus of investment will be both transformational for the development of our future generations and will strengthen the economy.

It will remove or reduce financial barriers to access, by offering more funding to schools that do not charge fees, by making the first year of tertiary education free, with the intention of making the first three years free in future terms, and by increasing student allowances and living cost payments. Those tertiary education changes will come into effect from January 1 next year, as part of the 100 Day Plan.

This government will develop a 30-year strategic plan for education. It will support quality teaching and education that equips students for the 21st century. It will not include charter schools and will support high quality public education accessible to all.

It will end bureaucratic national standards and replace them with new forms of assessment that meaningfully reflect student achievement. It will ensure that all students have access to technology to support their learning, and it will ensure that every child with special needs and learning difficulties can participate fully in school life.

This government will modernise and re-develop a comprehensive system of careers advice and guidance that is integrated into learning and will ensure every student has a career plan that is regularly updated through their schooling.

This government will offer all high school students free driver training and financial literacy, as part of a toolkit giving all school leavers valuable practical skills.

It will pilot counsellors in primary schools, and it will rebuild outdated or unsuitable classrooms. It will grow the number of early childhood centres, and fund them to employ qualified and registered teachers.

It will support apprenticeships with incentives for employers to take on unemployed young people as apprentices. It will reinstate funding for night classes. And it will encourage lifelong learning.

Honourable members.

Health will also be a top priority. This government will restore funding to the health system to allow access for all. It will invest in the health system to provide the highest levels of care, support and treatment, wherever people live in New Zealand.

This government will put a real focus on primary health. GP fees subsidies will be increased to cut fees by $10 a visit, and the longer term funding system will be reviewed to ensure doctor visits remain affordable into the future. Free doctor visits will be extended to everyone under 14, with teen health checks for all Year 9 students. Seniors will be entitled to an annual free health and eye check as part of the new SuperGold Card.

Funding for alcohol and drug addiction services will increase, and drug addiction will be treated as a health issue. Medicinal cannabis will be made available for people with terminal illnesses or in chronic pain. As part of the Confidence and Supply Agreement with the Green Party, this government is committed to holding a referendum on legalising the personal use of cannabis at, or by, the 2020 election.

There will be a special focus on mental health. A ministerial inquiry into mental health will be set up and the Mental Health Commission will be re-established. A review of mental health and addiction services will identify gaps and what more is needed to better care for people.

New Zealand’s high suicide rate, especially for adolescents, is shameful. This government will increase resources for frontline health workers and will put more nurses in schools to make it easier for young people and others with mental health problems to get the help they need. Free counselling will be available for those under 25.

This government wants to foster a kinder, more caring society. This will involve government leading the way and facing up to its responsibilities and the legacies from the past.

There will be an independent inquiry into historical claims of abuse of children in State care with a view to learning lessons to ensure that policy is changed to minimise the risk of this happening in the future.

This government will stand with the families of Pike River and reaffirm its commitment to safe workplaces. The Honourable Andrew Little, alongside the deputy Prime Minister, will be the Minister responsible for overseeing a safe re-entry of Pike River, where 29 people lost their lives in 2010. This is not just about those men and their families. It is about all working people, and the right to return home safe to loved ones at the end of the day.

As part of keeping our society safe, this government intends to add another 1800 new police officers over the next years and will investigate a volunteer rural constabulary programme. Community law centre funding will increase and a Criminal Cases Review Commission will be established. Family violence networks, including Women’s Refuge and Shakti, will get more funding.

This government will foster a more open and democratic society. It will strengthen transparency around official information. It will undertake an independent review to enhance the integrity of the electoral process and enrolments, ensure Parliament’s processes reflect MMP, and that the make-up of parliament continues to reflect the expressed preference of voters.

Honourable members.

This government is proud to have the most Māori and Pacific Island cabinet ministers of any New Zealand government; with eight Māori and four Pacific Island ministers.

When our forebears signed the Treaty of Waitangi more than 170 years ago they did so in a spirit of cooperation.

Whatever else that agreement might have meant, it was supposed to bring opportunity and mutual benefit for tangata whenua and settlers alike. It was supposed to provide a place for all peoples in this country.

Instead what followed was a long process of colonisation, in which one of the treaty partners acquired most of the power and the resources, and the other was sidelined.

For almost 40 years, New Zealand has been addressing past injustices. Most of New Zealand’s major iwi are now involved in treaty settlements. This government is committed to bringing others to completion as quickly and fairly as it can.

It is time to start considering what the treaty relationship might look like after historical grievances are settled. To consider how we, as a nation, can move forward in ways that honour the original treaty promise.

A promise of a nation in which Māori values – diverse as they are – stand in their rightful place alongside those of European New Zealanders and other more recent arrivals.

A nation in which manaakitanga and kaitiakitanga and whanaungatanga inform our decision-making.

A nation in which fairness and equality of opportunity are not just aspirations but facts. And a nation in which all communities are empowered.

This government looks forward to working with Māori communities and with other New Zealanders to support them to pursue their aspirations for better health, better housing, and better education for their rangatahi.

It will review the Whānau Ora delivery model so it can achieve its full potential. It will work with hapū and iwi and Māori organisations to ensure that Māori have fair and equal access to housing and opportunities for home ownership.

It will support the teaching of te reo Māori in schools. And it will strengthen programmes to enhance Māori educational achievement.

Honourable members.

People will always be at the heart of this government.

New Zealand has a great opportunity now to become a kinder, more caring and confident nation. This will take courage. We will have to do things differently. But it is possible, if we include each and every person, in each and every town and region of New Zealand.

This government invites you all to join us in creating a better future together. A future with a fair and unified New Zealand, where the wellbeing of all New Zealanders is at the heart of all we do.

Because, after all, what is the most important thing in the world?

He aha te mea nui o te ao? He tangata, he tangata, he tangata. It is the people, it is the people, it is the people.

No reira, tena koutou, tena koutou, tena tatou katoa.

Motions

Battle of Passchendaele—Centenary

Hon RON MARK (Minister of Defence): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to move a motion without notice and without debate to mark the centennial last month of the Battle of Passchendaele.

Mr SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is none.

Hon RON MARK: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I move, That this House note the 100th anniversary of the Battle of Passchendaele in the First World War, and remember the loss of 843 New Zealand soldiers in one day, 12 October 1917—the blackest in New Zealand’s military history.

Motion agreed to.

Black Ferns—Women’s Rugby World Cup 2017 Victory

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister for Sport and Recreation): I seek leave to move a motion without notice and without debate congratulating the Black Ferns on winning the 2017 Women’s Rugby World Cup.

Mr SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is none.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I move, That this House congratulate Captain Fiao’o Fa’mausili and the Black Ferns on winning the 2017 Women’s Rugby World Cup with a 41 to 32 win over England in the final in Belfast, this being the fifth time the Black Ferns have won the Rugby World Cup.

Mr SPEAKER: I want to thank members who have given me leave to be there.

Motion agreed to.

Appointments

Deputy Speaker

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I move, That Hon Anne Tolley be appointed Deputy Speaker.

Mr Speaker, when I first suggested that the Hon Anne Tolley be appointed as the Deputy Speaker, I was hoping that that would smooth the pathway to your election as Speaker. That didn’t quite turn out as planned. However, I am very pleased to confirm that the Government will certainly be supporting the nomination of the Hon Anne Tolley as Deputy Speaker, because we think she’s the best person for the job.

Anne Tolley has been a member of this House since 2005 as the member for East Coast, and was previously a list MP, from 1999 to 2002. She was the Deputy Leader of the House from 2011 to 2014, and has served in a multitude of roles in both Government and Opposition, including as a whip—I think on the Opposition side of the House when the National Party were last in Opposition. She was a Minister through the previous National administration, taking on quite a wide range of roles, and is well respected across the House and has a good understanding of parliamentary procedure and practice. So I commend the nomination to the House.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga): Can I simply second this motion and say that Anne Tolley will make an absolutely fine Deputy Speaker. She’s got the experience and the intellect to do a wonderful job, and we wish her well.

Motion agreed to.

Assistant Speakers

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I move, That Munokoa Poto Williams be appointed as an Assistant Speaker.

Poto Williams has been MP for Christchurch East since 2013 and has nursed her electorate through the post-earthquake experience in a very diligent and caring manner. She’s been a member of the Health and Social Services Committees. She has been very high on the list of speakers in Parliament for the then Labour Opposition, and has, I think, demonstrated through her time in the House an ability to work with all parties in a calm and fair manner.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I simply raise two matters, effectively for your guidance and potential ruling. The first is really in relation to Standing Order 13(1), which makes quite clear that a member who doesn’t take the oath or affirmation is, of course—they’re not able to sit or vote in the House. It’s a question, firstly, about that, and then, secondly, of course, this is really more than simply not being present. We know that, in relation to that, Standing Order 16(2) makes quite clear that a member’s absence has to be on account of extraordinary circumstances beyond his or her control. So I’m simply, really, seeking your guidance, as I say, Mr Speaker, about whether validly having not been sworn in or affirmed—being unable to vote, being unable to sit in this House—one can nevertheless become a presiding officer.

Hon Chris Hipkins: Mr Speaker?

Mr SPEAKER: No, I don’t need any assistance. The matter is quite clear—it is dealt with, as the member says, very specifically in Standing Order 16(2). The member is absent on parliamentary business. She is a member of Parliament and is eligible to be elected.

Hon Simon Bridges: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I suppose the question is—

Mr SPEAKER: No, I have ruled. The member will take his seat—the member will take his seat.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It’s a separate—

Mr SPEAKER: A separate point of order on an unrelated matter?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Well, it’s a separate point of order, Mr Speaker. You have dealt, I think, with the question of being away, and I think you’ve implicitly said on “extraordinary business”. My point, though, was a different one, and it is a question of whether she is validly able to be a presiding officer given that she has not been sworn in.

Mr SPEAKER: I ruled on that when I dismissed the member’s point of order, and I just want to make absolutely clear to the member that it is a matter that I have looked into, I have researched, and I am absolutely confident that the member is able to be elected as a presiding officer of this Parliament, because she is a member of Parliament notwithstanding the fact that she hasn’t been sworn in.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: I’m really hoping the member is not going to—I’m going to be kind and let the member have a point of order.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I’m sure that your patience wouldn’t run out this quickly. I’m perhaps not surprised if it has.

Mr SPEAKER: Don’t count on it.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The question that is being asked is: is there a difference between the way in which a member of Parliament is treated for remuneration purposes according to the Remuneration Act? You’ll recall there was quite a to-do over this in the early 2000s, where there were people who came to Parliament and then subsequently left etc., and there was some clarification that although a person had not been sworn into Parliament they could be treated as if elected for payment purposes, so they could set up offices and they could make their own arrangements, knowing that they would be. But that does not mean that a person who is not sworn into Parliament is a member of Parliament. The question would be: does that mean that someone from outside the sworn members of Parliament could be elected to a presiding officer position?

Mr SPEAKER: OK. We could let this run for quite a long time. I am of the generation of members—unfortunately, the other person who can remember it well is not here today—where members of Parliament were elected in November, generally the third Saturday, and the Parliament didn’t sit until May. They were still members of Parliament for that time. Poto Williams is a member of Parliament and she is eligible for election. I am going to say now, for Mr Bridges: unless he has a new and different argument to bring, then I’m advising him not to dispute it further. I think it’s fair to say that it was a question that I asked myself when I saw the nomination, and I have spent some time researching and considering the matter, taking advice, and I am absolutely confident of the position.

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think it would help to see the ruling, so that we can then understand what the significance of swearing in is—a process we all went through yesterday. If this ruling is to stand, of course, it means that swearing in doesn’t mean much because we could carry out our roles anyway. So that’s why it would be very useful to see a ruling set out.

Mr SPEAKER: Sure. Just to make it absolutely clear, Poto Williams would not be able to take the Chair or to speak in the House until she is sworn in. So she can’t actually do the job; she can be elected to it.

Motion agreed to.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I move, That Adrian Paki Rurawhe be appointed Assistant Speaker.

Adrian Rurawhe has been a member of the Government Administration Committee and a member of the Education and Science Committee. He has a quiet yet forceful persona, and I’m sure he will be a diligent champion of the rights of all members of the House. He is respected and liked across the House, and I’m sure that he will do this job well.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I simply want assurance, because, today, of course, on the whips’ door, it says Adrian Rurawhe. Of course, the Standing Orders make it quite clear—

Mr SPEAKER: No. The member will resume his seat. The member is now trifling with the House. [Interruption] Order! Order! I—[Interruption] Mr Ball, you will stand and apologise.

Darroch Ball: I apologise.

Mr SPEAKER: I want to make absolutely clear that when I’m on my feet there will be no interjection whatsoever. Mr Ball suffered from being the loudest; they were coming from my left and my right. But I want to make absolutely clear that to retain order in the House, that be the case. And I do reiterate my comments, Mr Bridges. The member knows well that anything that is on a door in this Parliament does not bind this House.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I take it—and I genuinely, simply, want to understand the situation—we are correct in working according to the Standing Orders. Standing Order 35, “Notification of party details”, makes quite clear that the Speaker must be informed—I think it’s in writing, by convention—who the various leader officers are.

Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. And I have been, and Mr Rurawhe is not a whip.

Motion agreed to.

Standing Orders

Sessional

Mr SPEAKER: According to the determination of the Business Committee, I call upon the Leader of the House to move a motion regarding entities deemed to be public organisations.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I move, That the Abortion Supervisory Committee, Air New Zealand Ltd, Genesis Energy Ltd, Meridian Energy Ltd, Mercury New Zealand Ltd, and the Reserve Bank of New Zealand be public organisations for the purposes of the Standing Orders.

Motion agreed to.

Reinstatement of Business

Reinstatement of Business

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I move, That the following business be reinstated as Orders of the Day:

Bills

Autonomous Sanctions Bill

Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Bill

Conservation (Infringement System) Bill

Customs and Excise Bill

Dairy Industry Restructuring Amendment Bill

Education (Public Good not Profit from Charter Schools) Amendment Bill

Education (Teaching Council of Aotearoa) Amendment Bill

Electronic Interactions Reform Bill

Employment Relations (Allowing Higher Earners to Contract Out of Personal Grievance Provisions) Amendment Bill

Employment Relations (Restoring Kiwis’ Right to a Break at Work) Amendment Bill

End of Life Choice Bill

Family and Whānau Violence Legislation Bill

Films, Videos, and Publications Classification (Interim Restriction Orders) Amendment Bill

Financial Services Legislation Amendment Bill

Food Safety Law Reform Bill

Health (Fluoridation of Drinking Water) Amendment Bill

Healthy Homes Guarantee Bill (No 2)

Insolvency Practitioners Bill

Iwi and Hapū of Te Rohe o Te Wairoa Claims Settlement Bill

Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary Bill

Legislation Bill

Local Government (Freedom of Access) Amendment Bill

Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill (No 2)

Maritime Crimes Amendment Bill

Maritime Transport Amendment Bill

Military Justice Legislation Amendment Bill

Misuse of Drugs (Medicinal Cannabis and Other Matters) Amendment Bill

New Plymouth District Council (Waitara Lands) Bill

Newborn Enrolment with General Practice Bill

Ngā Rohe Moana o Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Porou Bill

Ngāi Te Rangi and Ngā Pōtiki Claims Settlement Bill

Ngāti Tūwharetoa Claims Settlement Bill

Private International Law (Choice of Law in Tort) Bill

Rates Rebate (Retirement Village Residents) Amendment Bill

Sentencing (Domestic Violence) Amendment Bill

Sentencing (Livestock Rustling) Amendment Bill

Social Security Legislation Rewrite Bill

Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2)

Subordinate Legislation Confirmation Bill (No 3)

Tauranga Moana Iwi Collective Redress and Ngā Hapū o Ngati Ranginui Claims Settlement Bill

Te Pire Haeata ki Parihaka / Parihaka Reconciliation Bill

Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill

Trusts Bill

Orders of the day for consideration of the following:

Report of the Commerce Committee on the Briefing on the Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT)

Report of the Commerce Committee on the International treaty examination of the Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons who are Blind, Visually Impaired, or Otherwise Print Disabled

Report of the Education and Science Committee on the Briefing into the South Taranaki Reef Life Project

Report of the Education and Science Committee on the International Treaty Examination of the Regional Co-operative Agreement for Research, Development and Training Related to Nuclear Science and Technology, 2017

Report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the Controller and Auditor-General, Annual Plan 2017/18

Report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the Reserve Bank of New Zealand, Monetary Policy Statement, August 2017

Report of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee on the Briefing on the United Nations Security Council

Report of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee on the International treaty examination of the Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations (PACER) Plus

Report of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee on the Pacific Parliamentary Forum

Report of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee on the Report of the Controller and Auditor-General, Border security: Using information to process passengers

Report of the Government Administration Committee on the Inquiry into captioning in New Zealand

Report of the Health Committee on the Report of the Controller and Auditor-General, District health boards’ response to asset management requirements since 2009

Report of the Health Committee on the Report of the Controller and Auditor-General, Mental health: Effectiveness of the planning to discharge people from hospital

Report of the Justice and Electoral Committee on the Report from the Controller and Auditor-General, Challenges facing licensing trusts

Report of the Justice and Electoral Committee on the Visit of the Justice and Electoral Committee to Australia, 27 to 31 March 2017

Report of the Law and Order Committee on the Report from the Office of the Ombudsman, A question of restraint

Report of the Local Government and Environment Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, The state of New Zealand’s environment: Commentary by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment on Environment Aotearoa 2015

Report of the Local Government and Environment Committee on the Report from the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, Climate change and agriculture: Understanding the Biological greenhouse gases

Report of the Local Government and Environment Committee on the Report from the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, Investigating the future of conservation: The case of stewardship land, Update report

Report of the Local Government and Environment Committee on the Report of the Controller and Auditor-General, Inquiry into aspects of Auckland Council’s Westgate/Massey North town centre project

Report of the Local Government and Environment Committee on the Report of the Controller and Auditor-General, Local Government: Results of the 2015/16 audits

Report of the Local Government and Environment Committee on the Report of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, Taonga of an island nation: Saving New Zealand’s birds

Report of the Māori Affairs Committee on the Briefing on the Independent Review of Māori Commercial Fisheries Structures Under the Māori Fisheries Act 2004

Report of the Māori Affairs Committee on the Briefing on the Tauranga Moana Iwi Collective Redress and Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Ranginui Claims Settlement Bill

Report of the Māori Affairs Committee on the Inquiry into whanau access to and management of Tupapaku

Report of the Officers of Parliament Committee on the Briefing on the Controller and Auditor-General

Report of the Primary Production Committee on the Briefing from New Zealand Beekeeping Incorporated

Report of the Primary Production Committee on the Briefing on the connection between international consumers and New Zealand producers

Report of the Regulations Review Committee on the Activities of the Regulations Review Committee in 2017

Report of the Social Services Committee on the Report of the Controller and Auditor-General, Ministry of Social Development: How it deals with complaints

Report of the Standing Orders Committee on the Review of Standing Orders

Report of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee on the Inquiry into the future of New Zealand’s mobility

Report of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee on the Report of the Controller and Auditor-General, Immigration New Zealand: Delivering transformational change

Special report of the Māori Affairs Committee on the New Plymouth District Council (Waitara Lands) Bill, te reo Māori version

and that the following bills be reinstated before the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee:

Consumer Guarantees (Removal of Unrelated Party Lender Responsibility) Amendment Bill

Telecommunications (New Regulatory Framework) Amendment Bill

and that the following bill be reinstated before the Education and Workforce Committee:

Education (Tertiary Education and Other Matters) Amendment Bill

and that the following bills be reinstated before the Finance and Expenditure Committee:

Friendly Societies and Credit Unions (Regulatory Improvements) Amendment Bill

Taxation (Annual Rates for 2017-18, Employment and Investment Income, and Remedial Matters) Bill

and that the following bill be reinstated before the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee:

Brokering (Weapons and Related Items) Controls Bill

and that the following bills be reinstated before the Governance and Administration Committee:

Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill (No 2)

Thames–Coromandel District Council and Hauraki District Council Mangrove Management Bill

and that the following bills be reinstated before the Justice Committee:

Arbitration Amendment Bill

Courts Matters Bill

Crimes (Increased Penalty for Providing Explosive to Commit Crime) Amendment Bill

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

Domestic Violence—Victims’ Protection Bill

Marriage (Court Consent to Marriage of Minors) Amendment Bill

Tribunals Powers and Procedures Legislation Bill

and that the following bills be reinstated before the Māori Affairs Committee:

Heretaunga Tamatea Claims Settlement Bill

Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki Claims Settlement Bill

Ngāti Tamaoho Claims Settlement Bill

and that the following bills be reinstated before the Primary Production Committee:

Consumers’ Right to Know (Country of Origin of Food) Bill

Racing Amendment Bill

and that the following bills be reinstated before the Social Services and Community Committee:

Social Security (Stopping Benefit Payments for Offenders who Repeatedly Fail to Comply with Community Sentences) Amendment Bill

Social Workers Registration Legislation Bill

and that the following question of privilege be reinstated before the Privileges Committee:

Question of privilege on the action taken by Maritime New Zealand in relation to the managing director of Maritime Management Services Ltd following her giving evidence to the Regulations Review Committee

and that the following business currently before select committees be reinstated and allocated to a select committee by the Clerk:

Inquiry referred to committee

Review of the operation of the Returning Offenders (Management and Information) Act 2015

International treaty examination referred to committee

International treaty examination of the Multilateral Convention to Implement tax treaty related measures to prevent base erosion and profit shifting

New Zealand Bill of Rights reports referred to committees

Report of the Attorney-General under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 on the End of Life Choice Bill

Report of the Attorney-General under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 on the Local Government (Freedom of Access) Amendment Bill

Petitions referred to committees

Petition 2011/51 of Andrea Newman

Petition 2014/30 of Jenn Hooper

Petition 2014/60 of Andrew Mark Judd

Petition 2014/64 of Paul Thomas and Andrew Peters on behalf of Families of the Forgotten Fallen

Petition 2014/69 of Wiremu Demchick and 2,111 others

Petition 2014/76 of Catherine Delahunty

Petition 2014/78 of Grant C West

Petition 2014/89 of Corinda Taylor on behalf of the Life Matters Suicide Prevention Trust and 1,740 others

Petition 2014/91 of Garth McVicar on behalf of the Sensible Sentencing Trust

Petition 2014/94 of Aaron Cross and 129 others

Petition 2014/98 of Samantha Lenik

Petition 2014/102 of Nicole Thornton

Petition 2014/105 of Judy Richards

Petition 2014/112 of Dr David Clark MP

Petition 2014/114 of Kyleisha Jade Foote

Petition 2014/117 of Andy Espersen and 261 others

Petition 2014/119 of Bob McCoskrie and 22,334 others

Petition 2014/121 of Tara Jackson on behalf of the New Zealand Anti-Vivisection Society and Helping You Help Animals

Petition 2014/123 of Shelley Maree Ward and 6,258 others

Petition 2014/124 of Fadumo Aden Elmi

Petition 2014/125 of Hamish Hutchinson

Petition 2014/127 of Kristina Paterson

Petition 2014/129 of Phyl Phipps

Petition 2014/130 of Grant Robertson

Petition 2014/132 of Ian Reddy

Petition 2014/133 of Stephen Lasham on behalf of Aotea Sea Scouts

Petition 2014/134 of Lucy McSweeney

Petition 2014/135 of Ann Ruxton and 3,596 others

Petition 2014/136 of Anneleise Hall

Petition 2014/137 of Grahame John Smith

Petition 2014/138 of Grant Robertson

Petition 2014/139 of Margaret Jean Dynes

Petition 2014/140 of Kath Bier and Steve Joll

Petition 2014/141 of Catherine Wallace

Petition 2014/142 of Lauren Jack

Petition 2014/143 of Rosie McRobie

Petition 2014/144 of Sue Moroney

Petition 2014/145 of Michael Gibson

Petition 2014/146 of Tamina Kolthoff and Jessica Munn

Petition 2014/147 of Niki Bezzant

Petition 2014/148 of Danielle Mackay

Petition 2014/149 of Laura O’Connell Rapira

Petition 2014/150 of Michael Brian Arthur Clifford

Petition 2014/151 of Poto Williams

Reports of Officers of Parliament referred to committees

Report from the Office of the Ombudsman: Report on an unannounced inspection of Spring Hill Corrections Facility Under the Crimes of Torture Act 1989

Report from the Office of the Ombudsmen: Report on an unannounced inspection of Hawke’s Bay Regional Prison Under the Crimes of Torture Act 1989

Report of the Controller and Auditor-General, Commentary on He Tirohanga Mokopuna: 2016 Statement on the Long-Term Fiscal Position

Report of the Controller and Auditor-General, Energy sector: Results of the 2014/15 audits

Report of the Controller and Auditor-General, Inquiry into the Saudi Arabia Food Security Partnership

Report of the Controller and Auditor-General, Managing the assets that distribute electricity

Report of the Controller and Auditor-General, Managing the school property portfolio

Report of the Controller and Auditor-General, Ministry of Social Development: Using a case management approach to service delivery

Report of the Controller and Auditor-General, Reflections from our audits: Investment and asset management

Report of the Controller and Auditor-General, The Auditor-General’s strategic intentions to 2025

Report of the Ombudsmen, An investigation into the Ministry of Education’s engagement processes for school closures and mergers

Report of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, Stepping stones to Paris and beyond: Climate change, progress, and predictability

and that the following petitions awaiting a government response be reinstated:

Petition 2014/15 of Anthony Roberts and 40 others

Petition 2014/51 of Gary William Roberts

Petition 2014/86 of Allyson Hamblett

Petition 2014/88 of Kim Robinson

Petition 2014/93 of David Shen on behalf of the Asian Pacific Charity Trust.

The reinstatement motion reinstates all but four of the pieces of legislation that were on the House’s Order Paper or before select committees in the last Parliament. Those bills that are not being adopted in the reinstatement motion are the Employment (Pay Equity and Equal Pay) Bill, the Regulatory Standards Bill, the Taxation (Income-sharing Tax Credit) Bill, and the Insolvency Practitioners Bill.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga): Can I, firstly, start this reinstatement motion by congratulating you as Speaker. I genuinely wanted to simply see on those Standing Orders the answers, and I know that you will be Parliament’s man. You’ll do a good job.

Can I speak and talk to what are many questions in relation to this reinstatement motion; effectively, questions about what’s in it and also what is not in it. And I seek to move a reinstatement amendment to reinstate the Employment (Pay Equity and Equal Pay) Bill, because I think that’s an important bill, and I know you’re going to hear about that in due course from others. Can I also in that amendment seek to reinstate the Regulatory Standards Bill, because, again, I think that’s a bill that is worth it.

Hon Member: Good bill.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: That’s right, it’s a good bill. It achieves some good things that are not in this and that should be in it.

Look, I’d firstly make some, I suppose, procedural points about this reinstatement motion. I think it’s really important to make, firstly, actually a constitutional point—a point that I think is important in a Parliament to note—and that is: the last Parliament does not tell this Parliament what to do. And that’s why we need to do this. Actually, if you go back, I think, to the days of Muldoon, that was what happened. A motion was put at the end of a Parliament, and they were carried over—the bills. But here no longer do we do that, and I think that’s right. It’s conceptually wrong to do that, to bind one Parliament into the future.

Can I say that there are two, today, primary ways—just on the procedure of this, briefly—to do this. And, of course, what you can—I would suggest, should—do is, you should do a reinstatement motion that reinstates everything, particularly if you’ve got an Address in Reply debate later in the day, because actually it means there’s less to muck around with, and that’s the way to do it. Of course, what we’ve had here from the new Leader of the House is a situation where he has left things off rather than have them written to by the relevant Ministers, the Clerk, and of course that means that we’ve got a lot of interest in understanding why it is. Given yesterday, and some of the interest around that, I would be interested to know, actually, why the new Leader of the House did take those off—whether it was intentional to have a debate on these things, if he wants to talk about these things, or what the situation is there.

I also want to just ask some questions in relation to some of these bills and these matters that are in the reinstatement motion. I think one that’s important to talk about—it’s one when I was the Minister of Transport—is the Maritime Transport Amendment Bill. It may not be a particularly high profile bill, it may not have got a lot of headlines, but it’s got some very significant things in relation to oil pollution and the issues there. Of course, I know well about that, having seen the Rena and issues as a local member of Parliament—fixed up a lot of that. So that’s an important part of the bill, given my concerns that that bill is not going to be progressed either fast enough and—actually, I wonder, given what I’m about to come to—whether it will be progressed at all in this Parliament. Because the other things in this bill—and there’s quite a myriad of things in it, but let me focus on two.

Firstly, in relation to drugs and alcohol, in a situation where in the workplace—right across transport, actually; in civil aviation, in land transport, but also in maritime—it’s dealt with specifically in this bill. In that area, my understanding is the unions oppose those clauses. They oppose what this bill is about in that area, because they don’t want to see that sort of scrutiny in the workplace. So I’m interested to know, because I think the Labour position was of that vein, whether that’s actually going to be put out through this motion, whether we’re going to see either that amendment—[Interruption]—sorry, what’s that? I can’t hear you—to this bill, or, if not the amendment then the continuance or lack of progress on the bill. I think these are things that it would be good to understand, either from the new transport Ministers or the Leader of the House.

And there’s another thing in the bill that again gives me reason to believe that, even though—because we know there are things that aren’t in this reinstatement motion: four bills. By the way, can I say on that, in relation to the two that I have not mentioned, we agree with that. We agree with that. It’s those other ones—the pay equity bill and the regulatory reforms systems bill—where we wonder what is happening there.

But back to this one. When we go through it, the other thing that is in it is a particularly interesting set of clauses around the Chatham Islands and, effectively, free cabotage and commercial freight there. While there probably is—there probably is—and to get them in and out, what this bill did was allow for competition in that freighting. Allow for competition, but again we know—

Hon Tracey Martin: New Zealand’s watching.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Sorry, what was that, Tracey Martin? I just couldn’t hear that?

Hon Tracey Martin: New Zealand’s watching, Mr Bridges. Go right ahead.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: That’s right. That’s right, and I’m just wanting to debate a reinstatement motion where a number of things are in—most is in—but there are some serious things that aren’t, and also ask some questions on some bills where I know that the position of the now Government, the then Opposition, was opposed to but yet they have reinstated. Clearly, they are not taking the position that I would have thought was the smart one, which is to do away with them by letters to the Clerk, so that it is in here. I just want to know, actually, is there a seriousness of intention of progressing it, given they opposed it before?

That other piece, as I say, is the Chatham Islands and that issue there where we were, under this bill, given issues—actually, the Hon Annette King raised it with me, because she was concerned about it; she couldn’t get her colleagues in the Labour Party on board, but she was concerned about it—that meant we were opening up for competition. But the unions—I think the Maritime Union, I think a number of other ones—were dead opposed because they saw it as potentially opening up competition internationally. So I do want to know on that whether that bill that is there—curious, given their opposition to it—is going to be continued in this Parliament; not only just seriously but seriously continued? Or are they going to take out some of those bits and just leave sort of the bare bones, really, of—I don’t know. Is it the drug and alcohol provisions by themselves, is it the oil pollution provisions, or is it all of these? So it would be interesting to know that.

I also think one thing that has gone through is an inquiry into the new mobility—I want to say, I do want to understand on that; really, it would be interesting—from James Shaw, Leader of the Green Party as a Minister outside of the Cabinet but really part of the Government, whether he is serious about that. Because I know in that area we did a lot of work in electric vehicles; a huge amount going on. And the rhetoric from the Greens has been that they will increase that, that they will continue to do that. Actually, we had a wonderful policy into the election to significantly increase the transport fleet in this area for Government: more electric vehicles. That’s being kept, so I am particularly interested in knowing about that.

So we’ve got a number of questions. Can I sum it up this way, both in relation to what isn’t here—and, as I say, I am moving that amendment to see two of those reinstated; significant bills—pay equity, but also in regulatory systems, bills that we think should be progressed. But also, with what is there, given the opposition—particularly those bills I mentioned; they’re the ones I am interested in—whether they will be continued. I note that when this came up in 2008, Michael Cullen and a number of other senior figures spoke and they made quite clear that it would be ridiculous to shut down this sort of debate, because it’s important there are those serious questions at a change of Government, where some equivocation is made, and that these sorts of questions are put at the start of Parliament like this.

I note, Mr Speaker, without drawing you into the debate, that you were one of those speakers. You made quite clear that several hours were necessary for the debate. That’s what you said in 2008, Mr Speaker. So I do think there are serious questions in relation to what’s there, but also what is not.

Mr SPEAKER: No, will members resume their seats. I’m on my feet. I’m just waiting for Mr Bridges. I thought the member purported to move an amendment.

Hon Simon Bridges: I’m sorry, Mr Speaker. I move an amendment.

Mr SPEAKER: You’ve got to table it.

Hon Simon Bridges: Yes, I’m going to do that.

Mr SPEAKER: Well, I’m waiting for you. Members will settle down please. Thank you.

Hon Simon Bridges: I move, That the Employment (Pay Equity and Equal Pay) Bill and the Regulatory Standards Bill be reinstated.

Mr SPEAKER: The question was that the motion be agreed to; since then the Hon Simon Bridges has moved an amendment that the Employment (Pay Equity and Equal Pay) Bill and the Regulatory Standards Bill be reinstated. The question is that the amendment be agreed to.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I rise on behalf of the ACT Party in support of the amendment. The Regulatory Standards Bill is an important part, or at least could be an important part, of New Zealand’s constitutional infrastructure, and I’m pleased that my colleague from the National Party has moved that the bill be reinstated. But I was a little surprised to hear the enthusiasm from his caucus colleagues saying that it was a good bill, because if it’s such a good bill, perhaps we could have advanced it up the Order Paper a little bit more in the past six years. Indeed, this bill has been sitting where it is on the Order Paper for so long that it is in the name of the Hon Rodney Hide, who hasn’t been here for 11 years.

But I have to say with some sorrow that sometimes the greater tragedy of the fifth National Government is not that it lost power but that we didn’t use it when we had it. This bill should be part of our statutes, and I hope that this Government will reconsider its position on the bill and advance it up the Order Paper. The way that members might like to think about it is like this: we have constitutional infrastructure in this country that arrived a little bit late in our history. The Labour Party—through the Constitution Act, for instance, and through the Public Finance Act—has played an honourable role in bringing about some of that belated constitutional infrastructure. We now have pretty good rules on our statute book when it comes to spending—when it comes to having fiscal updates at each Budget, and twice a year otherwise, before elections. Those are things that are important to our being a modern and sophisticated democracy. We have, through many of our statutes—for instance, the State-Owned Enterprises Act, which is also a Labour Party legacy, I might remind the members—pretty good rules around Government ownership—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am now going to ask the member to narrow his speech to the matter before the House, and that is the amendment. It is not an opportunity for a writing of the history of economic policy in New Zealand.

DAVID SEYMOUR: I was just coming to the end of that particular part of my address. But, if you will allow me, the significance of the Regulatory Standards Bill is that it does fit into that history, and that is a history that the Labour Party made a pretty good contribution to some years ago. The one area where we don’t have a good set of rules in our statutes is around the role of Government as a regulator. As a spender—pretty good rules. As an owner—pretty good rules. But as a regulator, it is still the wild west out there.

I happen to be a former Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister for Regulatory Reform, which is my answer to the question “Tell us something about you that nobody knows.” frequently, but in that time we sought to put some of the principles that the Regulatory Standards Bill would bring into statute into the conventions of lawmaking in New Zealand. In fact, members who have entered Government will discover we installed some of them into the Cabinet Manual, which will be, hopefully, a welcome surprise for certain members and the schemes that they have. The reason that we did that is that it is not the amount that Government owns or the amount that Government spends that puts the most urgent impact on New Zealanders, but the way that Government regulates. Take, for example, something that might sound as innocuous as the Santa parade in Greytown, scheduled to take place in a couple of weeks’ time. I had the pleasure of speaking to the organiser of this Santa parade, who tells me it takes six weeks to organise. Two weeks are to contact the people, ask them to do the floats, arrange the order, and have everybody ready to go. The other four weeks are required for compliance issues for just about every matter—who has the food stalls, who is allowed to enter the road, who the marshals are—and each and every one has a fee imposed by local government. That is the source of real irritation from councils and other government departments to everyday New Zealanders.

It also lies at the heart of frustrations in just about every sector. We just heard in the Speech from the Throne that the Government seeks to allay bureaucracy in the education sector. They feel, and it’s something that is reflected in the feedback you get from many a teacher in our education sector, that teachers have to spend far more time explaining and complying than they do performing the real transaction of teaching kids. The ACT Party, of course, has a solution to that, but sadly the Government does not seem so enamoured of it. Nevertheless, in education it’s an issue. The Government wants to make most of its emphasis on housing, and so it should, but the fact of the matter is that the main issue in housing is that we are building half as many homes per capita as we were in the 1970s. Phil Twyford, he knows this—he knows—and the reason is not that we have somehow forgotten the technology that allowed us to build homes back then. It is not that we somehow have less land in New Zealand. The country is the same size—

Hon Dr David Clark: Submit your Labour Party membership application now.

DAVID SEYMOUR: Well, I’m a little bit too intelligent for that, Mr Clark, but I’ll try my best. But the fact of the matter is that the real problem we have is the fact that there is far too much red tape and regulation, made by a series of Governments, that prevents New Zealanders from getting on with the real business of building businesses, homes, and families. They are hamstrung by too much red tape and regulation, often passed by this Parliament and the departments that we are supposed to hold to account.

So what would the Regulatory Standards Bill do about this predicament, this swarm of red tape and regulation that holds back New Zealanders in so many areas, from the classroom to the construction site to the Santa parade on the main street of Greytown? This bill would put in place a series of statutorily required tests on new regulations and new legislation, tests that should be commonsensical and second nature to anybody in the business of making dollars, who should be saying if we’re going to make the law, what is the problem definition. And the problem for Government officials can’t just be “The Minister wants us to do this.” They have to identify an actual market failure. For instance, they have to show that the game theory outcome of natural interactions is not Pareto optimal, or, in simpler language for some of the Labour members and the newer ones, you have to make sure that when all people do what is in their own perceived best interests, the result for everybody in aggregate is suboptimal. Problem definition is the beginning of proper lawmaking, and it’s required under statute by the Regulatory Standards Bill.

You see Clayton Mitchell out there—he is absolutely flabbergasted. He has never heard of “Pareto optimal” before. Nevertheless, the fact of the matter is that we need, having defined the problem, to produce a series of options and assess them using proper cost-benefit analysis. That is the second thing you do. If you have got a number of solutions for solving a problem, then surely the thing to do is to compare them on some principle basis. That would be required by the Regulatory Standards Bill.

But you might also want to ask yourself a number of questions about whether a particular regulatory initiative contradicts the principles and standards that New Zealanders hold dear. We just had our Parliament commissioned and heard our Speech from the Throne, presided over by a number of officers from the judiciary. The Regulatory Standards Bill asks whether a particular regulatory initiative contradicts the requirement that we respect the rule of law. It asks that we have our property rights respected. It asks that we have our freedom to trade respected.

These are things that should be on the statute book, alongside the very good constitutional frameworks this country has for Government owning things and spending taxpayers’ money. The Regulatory Standards Bill, sadly, has not made any progress in the past six years, but I’d put it to the new Government that it might be worth keeping around, because I know that a number of members of the new Government are sitting there internally nodding away. They know exactly what I mean, and they believe that this amendment should stand so the Regulatory Standards Bill can remain on the Order Paper for progress in sunnier times. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): Can I begin this afternoon by congratulating you, Mr Speaker, at the first opportunity upon your taking the Chair, and assure you that I do respect the long history that you have in this House, and that’s not meant to be in any way derisory. It is a compliment, and I am sure that you will, as you have sort of started today, put your own mark on the way the House operates, and I wish you well in that.

It really surprises me, having listened to the Speech from the Throne and the very condemning tone of anything the past Government did, that we’ve got any legislation from the past Parliament being carried over at all. It seems to me that it would’ve been far more exciting if the whole Order Paper had been dispensed with and the 100-day programme laid out in front of the House so that the excitement that is non-existent on the faces across the other side might actually get a little bit of a lift.

I want to particularly ask a question at the start as to why the Leader of the House suggested that the Insolvency Practitioners Bill was being dispensed with when it is actually still on the list here? We’re not unhappy about that. We think it’s a good piece of legislation that should pass. I want to congratulate Mr Seymour for the commentary that he has just given the House, and I have to say to him that had his argument been so compelling a few months ago, it may well have passed. But there you are! It’s amazing what a new seat in this place will do for someone.

Then there is, of course, the commentary in the Speech from the Throne about the need to do something about pay equity in this country. Well, that’s something that I think can be easily supported, provided the provisions of it are going to be reasonable on those who have to actually work—to produce—to be able to make those extra payments. But it seems odd then that you would take a pay equity bill off the Order Paper without having anything to work on. Given that the whole Order Paper wasn’t dispensed with because there is not a lot of legislation to come in that 100-day plan, I would’ve thought the Government may have considered leaving this bill here as a base to work on.

And that really brings me to the most surprising thing here at all, and that is that the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary Bill is still on the Order Paper. This is a bill that creates the ocean sanctuary in the Kermadecs, a very large area, internationally supported. New Zealand was lauded for making the initial indications that we wanted to turn it into a sanctuary. It was not supported in the last Parliament sufficiently. It could have gone through had the then Labour Opposition decided that they were going to support it, but, no, they didn’t. So what we now have is a situation where there are enough votes in this House to pass this bill, but we have a Government holding it on the Order Paper so it never comes up. It’s going to end up being a bill pretty much like that Rodney Hide bill that we heard about before, which will sit there for years and years, or for as many years as New Zealand First is part of the Labour coalition. I’ve got to ask the Green Party why they want to support that. If the Green Party seriously think a Kermadec sanctuary is a good idea, then why support a motion that ensures that it will never ever come before the House in this term?

I see a Green member down there shaking her head. I need to tell her how it works. As long as this bill is here in this shape, no member’s bill can trump it. So there is no other opportunity for the Green Party to get a sanctuary in the Kermadecs if this bill stays here, because the New Zealand First Party don’t like it, because the Māori caucus in the Labour Party don’t like it, but the National Party and the Green Party could’ve achieved it quick smart in a lot sooner than a hundred days.

If you think about how all these things operate in this Parliament—I think people need to know what the mechanism is. It could have been an easy thing for the Government to do, rather than picking out four bills that they don’t want to progress, to have actually taken the whole lot through, and then there would be nothing for us to debate about. There would be no question that needed to be asked in the House or a question that required debate in the House. As a prominent member of this House has said in the past, these are matters that should be debated. All that would have been required was for a Minister to write to the Clerk saying that they wish to discharge the bill and they’re gone—no debate. They’re gone. And it’s the Government’s programme.

So we are really quite perplexed as to why the Government has decided to take this course of action today. But we’re happy to be able to talk about a number of the things that are on here. I’ve just mentioned the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary Bill, which we found strange that it’s still there. One of the things that’s been taken off is the Natural Health and Supplementary Products Bill. We are just wondering: does that mean that unregulated health supplements, which can cause a lot of problems, as you know, Mr Mitchell, will continue to be illegally sold? We want to make some conditions—or the bill wanted to make some conditions—that would enable the legal sales of genuine supplement products and also regulate those products. And I’ve only got to look at the gym bunnies on the other side of the House—Mr Jones, I know that when you take that supplement in the morning—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I think that’s going a little bit far.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: You’re quite right, Mr Speaker; I’ve certainly never seen him there. The point is, though: why would you take away a piece of legislation that will give people a degree of certainty about what’s in the product they’re consuming, which they believe to be healthy? There is a little inconsistency there, and particularly when you consider, from the Speech from the Throne, that there is now going to be quite an emphasis on encouraging the public of New Zealand to vote positively in the marijuana referendum that comes in the next three years.

My final comment would be on the extraordinary decision to remove the income tax sharing bill. If you think about how that works—and you have got a Speech from the Throne that talked about people paying the right amount of tax, a reasonable amount of tax—what that bill set out to do was enable people to split their income in a household where there was only one income. So the situation would be that they got a better picture, taxation-wise. I hope that the Leader of the House is able to indicate that this will be a matter for this outside pressure group who are going to advise the Government on how taxation should be, firstly, legislated for and then administered in this country. It’s not something that should be laughed at. I’ve got to say that there would be a lot of—

Hon Iain Lees-Galloway: You’re the one we’re laughing at—you didn’t even laugh at it; you did nothing with it.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Well, no, I’m quite sure that there are a lot of families who would have benefited from this, and I can’t understand why it is that a Labour Government that is so keen on social equity wants to dispense with a bill that would enable that in a very quick smart order. It would, in fact, make quite a difference to numerous family incomes.

We spoke before about the process that’s getting used here, and I want to once again make the point that this is a debate that is clearly important to the Government and, therefore, should be given the time that the Government sees is necessary, because it’s a debate they need not have had. Had they simply used the process that would enable Ministers, through Cabinet, to make a decision to remove bills from the Order Paper, we wouldn’t be here right now.

Mr Speaker, while you may have a different view, sir, I can tell you that the substance of it would not have required the debate time that the Government clearly thinks is necessary, because of the way in which they have gone about this particular process. If there is some reason that we are not aware of that means that the pay equity bill has to go off the Order Paper, that means that the regulatory standards bill is not important to this Government and goes off the Order Paper, that the concept of knowing what’s in health products is not important to this Government and goes off the Order Paper, and that the taxation income sharing bill is of no interest to this Government despite the fact that they are going to get an outside body to come up with all the recommendations about future taxation, then I think there is an obligation to tell the people of New Zealand why those bills are not there.

But I do congratulate them for keeping the vast majority of the excellent legislative programme set down by the former Government. I know it will form the core of their work for some months to come.

CLAYTON MITCHELL (Whip—NZ First): I move, That the question be now put.

Hon Amy Adams: Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: Ah—[Gown slips from shoulders]—whoops! We’ll get that sorted out. Members will be able to tell that I was one of the generation that didn’t bother going to their graduations. I will work out how to put the gown on eventually.

Hon AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn): Thank you very much for the call, Mr Speaker, and, as other members have done, can I begin by congratulating you, sir, on your election as the Speaker of the House. I know you will do the role well, and I look forward to working with you. Can I also congratulate the Deputy Speaker, Anne Tolley, who will do an outstanding job, and our two new Assistant Speakers from the Labour benches.

It is my first opportunity to speak, of course, on this first day in the 52nd Parliament, and it is a pleasure to be back. I can tell you that on this side we’re relishing the opportunity to be a strong and effective Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition, and I can assure this House that we will be fulfilling that role with some vigour as we hold the Government to account every day of this term.

The point on the reinstatement motion that I particularly did want to speak on and spend some time addressing, because I think it is a critical issue that deserves the debate of the House, is the removal of one of the pieces of legislation in particular, and that is the Employment (Pay Equity and Equal Pay) Bill. I find it quite staggering, in the face of all of the multitudes of pieces of legislation on the Order Paper that Labour have spent many years opposing, and the New Zealand First Party have spent many years opposing, and the Green Party have spent many years opposing—so many pieces of legislation that they clearly oppose—that they would reinstate all of those but the one bill that sets out to eliminate and prevent discrimination on the basis of sex and help women get a fair deal in the workplace. That is the piece of legislation they want wiped. That is the one piece of legislation, of all of the bills they opposed, that they want wiped off the Order Paper in this House.

I do think it is important that the Government explain to the people of New Zealand why it is that they think that returning women to having no process to address their grievances—no clear structure to work their way through—and throwing them back into the morass, the uncertainty, the cost, and the delay of having to go through the courts, as the TerraNova case did, before they can make any progress at all, is a good idea. There’s been no word from them on that. Nothing in the Speech from the Throne talked about how they would replace it. Nothing sent any signal to the women in New Zealand about why throwing them into the uncertainties of the 1972 legislation is a good thing.

I think that the Government needs to tell the people of New Zealand, and the Leader of the House needs to address, why this piece of legislation is being wiped—not amended, not changed, not adjusted to fit the Government’s programme; they have that ability if they want to. This is a piece of legislation that was introduced in August of this year. It has been to a select committee. It is back before the House, and the Government has every opportunity to amend it if they are not happy with the crafting of it. That would give women a giant step forward in knowing how to address these pay claims with some certainty.

I do think we need to reflect to understand the context of the point I am making. This came from, of course, the TerraNova case. The TerraNova case spent 3½ years in the courts just to get to the point to decide that section 9 of the Equal Pay Act applied not only to equal pay for equal work—which is how it had been broadly understood to work for many, many years. After 3½ years the court was able to reach the one determination that not only did that Act apply to equal pay for equal work but also—and quite newly in the way most people understood it—that it applied to pay equity claims.

After 3½ years the court hadn’t even been able to get to the process of understanding whether that claim in particular had merit; if it did have merit, how you’d go about addressing it; how on earth you’d even start to understand which industries were comparable for the purposes of pay equity; how you would work through that process; and how the rights of the applicants would be protected.

This legislation is all about setting up those frameworks so that women who aren’t getting fair pay and aren’t getting appropriate pay and pay equity can address that without having to go through years and years in court to try to get that resolved. Again, let me just remind this House—because this is a critical decision we’re making here on the rights of women—that after the decision on the TerraNova case came out in 2014, the previous National-led Government did two critical things. The first was that we settled with the workers, through a long process of discussion and agreement—a $2 billion settlement that benefited 55,000 workers—but, critically, we also set up a joint working group to understand and to work on an agreed basis, chaired by now Governor-General Dame Patsy Reddy, to look at how these questions should be addressed. We understood that if it took 3½ years just to know that that Act applied, trying to get all of this resolved through court processes was an incredibly unfair burden to put on applicants, so the Government set up the joint working group.

That working group worked right across all stakeholders to come up with a framework that made sense, so that, actually, rather than having to approach each of these cases through a grievance methodology, it could be a normal employment bargaining approach, where any worker, group of workers, or organisation representing workers who felt aggrieved could go straight to the employer and start from a bargaining position and not have to rush off to court. Why would you not want to start, in the first instance, with the employees and the employers talking and seeing if they can resolve it? Why wouldn’t you start there?

What the Government is doing with this motion is compelling every hard-done-by woman, every underpaid woman, to go to court—get a lawyer and go to court—because we have removed the one piece of legislation that gave them the chance to actually have a process where they could work through this in a fair and reasonable way.

And this is from a Government that is quite happy to reinstate any number of pieces of legislation they don’t agree with, but when it comes to giving women the right to resolve their cases—why wouldn’t they just amend what is already there? If they don’t like it, amend it. But no, no, they’re going to wipe it. They’re going to start again with no indication whatsoever how that’s going to work, how they’re going to deliver it, and nothing at all in the Speech from the Throne to give women any indication of how that’s going to work.

I just can’t understand why a Government would do that, and we’ve heard nothing from them. I think the public of New Zealand deserve to know. If you’re getting rid of this legislation, why do you think it’s acceptable—you’re not doing it any time soon—to take this issue back years and not give people an opportunity and a process and a clear framework for making these decisions? We’ve heard nothing. We’ve heard absolutely nothing, and I think the Government and the Leader of the House need to tell those women why suddenly they’re not going to be able to progress the claims that actually a lot of work went into, through workers groups, through unions, through employers’ representatives, through that joint working group.

This was not a decision of the National Government; this was us accepting every recommendation of that joint working group because lots of people put hundreds of hours into making this work, and the Labour Government just want to scrap it. Now, I appreciate that they’re not going to agree with everything we did; that’s perfectly appropriate. But they could change it. Why would you go to square one? Why wouldn’t they simply use a Supplementary Order Paper process to adjust the framework to one that they are happy with?

They haven’t done it. It’s an outrageous attack on the rights of those women to be able to start a process with a clear framework. Instead, the message from this Government to the underpaid and the discriminated-against women in New Zealand is: “Go to court. We’re not going to help you. Go to court, get a lawyer, settle in for a long wait, because you’re not going to know where it’s going to go and we would rather impose all of that cost on women, on workers, on the underpaid who have been discriminated against in New Zealand than give them a process, give them a clear framework.”

I just think it’s outrageous, and I couldn’t sit through this reinstatement debate and not put to this Government that they do need to tell the public of New Zealand why they’re not capable of amending a very good framework. If they don’t like it, they can change it, but instead they’ve chosen to wipe it, scrap the process, ignore the joint working group, and leave the women of New Zealand with no idea how they’re going to go forward from here and no idea when this will come up in the Government’s agenda—and a long period of time to now develop whatever the Government are going to come up with, if anything. For all we know, they’re just going to stick with the Equal Pay Act of 1972 and leave it all to the courts to work out.

I don’t think that’s good enough and I don’t think it’s appropriate that the Government would simply put up a procedural notice of motion on the first day of this House without a word of explanation about how this going to help the women of New Zealand, because it quite simply won’t.

Hon Member: Mr Speaker?

Mr SPEAKER: I can hear the member, but the Hon Judith Collins has been calling for longer.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura): Well, thank you, Mr Speaker. Isn’t it wonderful to have such a wonderful fan base? And who said I can’t reach across the aisle? Mr Speaker, let me congratulate you on your election to Speaker. Can I also congratulate the Deputy Speaker, the Hon Anne Tolley, and the two new Assistant Speakers. I think it’s great, Mr Speaker, that you want us to be kinder and more caring, because everybody knows that there’s no one more kind and caring than me. And I expect I’ll continue to be kind and caring towards the Government, because, quite clearly, they’re going to need a bit of kindness and a bit of caring; a bit of pastoral care.

Because if I look at this notice of motion about what is being continued, all I can see is a Government not ready to govern. I see a Government that does not have its own legislation. I see a Government that is desperate to keep in such fabulous bills as the Autonomous Sanctions Bill. Everybody, in the election campaign, was waiting for that one. They were also desperate for the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Bill—what an amazing bill! The Food Safety Law Reform Bill—well, I’m sure that’s very worthy, but what I think is missing is, of course, the Employment (Pay Equity and Equal Pay) Bill.

All the way through the election campaign, when did we ever hear any of these three parties forming a Government say that they were going to be against employment pay equity and equal pay? When? When did they promise that? Having just heard the Speech from the Throne—which I thought was an amazing rendition of, basically, a wish list for utopia, because clearly New Zealand has been a terrible, ravaged country where nobody’s fed and no one’s got a house and it’s all so difficult. But, actually, what I didn’t hear, I didn’t hear about world peace from the Speech from the Throne, and I particularly didn’t hear that this Government no longer believed in the Employment (Pay Equity and Equal Pay) Bill.

This bill is not just a bill that’s been languishing on the Order Paper—not at all. This is actually quite a recent bill, brought in by my colleague the Hon Michael Woodhouse, by the National Party, which was then in Government along with the ACT Party and other parties. What actually happened was that we had, after two years of work, through a working group with unions, with employers, with people who just work as employees, and businesses—we had all of that, and we came up with recommendations that our Government, when we were in Government, accepted all of. So that bill is not just, as I said, languishing on the Order Paper. It was actually sent by this House in the previous term of Parliament to a select committee, and that point hasn’t been made: it’s actually been referred to a select committee. There have been submissions that have been sent in—asked for; sent in—on that bill.

And so what this new Government is now saying to the women of the world working in areas where they may not be equally paid—or, certainly, their work not valued equally. As someone who has spent most of my life working in male-dominated work—except, of course, here, because nobody thinks that this place is a male-dominated place—what I’ve learnt is that you’ve got to have a working relationship with an employer in order to bring about change but also to give to employees the right to ask. I understand that Labour, in opposition, didn’t like the thought that an employee could go and talk to their employer themselves. What they wanted is for Mr Andrew Little’s mates to have to go in there to heavy the employer. My answer to these people is—

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: —New Zealand is a place of small business. Small businesses do not expect to have a big union boss coming in to tell them what to do in their workplace, but they should, I have to say, start to get used to that concept. Most people working in New Zealand are working in small businesses. So you’re talking about people in one-, two-, three-, four-person businesses, not great big public service organisations who have the ability to stand up against a union, to be able to foot it foot-to-foot with the union, and to actually stand up for their rights as well and to keep their business going. And that’s one of the problems with the Labour Government: they don’t understand that most business is small business.

I’d like to hear what New Zealand First thinks about this. They’ve been trotting around the regions trying to be the party of the regions—I have to say, the regions didn’t vote for them and they rejected them soundly; and very good, the regions—but, actually, they need to answer why is it that they want to give all this power to unions, and at the same time say to the women employed in the businesses, “Actually, you can’t make decisions about yourself; you can’t do anything. You can’t stand up to your employer, you can’t go and speak to them without going to court, without getting a lawyer, without getting a union involved.”

Why can’t these women make up their own minds and go and speak to their employers themselves, with support, in order that they can actually determine their own outcomes and lives? Why are we going down this track, from a Labour Government, of having a paternalistic attitude towards women? Women are not children—not unless they’re under 16. They’re not children, and should not be treated like that. Actually, most people in business should be able to have a relationship with their employers and their employees that enables them to discuss these matters.

You shouldn’t have to, as an employer, disclose all of the income of all of your other staff in order to justify their pay. That is a massive breach of privacy, and it is something that people shouldn’t have to do in small businesses. It is not OK for that to happen.

It is also not OK for an employer to have to justify every single reason why somebody is paid one salary and another paid another, because it can actually be incredibly demotivating for someone to find out that they didn’t have particular skills in a particular area or that they couldn’t actually come out with the outcomes for clients. Those are the sorts of things that a small employer can sit down with an employee and talk about, but without a great big union thug standing over them, pushing them around, picketing them, destroying their businesses—because that’s exactly what the Labour Government wants.

Why is it that New Zealand women are now going to be asked to wait for years more for the new legislation to come into the House? It’s taken two years of intensive negotiations and intensive consultation right across New Zealand, right across business, right across employers, and with the unions as well—it’s taken two years. And what we’re seeing today is that this new Labour-led Government—this Labour - Greens - New Zealand First Government; this new Government—is happy to say to New Zealand women, “Go take another two years, honey. Go take another two years because you’re not going to be man enough to stand up for yourself.” That’s what they think about New Zealand women. Well, I’ve got something to say to that Government—that Government—and it is this: New Zealand women will stand up for themselves. They don’t have to be treated like children, and they are quite capable of talking to their employers. And, actually, the day that employers and employees stop talking is the day that the business starts to break down.

I actually think that these Labour Government members do not understand that employers do not have little horns on their heads. They’re trying to actually make the profit that pays the taxes that, as we’ve heard from the Speech from the Throne today, are all about taking money off people who earn it—taking money off people who dare to make profit—taking money so it can be spent.

One thing I’d say, just to end, is that my colleague the Hon Steven Joyce was quite wrong when he talked about the $9 billion fiscal hole. He should have said the $30 billion fiscal hole, which is what I saw today.

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Deputy Leader of the House): I move, That the question be now put.

Hon Members: Mr Speaker!

Mr SPEAKER: Yelling at me doesn’t help, Dr Smith. I must say that I am quite tempted, but I think we’ll have a contribution from the learned former Attorney-General.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National): Mr Speaker, can I begin by congratulating you and making a few observations. I am delighted that you’ve resisted the temptation to acquire from the Rt Hon David Carter that very odd fur thing and that you’re wearing a black gown. I do think that now that the Chief Justice has ditched her full-bottomed wig in favour of that rather odd outfit that the Supreme Court judges were wearing today, you should borrow her full-bottomed wig, because I think you would look very distinguished. I also observe I’m delighted that you’ve changed the Speaker’s procession back to what it was in the old days.

Mr SPEAKER: Not quite.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Well, I certainly hope you will. But other than that I won’t make any further nice comments, because if I made too many nice comments about you, Mr Speaker, you’d know I was being insincere and you’d refer me to the Privileges Committee.

But I’m very interested in one piece of legislation that I hadn’t expected to be reinstated—but it has been, and I would be very grateful to hear from the Leader of the House about the future disposition of the bill—and that is Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill, because when the 51st parliament came to an end in August, that bill was in its committee stage. There are about 16 parts of the bill; I think we had debated about eight, and I’m hoping that the opposition to the bill was, if you like, political theatre rather than substantive opposition. Certainly the former New Zealand First member of Parliament Pita Paraone observed to someone that he thought it was a good bill but the opposition was political, and I certainly hope that is the case, because I say to this House, and to the Government in particular, that this represents the most fundamental reform of Māori land for many, many generations.

There was a Ministry of Primary Industries report that said if we can get the legal settings right for Māori land, then it is potentially worth $8 billion to the Māori economy. Even if it was only worth $4 billion, it would be worth the effort. That is why, at the request and the urging of the late great Api Mahuika of Ngāti Porou, as Associate Minister of Māori Development I began the process of reform and we established a group of experts, including the now Governor-General. There were any number of hui and consultations around the country. Almost unbelievably, there were about seven or eight exposure drafts, which I, as the former Attorney-General, approved of and there were very valuable discussions.

The fact that it’s in the reinstatement motion gives me hope, because it’s such an important topic. I would like to think that, in the words of the Prime Minister, “there could be a bipartisan approach to dealing with this issue, given that it’s so well advanced”. So I would very much like a commitment from the Government that it will be progressed. I’d like to know how fast it’s going to be progressed and what, if anything, can be done to ensure that we can get unanimity on this hugely significant subject.

Secondly, I’d like very much to know what the attitude of the coalition partner is. As I said, Pita Paraone had made that remark to someone that it was a good bill and opposition was purely political. Mr Jones, as the Minister for Regional Economic Development, has quite an exciting programme for doing all sorts of things with Māori land to help it achieve its potential. But the reality of the matter is, I can say to Mr Jones, if he wants to plant all those trees on Māori land under the current settings, he will have one hell of a problem: it won’t be possible, because the 1993 legislation is far too restrictive.

I would be most grateful to hear from Mr Jones just how he would propose to do it under the 1993 legislation, and I say to his colleagues in New Zealand First, “Now the election is over, let us forget about the purely political opposition to this bill. Let’s see what we can do to knuckle down and if it needs improvement, improve it, but none the less get it into law as quickly as possible, because it’s going to be of so much benefit to the Māori community.” When I think of what Treaty settlements have done over the last 25 years, it certainly has been a very positive development for our country, but it is nothing compared with the potential for economic development through reformed Te Ture Whenua Māori legislation.

These are important questions. As I said, when I first read the motion for reinstatement I expected to find that the Te Ture Whenua legislation would be taken from the Order Paper, so I’m really pleased it’s there. But these are critical questions that I would invite honourable members on the other side to address.

The other piece of legislation—and I say this to my successor, Mr Little—concerns the Tauranga Moana legislation. There are important overlapping claims up there, and I think he will do a good job in sorting them out. But before the election, both Ngāti Ranginui and Mita Ririnui’s iwi were very much opposed to that legislation being progressed because of what they saw as unjustified incursions into Tauranga Moana territory by Hauraki iwi. I hope that that legislation will be able to be progressed very quickly now that the election is over, and I hope that he will be able to get together with his former colleague Mr Ririnui and with Charlie Tāwhiao, who organised all sorts of protests against the Hauraki deed of settlement, so that that deed of settlement can be concluded as quickly as possible, the seven or eight deeds that are currently in the system can be concluded, and that we can then get that Tauranga legislation through the House.

So those are simply the matters that I wish to raise as a former Associate Minister for Māori Development. I have to say I invested a lot of time and effort in reforming Māori land law. I always remember my former colleague the former member for Bay of Plenty the Hon Tony Ryall, when I first raised this, saying to me, “You’ll fail. You’ll fail because everyone fails to reform Māori land law.” He was like a parrot on my shoulder.

But, I have to say, we’ve come so far. It would be a dreadful tragedy for Māori and for this House if we were unable to progress that very important piece of legislation, and I hope that, given that it is reinstated back in the committee stage, and, as I said, Part 7 or 8 has been looked at—notwithstanding all the sound and fury that took place in the period leading up to the dissolution of the 51st Parliament—we’ll be able to sit down and work this out because, as I said, I come back to two final points: first, that the 1993 legislation is not fit for purpose and, secondly, that this bill, if enacted, potentially with appropriate inputs, is worth many billions of dollars to the Māori economy. It’s worth the effort. It’s worth a bit of consultation between Government and Opposition so that this prize can be achieved for the benefit of all Māori.

Hon NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central): Mr Speaker, can I start by congratulating you on becoming Speaker. I do want to clear one thing up. A very long time ago we were due to race each other around Lake Taupō, and I’ve never been able to say this to you, but it is not correct that I threw myself off a bicycle and broke my leg to not race you. I do know your cycling prowess, and I hope that you have the opportunity to cycle.

Secondly, can I just acknowledge what my honourable colleagues the Hon Judith Collins and the Hon Amy Adams have talked about in terms of pay equity. I was, the other day, with one of the leaders in this movement, and I think it is a very sad day that one of the first actions of our woman Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, is to remove this piece of legislation with the motion that we have before us. There have been comments made regarding the lack of women in the executive, and I just think that we should reflect on that.

The second thing, though—I do have two specific bills that I have direct questions for the Leader of the House on, and I think he needs to answer them. He is the Leader of the House, but he is also Minister of Education. My questions relate to the education portfolio. The first one is regarding the Education (Public Good not Profit from Charter Schools) Amendment Bill.

Now, just to give you a bit of context—this is a very important point. I actually believe the Government has made a significant error here. You see, in the Speech from the Throne by the Prime Minister, she was very clear. She said there would be no charter schools. Now, let’s remember what we’re dealing with here. We are dealing with a thousand children in New Zealand, some of which are our most disadvantaged children. They’ve had a history of not achieving. And we heard from the Prime Minister what a caring, kind Government she would lead, but this is one of the first acts: to, potentially, get rid of a charter school. But the question that I have for the Leader of the House is given that the Labour Party and the New Zealand First Party campaigned on repealing the legislation, why do we have a bill—even though I don’t agree with this bill—that actually keeps partnership schools and amends them to be not-for-profit, because the Government’s been clear the legislation will be gone, and it feels like that would be a redundant use of the Parliament’s time, to have a bill that amends potential legislation that’s supposed to go.

So it’s either a genuine mistake, or the second option is that this is part of a secret agenda to ride roughshod over the review that the Minister has said is happening. So we had this awkward situation over the weekend whereby I had conversations with these schools who are worried sick, who found out in the paper that their schools may not go ahead. Mr Hipkins told journalist Jo Moir—a very good journalist—that they would not go ahead. They found out—they didn’t have any conversations with the Minister or the ministry, and then he backtracked. So is this legislation—and I think the Leader of the House needs to be really clear. It’s fine if he says it’s a mistake. We’ll all agree to take it off the Order Paper. But he has said there’s a review happening. This bill rides roughshod over that review, so I would like to hear from the Leader of the House.

The third option that is potentially happening here, which I think is really concerning—and I’ve had a text from one of the partnership schools just recently about this—is that this is going to be used as a vehicle before Christmas to get rid of these partnership schools without due process. The Government promised a case by case negotiation for these schools—and this is a very important procedural point. We need to understand these points from the Leader of the House, because there are those three options there.

Anyway, look, can I move on to another piece of legislation in the motion. So the other one is the Education (Teaching Council of Aotearoa) Amendment Bill. Now, with regard to this bill, which I think has previously been in the Hon Ruth Dyson’s name, what’s very clear to me—and, again, I know the Government’s had a lot to deal with and they’re very busy and there’s just the potential that they missed this thing out, but this bill is clearly redundant. I know they weren’t watching in June, but we already have implemented, in the last Government, the code of ethics, and that was consulted with the education profession. It’s already done. So I would argue this bill is redundant, and it’s a waste of the House’s time, and we need to hear from the Leader of the House. I know that, you know, it’s been a very rushed period, but we’ve potentially not only got a bill that amends a piece of legislation that they want to get rid of, but we’ve now got a bill that is redundant. So I think we need to hear answers from the Leader of the House and the Minister of Education on these issues.

And, finally, I just want to finish on partnership schools to remind this House why it is very important to be debating this motion and this particular piece of legislation. The detail of this legislation, and the text that I just got from Vanguard Military School, is that it, effectively, is a piece of legislation for one school. Every other school does not make a profit. So what the Government is saying is that it’s a good thing to use up the House’s time for a piece of legislation that affects and wipes out one school, and I’ve just had a text from Vanguard Military School saying exactly that. The Minister is, effectively, putting up a piece of legislation, if he wants it to continue, that wipes out one school.

Why is this happening? I hope that it’s a mistake, and I hope that he can give us some clarity, because we have more than a thousand children, and their parents, who are desperate to know what is happening. We don’t know the detail of the review. We don’t know who’s doing the review. We don’t know when it will be finished. We’ve asked questions about this. We also don’t know what it means in terms of the cost to the taxpayers. These people have contracts. Not only don’t we know what the cost will be but we have members on the other side of the House who have previously made very significant, bold statements about the need for these schools to continue. This is children’s lives at risk, and they need to know. Parents are asking me. They are saying, “We’ve only got a few weeks left in the school year, and we need some form of clarity about what is happening. Are we turning up to school next year?” This is really significant for those thousand children.

So, again, I just want to finish by saying we heard from the Speech from the Throne about a kind and caring Government that wanted to combat child poverty. But one of their first acts is to put before the Parliament some legislation that wipes out Vanguard Military School and really puts at risk the futures of a whole lot of vulnerable kids.

MICHAEL WOOD (Labour—Mt Roskill): I move that the motion now be put.

Hon Members: He got it wrong.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I’m on my feet. I think someone could possibly, for the member, write out the appropriate wording.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): This motion before the House around the reinstatement of business is a small but important test as to the integrity of the new Government and whether it stands by what they said when they were in Opposition. I’ve reflected back on the Hansard of the motion for the reinstatement of business when Labour was in Opposition. There was a very good speech in which the members opposite, now in Government, said that it was essential—essential—that the Government put the case as to what bills were being reinstated as business. In fact, members opposite, in that debate—and I use the exact word—said it would be a disgrace, a disgrace, if the Government members were not prepared to get on their feet and justify the bills that they were wanting to have debated and those that would lapse.

I note that we have not heard a single speech from members on the Government benches as to why the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary Bill is being rolled over, why the pay equity bill is not, and why the regulatory reform bill is not being considered. So I put it to you that on this very small first test, this Government is blowing its integrity in saying all those things it said—all those things it said—whether it be on an issue like this debate, on the issue of the reinstatement of Government business. Are we not to believe what they said when they were in Opposition? What is the Government’s explanation as to why eight speakers from Labour said previously that it was outrageous for a motion for the reinstatement of business to not be properly debated by members of the Government? Is there a single member on the Government benches that would quickly give an explanation as to why there is the change in position? The silence is deafening. There is no explanation. This is a Government that, on the very first item of business, has gone back on its word—of what is recorded in Hansard—as to what they said then were their very core values.

I think it might be worthwhile to actually read elements of the speech in which they said it was very rare, that it was inappropriate, that it was wrong for this Parliament to pass a reinstatement motion without the Government clearly putting the case. So, again, I challenge members opposite. I ask members opposite: what’s changed? What’s changed from what you said in Opposition? Or are we to find that, for all those lofty sentiments from members opposite, members of the Green Party, members of the Labour Party, and members of the New Zealand First Party are, on day one of the Government, breaking their word on the very first motion before the House? It didn’t take long. What an awful precedent for them to set on the very first debated motion—for them to do exactly the opposite of what they argued in Opposition. Are we to see the same flip-flopping on every other substantive issue? When are we going to get the flip-flop on tax? When are we going to get the flip-flop on fiscal responsibility? When are we going to get the flip-flop on the issue of education? On this motion, the very first motion before the House, we see a double standard. We see a going back on the Government’s word.

I particularly want to ask a question in respect of the important issue of the Kermadecs. I do note that that bill has been rolled over. I would love a contribution from the Green Party, which introduced the first member’s bill to this Parliament, which I compliment them on. We on this side of the House strongly support the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary. We were disappointed that the previous Parliament was not able to progress that important Government bill. I would love to hear a contribution from Shane Jones as to whether the new Government supports the Kermadec Ocean bill or what sort of sneaky deals have been done behind the bike sheds, shafting the Green Party on that Kermadec Ocean bill. That is an issue on which Mr Shane Jones and the Green Party should contribute during this motion to roll-over the House.

I think members would also want to know, with all those lofty statements around growing jobs, why the members opposite have not given one single speech, not one single word of explanation, as to why they don’t think creating jobs, reducing poverty, and growing the economy do not require a set of thought around regulatory review. Surely members opposite owe this Parliament a single speech as to why that regulatory reform bill is not being rolled over. I want to join with the very competent members on this side of the House, Amy Adams, Judith Collins, and Nikki Kaye, in challenging the Government: why is the pay equity bill not being rolled over? Surely this Parliament deserves at least one of the women Government members to get to their feet—just one—and give an explanation as to why the pay equity bill is not being rolled over in the motion to reinstate the business of the House.

What we see from this motion is an awful start by the Government, an awful disrespect to this Parliament—to not even be prepared to put up a single speaker justifying this motion, which affects over 30 bills. Again, I want to draw to members’ attention to the exact speeches that they gave and why they are going back on their word that such a motion does require an argument, and how they are setting such an awful precedent.

The very last bill I would love to get an explanation for—and I note Mr Little is in the Parliament—is the healthy homes bill. We know the heathy homes bill is being rolled over. We know it is a dog. We know that it is actually going to—[Interruption] Actually, it slows down. I would love to hear from Mr Little. Why do we want to slow down? The previous Government passed legislation that will require every home to be insulated by 1 July 2019. Mr Little’s bill will slow that down by three years. I want to know why we would want to roll over a bill that is actually going to slow down the pace at which we make homes better insulated.

Perhaps it’d be best if I just directly quoted members opposite. I read the words: “But the idea that a Government, when serious questions have been asked—some of them [the] very serious questions—” and no attempt has been made to reply, and they’ve even gone to the point of moving closure, is a contempt for the Parliament and an ineptness—an ineptness—from the Government right from the start not to respect the Parliament.

Hon Member: Who said that?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Those words were in the motion to transfer business by a senior member of the House—a senior member of the Labour Party—a Mr Trevor Mallard. He said then for the Government to put a motion requiring the reinstatement of business without a single Government speech was a disgrace—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member’s time has expired.

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Deputy Leader of the House): I move, That the question be now put.

Mr SPEAKER: Yes, I’m quite convinced that the House is in a position—

Hon Michael Woodhouse: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: I hope you’re not going to test my judgment, Mr Woodhouse, because you know that you can’t.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): No. I would just point out two things. Apart from the obvious energy for continuing the debate and what has so far, I think, been extremely intelligent, I was the architect of the piece of legislation—

Mr SPEAKER: No. [Interruption] Order! The member will resume his seat. [Interruption] The member will resume his seat. The House is in a position to make a judgment as to whether it agrees with Mr Woodhouse and wants to hear him or not.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.

Ayes 58

New Zealand Labour 43; New Zealand First 8; Green Party 7.

Noes 56

New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1.

Motion agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment in the name of the Hon Simon Bridges to reinstate the Employment (Pay Equity and Equal Pay) Bill and the Regulatory Standards Bill be agreed to.

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

Ayes 56

New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1.

Noes 58

New Zealand Labour 43; New Zealand First 8; Green Party 7.

Amendment not agreed to.

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

Ayes 58

New Zealand Labour 43; New Zealand First 8; Green Party 7.

Noes 56

New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1.

Motion agreed to.

Sitting suspended from 1.09 p.m. to 2 p.m.

Address in Reply

Address in Reply

TAMATI COFFEY (Labour—Waiariki): I move, That a respectful Address be presented to Her Excellency the Governor-General in reply to Her Excellency’s speech.

Ko wai rā te ta-ngata nei, ko wai?

Ko Tū pea, ko Rongo pe-a, aku matāra!

Tahia te kī, tahia te wānanga, he aro mā ki te hē,

aro mawhiti, ko mawhiti kura, ko mawhiti awa.

Ko te wehi ki te whare,

he whare mātahi e hui te rangi ora e tū ake nei ki runga,

ūhi, wē-ro, hara mai te toki,

haumi ē, hui-e, taiki ē!

Ā, ko te mihi tuatahi, ki tō mātau Matua Nui i Te Rangi, ā, ko ia te tīmatanga, ko ia te whakamutunga o ngā mea katoa. Ā, Te Whare Mīere, Te Whare Pāremata, ā, Te Whare i manaaki nei i ōku tūpuna o nehe o te rohe o Te Waiariki, ā, tū mai rā, tū mai rā!

Ki ngā mate huhua o te rohe o Te Waiariki o nā noa nei puta noa i te motu, arā, ko tōku kuia, ko Annie Lucy Coffey, kātahi kua wehe ki Te Pō i tērā wiki i Wanganui. E kui, moe mai rā ki Te Pō oti atu ai, e oki, e oki, moe mai rā!”

Ka huri ki te kanohi ora hurihuri noa i tēnei Whare, ā, tēnā rā kōtou katoa! Ko Tamati Coffey tōku ingoa, ko au te mema Pāremata mō te rohe o Te Waiariki katoa, nō reira, mai i te waka o Tauria Mai Tawhiti, Te Whānau-ā-Apanui: e Te Whare mihi mai rā! Mai i ngā iwi o Mātaatua waka, Ngāti Pūkenga, Ngāti Ranginui, Ngāi Te Rangi, Ngāi Tūhoe, Ngāti Manawa, Ngāti Whare, Ngāi Tai, Te Whakatōhea me te iwi Upokorehe: rau rangatira mā, mihi mai rā anō! Mai i ngā iwi o Te Arawa waka, ko Ngāti Whakaaue, Tūhourangi, Ngāti Wāhiao, Ngāti Rangiwewehi, Ngāti Pikiao, Tapuika, Ngāti Moko, Waitaha, Ngāti Tūwharetoa-ki-Taupō, Ngāti Tūwharetoa-ki-Kawerau, Ngāti Tahu, Ngāti Whaoa, e te kāhui o tēnei Whare, kai te mihi, kai te mihi, kai te mihi. Nōku te hōnore nui, nōku te whiwhi i whai wāhi ahau ki roto i tēnei Whare hei māngai, mō te iwi o Te Waiariki, nō reira, tēnā kōtou katoa!

Ka huri i nāianei ki te reo parāoa, ka māramatia katoatia nei te okooko o te taringa ki aku kōrero, tēnā rā koutou, tēnā rā koutou, tēnā rā tātau katoa.

[Who indeed is this person, who is it?

It might be Tū and Rongo, my obsidians!

Clear away the saying and the knowledge to be heeded by the wronged,

a quick glance, a feathered and furrowed one!

Let the awe be to the house,

a first one where assembles the healthy sky that stands upright above,

cover and jab it, come forth the adze.

Join up, gather together, it is done!

The first acknowledgment is to our Great Father in the Sky; He is indeed the beginning and the ending of all things. Therefore, to you, the Beehive, the House of Parliament, the House who took care of my ancestors of the Waiariki electorate in the past: arise, stand up!

To the many and recent deaths of the Waiariki electorate and throughout the country, namely my grandmother Annie Lucy Coffey, who has gone to the void just last week in Wanganui. Oh, elderly grandmother, sleep there in the void, rest, rest, and sleep there forever!

I turn to the living throughout this House, acknowledgments to you all! Tamati Coffey is my name, I am the member of Parliament for the whole of the Waiariki electorate, and so from the canoe of Tauira Mai Tawhiti and Te Whānau-ā-Apanui: acknowledge us, the House! From the tribes of the Mātaatua canoe, Ngāti Pūkenga, Ngāti Ranginui, Ngāi Te Rangi, Ngāi Tūhoe, Ngāti Manawa, Ngāti Whare, Ngāi Tai, Whakatōhea, and the people of Upokorehe: acknowledge us once again, esteemed ones of a hundredfold! From the tribes of Te Arawa canoe—Ngāti Whakaaue, Tūhourangi, Ngāti Wāhiao, Ngāti Rangiwewehi, Ngāti Pikiao, Tapuika, Ngāti Moko, Waitaha, Ngāti Tūwharetoa-ki-Taupō, Ngāti Tūwharetoa-ki-Kawerau, Ngāti Tahu, and Ngāti Whaoa—we acknowledge, greet, and thank you, the collective of this House! The great honour is mine to be able to participate in this House as a representative for the Waiariki tribes, therefore, my appreciation to you all.

I turn now to the language of flour, so that what the ear scoops up from my comments will be understood totally, and so I acknowledge, applaud, and commend you collectively, and my appreciation to us all.]

My name is Tamati Coffey, and as the new member of Parliament for the Waiariki, I bring with me the hopes and the aspirations of all Māori who live scattered across my electorate. It’s my job to advocate for them in this House, to ask the questions on their behalf, to create positive change for them, and to fight for opportunities that will get them ahead.

The Waiariki is a large electorate covering six general electorates, and I maintain that it is the most beautiful electorate in New Zealand, where the birds fly over the misty rugged mountains of Te Urewera, of the Kaimai Ranges, of the Mamaku Ranges too. They glide over the panoramic beauty of our lakes Taupō-nui-a-Tia, Te Roto-rua-nui-a-Kahumatamomoe, and the pristine and untouched lake Te Waikaremoana te kaukau a ngā tipuna [the bathing place of the ancestors], to name but a few.

Our birds soar high above the sandy beaches from Mount Maunganui in the west to Papamoa, Maketū, Ōhope, Ōmaio, and the many other beaches that we prefer to keep secret. Our creatures roam the soils, which grow our forests, and our bees pollinate the flowers of our kiwifruit vines, which keep our country alive. Our rivers are both a source of food and a source of fun, all at the same time. So while I bring the luxuries of our rohe to the House, I also bring our concerns too. And they go a little something like this: Edgecumbe/Pahipoto have sent me here to make sure that we don’t forget about them. There was damage and devastation when the Rangitaiki River flooded and broke the stopbanks, and I’m here to say they still need our help.

Te Whānau-a-Apanui have sent me here to make sure that they get the new school that they were promised, because the last Government closed down three of their schools on the promise of a new one—that was a while ago. I’m here on their behalf to say that Te Kaha would like their school, please.

Kawerau have sent me here to ensure that our new Government follows through on getting forestry going again, so that towns like Minginui and Kaingaroa and Murupara can prosper once more, and Murupara would also like the new Minister for Sport and Recreation to know that they’d like some lights for their rugby fields so they don’t have to train under the lonely light outside the clubhouse.

Tauranga Moana have sent me here to help them navigate the tricky cross-claim process with Hauraki iwi. They asked for help and I pledged that I would advocate for them: mana moana, mana whenua, mana tangata [sea, land, and individual jurisdiction].

Ōpōtiki have sent me here to find the funding for their aquaculture development that they so desperately need to create jobs and industry for their people. So to the Minister for Regional Economic Development, Shane Jones: I hear you’ve got some money; I’m ready to talk when you are.

In Ngāti Tūwharetoa, they’ve finished their settlement process and they want to take advantage of whatever opportunities there are for them as well. And although the ariki, Tā Tumu te Heuheu, can’t be here today, he sends his regards too.

And then there’s Rotorua that have sent me. In Rotorua, our whānau need houses—emergency houses, State houses, big houses for whānau and small houses for our kaumātua—to buy, to rent. Homelessness isn’t what we want for our people, but it’s what we’ve inherited, and I’ve been put here to help those people get their mana back.

These are just a few of the issues that I bring from my region, and they’ve chosen me as their representative, and I carry their issues, their kaupapa, right here on my shoulders. These may or may not be the issues that define my time here in Parliament, but if I’m able to leave here knowing that I helped tackle some of these issues on their behalf, then I’ll leave a happy man.

Although I stand here representing my electorate, my story starts about half an hour’s drive from here, at 6 Welch Grove in Taitā, Lower Hutt. And to understand how I make decisions, you should understand the world that I grew up in. You see, I’m the son of factory workers, who grew up in suburban Lower Hutt around a sea of Labour. We played basketball at Walter Nash Stadium. My sister played touch rugby at Fraser Park. Everybody had a Labour-built State house, and some were lucky enough to capitalise on the family benefit and buy their own, just like my mum and dad.

Our neighbours, the family over the fence, the Collins fanau—fanau with an “f”, because they were Samoan—always looked beautiful in their outfits as they went off to church every Sunday. It was a multicultural community that I grew up in and we were better people for it. We were also a union family. My dad was a union rep for the Amalgamated Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union, my mum for the Service and Food Workers Union. My dad did the night shift, working from 7 p.m. at night till 7 in the morning at his factory out in Seaview, and my mum worked at Unilever in Pētone, starting at 8 o’clock in the morning and finishing at 5.30 in the afternoon. They worked long, hard hours and for not much money. But it was through them that I learnt the value of hard work.

They always told me that they worked hard so that I wouldn’t end up on the factory floor beside them. They saw education as the key to success, which was a privilege that they never had. Although, it never really mattered to my mum, because she always says that she was educated at the school of hard knocks and still to this day scowls at university graduates that think they know it all.

It was a beautiful upbringing, but I wouldn’t be lying if I said that we were a humble whānau that lived from pay packet to pay packet. I was the first in my whānau to go on to university and while I was there I studied both politics and history, which I was to find was pretty much one and the same. Having not been brought up in a Te Reo Māori - speaking household, I still became the president of the Māori Students’ Association, and I started working in local government for the Auckland Regional Council in the iwi relations unit. My desire to enter politics started then. It was my wish to make sure that past wrongs were made right and that I became a soldier for social justice.

Life took a small turn at that point, when I was thrust into the national spotlight after landing a dream job on live national kids’ TV. Therefore, I was also the first celebrity in the whānau too. But that part of my life has been played out in living rooms all across New Zealand, so it’s nothing that I intend to cover here.

They say that in politics, timing is everything. In 2014, I stood in the Rotorua general seat, and, long story short, it wasn’t my time. Following that, I set up a small business in Rotorua, which allowed me to see the reality of what owning a small business in regional New Zealand was really like—and, let me tell you, it’s tough.

One day I was given a tip-off by an older, very intelligent person, who told me the story of a man who stood for the Rotorua seat and also lost, and then he changed the electorate—he stood for the Eastern Māori seat, and he won it. He held the seat for five terms and also became the Speaker of the House. So Sir Peter Tapsell was my inspiration for persevering. He mihi aroha ki a ia me tōna whānau, ā, moe mai rā e koro.

[A loving tribute to him and his family, so rest there indeed, oh elderly man.]

So here we are, in 2017, and the timing is good. I come in at a time when Labour is fortunate to be leading the Government and New Zealand. We have new life and a new, beautiful, intelligent, female Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, who, I’m proud to boast, is younger than I am—and I’m only 38. I’m fortunate to be walking in alongside 18 new MPs in Labour, and I’m proud to be one of 13 Māori MPs in the Labour Government caucus. Our people wanted more Māori representation in Parliament, and I’m happy that they’ve chosen us to be their voice here in the hallowed halls of power.

My whakapapa spreads far and wide. I’m a Faulkner from Tauranga, I’m a Ngamotu from Taupō, and I’m an Ehau from Rotorua. I’m also a Glover from Tolaga Bay, and I’m a Coffey from Taranaki. I come to Parliament to be a voice for New Zealand at the highest decision-making table in this land. I will be a voice for the people of my electorate, but I will also be a voice for the many young people out there who need a role model and need some guidance. I will also be a voice for those Māori that are still trying to find their place in the world. I will also be a voice for those 80 percent of Māori who don’t speak their own language and who are often made to feel less Māori than those who do. I will be a voice for the kura kaupapa Māori kids in my electorate who want an active role in looking after our environment. I will be a voice for workers like my mum and dad, who only ever wanted the best for their kids. I will be a voice for the LGBT community, who need someone to make sure that we’re making young gay kids into the best possible kids that they can be. I will also be a voice for the union movement—and do we need a living wage? Hell, yes. Let’s treat our minimum wage workers with some respect, starting with their pay packets. This country is my passion and it is my home, and I’m here to make New Zealand the best little country in the world.

I can’t finish this without acknowledging my beautiful immigrant husband, Tim—Timmy, widely known as. Thank you, my love, for everything that you do for me. I love the life that we lead. It’s a rollercoaster, but it’s infinitely more fun with you. Let’s have some kids some time, eh?

Hai herenga i te kete kōrero, kai aku nui, kai aku rahi, e ngā hau e whā o te motu, koinei aku kupu. He whakataukī mutunga māku, ā, “Whaititiri ki te rangi, ko Te Waiariki ki te whenua.”—like thunder is in the sky, so is the Waiariki rohe down on the land. Hoake tātou; e tau ki raro. Ka pai!

[To tie up the comments kit, to you, my illustrious, my innumerable, and the four winds of the country, these are my words. My closing aphorism is, “As thunder is to the sky, so is Waiariki to the land.” Let’s go; let’s do this. Good!]

Waiata

JO LUXTON (Labour): I second the motion that a respectful address be presented to Her Excellency the Governor-General in reply to Her Excellency’s speech.

Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. Mr Speaker, tēnā koe. First, may I offer my congratulations to you on your election. To the Prime Minister, tēnā koe. I offer you my congratulations and my thanks. It is under your strong leadership that we have found ourselves forming a strong, proactive, and durable Government. I also want to thank you for your personal encouragement. I remember a conversation we had when you visited Timaru close to a year ago now. The kind words of encouragement you gave me really made me believe in myself and that I had something to offer and knowledge to share, and now here I am today. I would also like to offer my congratulations to the new Ministers.

It is with immense pride and honour that I stand here in this House with all of you. What a privilege we have been given by the people of New Zealand to represent them and their hopes and dreams for the future. May we make decisions wisely, ensuring that we keep the people of New Zealand at the heart of every decision we make. We must remember that we are not here for our own personal gratification but to serve the people of our nation who have put their faith in us to make New Zealand a better place.

I am the eldest of three girls born to Jim and Margaret Thompson in Rotorua. I had a happy upbringing. Dad was a builder and Mum was a stay-at-home parent. We shifted around a lot for Dad’s work. I had lived in four different towns by the time I had turned 10—Rotorua, Paeroa, Whakatāne, and Gisborne—but the majority of my time growing up was in Gisborne, where I attended St Mary’s Catholic primary school and Campion College, and, finally, Lytton High School.

My parents owned their own home with the help of the State Advances Corporation scheme, and we were able to survive on one income. We weren’t rich, by any means, but we had the security of our own home and always had food on the table and wonderful gifts at birthdays and Christmas. Those things now seem like privileges to many families. I hope to make them normal, achievable expectations during my time in this House.

I shifted to the South Island in 1996 and live in the Rangitata electorate in a township called Hinds, where I owned and, up until recently, operated a small business, an early childhood centre. I established the business in 2008, and we have been growing from strength to strength, even extending the premises to keep up with demand.

I employ nine amazing staff, and I am so very proud to also be a living wage employer. Owning a business, particularly in a rural area, does not come without its challenges, and it hasn’t always been easy. However, one of my greatest commitments has been to be a living wage employer. It is possible to be a successful small business and pay an increased minimum wage, and even a living wage. A living wage allows families to support themselves better, to pay the bills, to put food on the table for their children, and to live with some dignity. I will always support that principle, for all of those reasons.

Together, small businesses employ the greatest number of New Zealanders, and their presence in the regions is the difference between survival and poverty for many. My experience allows me to contribute with some first-hand knowledge to any discussions about economic development in the provinces. I look forward to being able to contribute to this Parliament as a living wage employer and small-business owner, to ensure that we constantly recognise and acknowledge the role small businesses play in the economic landscape of New Zealand.

The Rangitata electorate is made up of four main towns—Timaru, Temuka, Ashburton, Methven—and several smaller townships, with Hinds being one of them. It is a beautiful place to live, with hunting, fishing, skiing, lakes, and the gorgeous Caroline Bay right at our doorstep. It is the agricultural hub of the South Island, if not New Zealand. But before I talk about that, I want to acknowledge the former member of Parliament, Jo Goodhew, for all the work she did for the electorate. I also wish to acknowledge Rangitata’s newly elected member of Parliament, Andrew Falloon. Thank you for being so good-natured along the campaign trail. I enjoyed our banter at the candidate meetings, where we joked about which one of us was likely to be slaughtered that night and about the copious amounts of water we drank. I wish you well.

Rangitata faces several challenges, with some very different to other parts of the country and some not so different. One of the big challenges is the difficulty finding people to fill the numerous jobs available there. We rely heavily on migrant staff, and that is why I am so supportive of this Government’s policy of developing a regional skills shortage list. A national, blanket list does not work for our region. Our needs are different to those in Auckland and other cities, and I commend this Government for recognising this and being proactive in its approach to this issue.

Bringing people into Rangitata and paying them decent wages will help us all grow economically, will offer the goods and services that people require in provincial New Zealand, and will develop cohesive and caring communities. We need the skills to keep our strong economy moving along, but it is important that we look to encourage our young people to train and undertake the jobs available in our regions. It is time to actively promote the regions and invest in them properly in order to make them thrive and be places that people want to move to and settle down in with their families. Investment in infrastructure is needed. Roading and better connectivity is vital for our businesses and communities to grow. These issues are not just campaign issues, but living, breathing, everyday issues.

Becoming an MP is not a pathway I intentionally headed down, but it is a result of the many directions, twists, and turns that my life has taken. My background is in education. I qualified as an early childhood teacher, and went on after some years to run my own childcare centre. I am extremely passionate about education and, in particular, early childhood education. As a centre owner, I have seen first hand the issues we are faced with. We need to focus more on quality rather than quantity for our youngest learners. This is largely my motivation for putting myself forward as a candidate, but it is not solely about that. I want to see our tamariki thrive. I want to see child poverty eliminated in my time here. I want every child who comes through my preschool door, or any other preschool or school, to grow up with the same opportunities as the child next to them, regardless of the type of job their parents do or where they live.

I said I wanted to see our tamariki thrive. Too many of our young people are living in despair, suffering depression or other mental health issues, and unable to ever see a positive future for themselves. This has to change. Our beautiful young people need to know that they can look to us to be a Government that shows kindness, compassion, empathy, and support. I want our young people to grow up with a sense of hope, to know that they can be that shining light, and to stand up and be whatever they dream they can be. We will give them the opportunity to have a world-class education that will set them in good stead for whatever direction they may take in life.

Education has enabled me to get where I am today. It needs to be free and accessible to everyone. It is the one thing that overcomes every disadvantage with which a child might begin life. It could mean the difference between living a decent life and contributing to society in a positive way, and ending up in our overcrowded prisons. Whether it is first, second, or third chance education, it remains the most transformative influence in our lives, and that transformation benefits everybody, not just the well-educated individual. To that extent, education at any level is a public good. Education, commercial entrepreneurship, decent wages, appropriate health services that are available when they are needed, and security for families are issues dear to my heart, arising from my own experience and values.

I want to take the opportunity to thank some people who have been an integral part of my journey to Parliament. Thank you, firstly, to the voters—the people who voted for the Labour Party and who voted for me. Thank you to the Rangitata Labour electoral committee and local Labour branches. I acknowledge your support, fund-raising efforts, and friendship. To my fantastic campaign team, Glen Cameron, Phil King, Marie MacAnulty, Carol Brown, Janine Watkins, John Everist, John Gardner, and Matt Luxton, and to all our awesome volunteers, I owe you a huge amount of gratitude.

I want to acknowledge the Christchurch Labour team and the Hon Megan Woods, Poto Williams, and the Hon Ruth Dyson for all your wonderful support, and to the Hon Damien O’Connor, who offered me his words of wisdom and warm advice—in particular, the advice he gave me when I phoned one day to talk about my nervousness about addressing a particular group at a candidate meeting. His advice: “Harden up.” So I thank you for that. It is advice I will always remember.

Maryan Street, you have been worth your weight in gold as a mentor. You have been invaluable. I don’t just consider you as a mentor anymore but also as a friend, although I will still harass you often for advice.

To my new colleagues and friends—“class of ‘17”—congratulations to you all. I am so lucky to be part of an amazingly talented team of people.

To my dad, Jim, whose political views are the complete opposite of my own, our phone conversations over the past year have allowed me to work on my debating skills, so I thank you for that. Thank you for your love, support, and encouragement. I love you dearly.

To my sisters, Melissa and Teresa, thank you for your support.

To my husband and family, who have put up with my absences over the campaign and now you do it all over again, I thank you.

To our children, Levi, Kelsey, Matt, Ollie, and Cam, I do this for you and for your children in the future. I want to leave this place knowing that I have given it my all and that New Zealand is a better place for it.

My husband, Matt: you are my rock—my greatest support. You have been there for the highs, the lows, the tears and grumpy moods—and yes, there’s been a few of those. You encourage me when I need it and push me to believe I can do it. I know this hasn’t been easy for you, but I am so thankful to you. I love you.

To my stepdad, Tony: I adore you and thank you for all your support.

I especially want to acknowledge my mum, Margaret, who, due to her health, can’t be here today, but I know she is watching. I dedicate my maiden speech to you. I am who I am today because of you. I have watched the battles you have so bravely fought over the years and continue to fight now. You are the strongest, bravest, most determined person I know. Nō reira, tēnā koe e taku whaea. Aroha atu.

[And so to you my mother, thank you. Love you.]

I hope I make you proud.

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition): I move, That the following words be added to the Address: “That in the context of a strong economy and strong government books the government be held to account for its progress based on improvements it delivers for New Zealanders beyond the impressive achievements of New Zealand in the last decade. They will be held to account for delivering economic growth faster than is forecast. The rate of job creation faster than it is occurring. Growing real wages faster than the last nine years. Reducing debt and maintaining surpluses and reductions in poverty and benefit dependence rates and those supported by the previous government’s Family Incomes Package and its programme of social investment. The Government will also be held to account on progress for lifting the number of new houses built and first home buyers assisted, lifting measured improvement in water quality, lifting Māori and Pasifica NCEA achievement rates, lifting numeracy and literacy levels in year 8, and reducing reoffending and substantiated child abuse.”

Mr Speaker, I’ll come back to the substance of the amendment in time, but can I congratulate you on your election. As I said yesterday, you have the opportunity in this unique MMP Parliament to be Parliament’s man. It is absolutely clear already that the speed and complexity of the Government’s programme is going to require strong parliamentary scrutiny, if only to save the Government from itself—as we saw yesterday—but, more importantly, to ensure that the legislation that it passes through this House does, in fact, benefit New Zealand.

In that context, I agree with the comments, Mr Speaker, you made earlier this year about the role of select committees, and the unique situation we now have with four or five—five, I think—select committee chairs with the Opposition. That is a capacity we will use responsibly and robustly. Can I welcome, in particular, the new members to this House—those of all parties, in fact, but particularly our own new National Party members. Coming into Parliament in Opposition is actually a better opportunity than coming in, in Government. You will develop fast and enjoy the experience.

Can I congratulate the Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, and Deputy Prime Minister, Winston Peters, on forming a unique MMP Government with the consequence of a unique MMP Opposition. I note, reflecting the uniqueness of the Government, they have kept New Zealand First and the Greens far enough apart that they hope each of them will forget the other is there. In that context, we do look to the Greens, in particular, to be true to their kaupapa of being monitors of the procedures of Parliament, because when a Government comes in with a new programme they do want to push this place pretty hard, and I suspect this Government is looking for a lot of urgency. I note that the Greens in the past have always opposed that, and this is their opportunity through this term of Parliament to demonstrate consistency with the many statements I have heard from them over the last 20 years that they’ve been represented here in Parliament.

Can I particularly, for the benefit of the Prime Minister, acknowledge the privilege it is to become Prime Minister. I am one of those who know that privilege, and the Prime Minister will be experiencing the great respect New Zealanders have for the office of Prime Minister. Equally, they expect the individual in that office to earn the respect for themselves, and I wish the Prime Minister well in that task. And it is an indication of our goodwill. We also wish the Prime Minister and her team well in the job she has to go and do just in the next day or two at APEC to negotiate the Trans-Pacific Partnership. It is really important for New Zealand and for the stability of the Asia-Pacific region that that agreement is completed. We understand the new Government has domestic policy concerns it has to meet, and it does have the job of making the trade-offs required to achieve what is a complex and demanding agreement but one that is critical, given the general level of global instability.

The Government will, of course, in carrying out its programme as laid out in the Speech from the Throne, have the benefit of starting with a country in great shape. New Zealand is more confident and more aspirational because of all the efforts and good government over the last 10 years. But we have found, just as indicated by the Speech from the Throne, the Opposition is more aspirational about New Zealand than the Government is. We have greater confidence in New Zealanders’ ability to maintain their economic strength and deal with long-running social and environmental challenges than the Government has, and that is going to be one of the distinguishing arguments of this term of office. We fundamentally believe in the ability of individuals and families and communities to know what the problems are, to grapple with them honestly, and solve them where they can.

What we heard this morning in the Speech from the Throne was the fundamental belief in the power of Government to do good; the fundamental belief in the good intentions of Government. And they don’t even know that that’s a completely different thing, and I’ll come back to that in some detail. But the Government needs to keep in mind that the kind of New Zealand they are inheriting is the result of an accumulation of a whole lot of decisions over recent decades that have made us a confident country, open to trade, investment, and migration—confident that we can handle our path in the world and bring everybody along on that journey. That has become a comparative advantage for New Zealand. It’s one of the reasons why so many people have stopped leaving and so many people want to come here—because we’ve had the cohesion and stability of a country that has been able to continue to make progress, and I’ll talk about some of the measures of those.

The early indications from the Government are that they believe so much in their own rhetoric that, rather than try to build on that progress, they want to fritter it away. That’s the early indication. Well, we are here to hold them to account, to ensure that all the hard work done by New Zealanders—not just in the last 10 years but previous to that—building this confident, aspirational country is not frittered away, that it turns into real gains for every New Zealander who wants the opportunity to be able to realise their dreams.

So we heard it this morning, a speech dripping with good intentions. We are not going to hold the Government to account about its intentions; we share many of them. It would be a bit difficult to find many New Zealanders who didn’t, which is precisely the danger of relying on your good intentions, and this is a Government that does. I have heard the Prime Minister say it. I have heard her say, when you’re leading the pack “intention is reality.” Well, no—reality is reality. Reality is homes and businesses and individuals who need decisions that are going to enable them to realise their dreams. Well, here’s a good example, just from the last couple of days, of good intentions. Let’s go to Australia and show them how firm and fresh the new Government is by talking about retaliation for their tertiary fees policy. Well, that was the intention. Guess what actually happened: Australians found out we’re offering them free domestic tertiary education in New Zealand.

Now, some of my best friends are Australians, and I would have to say New Zealand is now less credible. We went to push back and we got rolled over. That’s actually what’s happened. So that’s the gap between intentions and reality. Well, of course, the reason we’re in this position—I guess it wasn’t intended; I agree it’s the product of the free tertiary education policy, which is just a wrong policy. If you look at the needs of today’s young people, the next half billion would certainly not go on helping lawyers and accountants get through university more cheaply. It certainly would not. And I hope the Government enjoys explaining to the checkout operators and the truck drivers why they are paying more when the tax cuts are abolished—paying more to make tertiary education cheaper. Well, here’s a simple question for the Government: what will be achieved from that half billion, apart from giving Australians free tertiary education in New Zealand? Well, all we’ve heard is it will “make New Zealand more prosperous”. That’s it. Well, I am waiting and would be interested to hear the answer about what that is. So that’s the good intentions.

Well, we’re going to have to look in detail about how those good intentions roll out, because there are some benchmarks these days. People want Governments to work for them. So here are a few—here are a few: 2.6 million people in work, more than ever; the third-highest employment rate in the world—in the world. The last two years have seen job creation at the rate of 10,000 per month. Now, I can concede it could be better. Well, let’s see. Let’s see if the rate of job creation is going to pick up—if the rate of job creation is going to pick up. And, by the way, what’s a “quality job”? I heard the Minister of Finance talking about, “We don’t want low-quality jobs; we want high-quality jobs.” Let’s find out what a high-quality job is, because the Government’s going to have to do a high-quality job.

So the Government says it’s going to do better. It’s going to do better. OK, there are 60,000 fewer people in benefit-dependent households today than there were five years ago. Let’s just see what happens. Let’s just see what actually happens with those numbers. The gender pay gap—well, it’s just dropped from 12 percent to 9 percent. So the test is: can it drop faster? Can it drop faster? Well, we will see. We will see whether it can drop faster. More houses—31,000 building consents. Housing matters; people need houses. In the last 12 months there have been 31,000 building consents. I assume the Government wants to be held to account for delivering more—more than that. [Interruption] Don’t you get the sense that they’re already thinking this sounds a bit unfair? Don’t you get that sense? Well, it’s not. It’s not.

OK, incomes. The Government’s talked about incomes, and when they talk about incomes, of course they generally mean some incomes—well, some particular incomes. Well, let’s see how that goes. The average annual wage is now at $60,000. It’s gone up 28 percent in the last nine years, twice the rate of inflation. Well, it needs to go up faster for a Government that’s promised higher incomes; that has to mean faster real wage growth. Let’s see what happens with faster real wage growth, because New Zealand is ahead of Australia, the USA, Japan, and the UK. They’re getting a lot of their ideas from the UK, apparently—zero wage growth since the global financial crisis.

Hon Steven Joyce: Zero.

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: Zero. So we’re doing a lot better than everybody else. So let’s just see how that goes. And they’ve got to do all of this and reduce debt and maintain fiscal surpluses. The Government accounts just came out yesterday. Government debt is $59.5 billion. It used to be lower. We ran up debt rebuilding Christchurch, cushioning the economy through a recession, so let’s see what happens to that number. Let’s see what happens. Let’s see whether debt goes down. We answered questions for years about whether the nominal level of debt should be dropping. Well, let’s see. It starts at $59.5 billion.

Let’s move on to one or two others. Child poverty—now, this is going to be interesting, because, you see, we have a Government who think that all you have to do to reduce child poverty is decide you don’t like it and have the intention to reduce it. That’s what they think. OK, well, we’ve ticked off “Don’t like it”. I think everyone agrees on that. We’ve ticked off “We’d like to reduce it”; that’s the intention. Now the question is what they are going to hold themselves to account on for actually achieving for actual children—like, real ones in real households. Well, there’s already quite a bit of work in train. They’ve got an incomes package coming along. They’ll cancel the tax cuts—the right of a new Government—and implement their own package. I think the figures are that that will reduce the number of children living in a household below half the median wage by around 50,000.

But here’s the benchmark. In the campaign, we said we’d reduce that number by another 50,000 within two or three years, because under good fiscal management the country could do it. Well, on the face of it now, that Government can’t do it and meet the fiscal constraints that they—not us; they—imposed. So there’s the benchmark. Can they reduce it by 100,000 from today? Because there was a plan in place to do that, just on that income measure. Now, you can argue about whether it would actually have happened, but let’s be aspirational. Why can’t they say, “We could do what the National Government said it would do.”? Or maybe that’s not aspirational enough; maybe they want to do more than that. Well, we’ve got the Prime Minister getting up in a couple of minutes to tell us what is going to be the legislated child poverty target, and there are a whole lot of different measures, so she’s got to pick one.

Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern: There won’t just be one.

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: Oh, there are going to be several, so that you can shift around—oh, yeah.

That brings me to the other half of the poverty equation, and this is somewhere where we will also hold the Government to account. New Zealand under the last Government developed the best tool kit in the world for understanding the context and culture of poverty and disadvantage. It has the label “social investment”—that’s the label it has.

Hon Dr David Clark: It’s never been implemented.

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well, I disagree with that. The Government needs to understand that higher incomes are part of what you need to reduce poverty, but the other part of it is to create some stability and framework in a household, with a family working with someone they trust in order to have the behaviours that can sustain the benefits of better incomes or getting into a job. The sad reality is that the work done by the previous Government shows a hard core of chaotic, very challenged households where they need individual attention. But you know what the Government’s doing already? It’s going to give away—it said so in the paper yesterday or today—the tool kit that enables you to know who those families are. So, oh yes, great intentions—“We’ve got great intentions. We want to help these people. We’re just going to make sure we don’t know who they are.”

The case in the New Zealand Herald today—Marie, is it?—the domestic violence death, Marie. It’s the same story—the one we tried so hard to fix, and this Government could fix if it starts where we left off. It is a case where a terrible death occurred when lots of people knew a bit of the story, and if someone had known the story they would have stopped it. That is what social investment delivers, and if the Government gives that away, they will cost children and families a start in life and, in fact, in some cases, their lives—in some cases, their lives. So I just say to the Prime Minister: we will back her on child poverty, provided she gets over Labour’s problems with social investment and uses the tool kit with the intention for which it was meant, and that is to assist our most vulnerable.

That is going to be a challenge for them, because there’s a whole lot of other ways of telling, so I just want to ask them this. We had a target there for reducing hospitalisations for children under 12 with preventable conditions. That’s built into the system. Is the Prime Minister going to get rid of it?

Hon Grant Robertson: Is that an intention?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: No, no, no. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I just want to remind people in the galleries of something I know well: you’re not allowed to intervene.

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: Or the one that’s in place for the reduction of substantiated child abuse? Here’s a test for the Labour Party.

Clayton Mitchell: Why don’t you talk about predator-free?

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: I think you should listen to this, because right now there are public servants all around Wellington putting their feet up on their desks, leaning back on their chairs, and thinking, “Thank God we don’t have to think about what we actually achieve any more. All we’ve got to do”—this is what they’re thinking—“is keep the Minister happy. Shovel the money out the door and it doesn’t matter too much what actually happens, because the Government has already said it doesn’t want to know.”—it’s already said it doesn’t want to know. Well, the point of those targets, which we accounted for, for five years—about what actually happened—we measured it, published it for five years. So here is the challenge to the Prime Minister. Please tell us she’ll keep that system, because if she gives it away, 25 percent of the economy loses its focus on actually achieving things and will fall into the Labour trap of just shovelling the money out the door. I could go through any number of those.

Hon Member: Attack, attack, attack.

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yeah, attack. Here’s one: housing—housing. [Interruption] No, listen to this. Apparently, first-home buyers are really important, so here’s the first question. Are the 100,000 KiwiBuild houses additional? Is that over and above? [Interruption] OK—we’ll get the answer to that sometime. The Labour Party have chosen a policy—[Interruption] Hang on. The Labour Party has chosen a policy that helps fewer people than the existing HomeStart scheme—fewer people. HomeStart was going to do 80,000 first-home buyers over the next four years. The latest figures I’ve seen say KiwiBuild will do 16,000, and I don’t think they’ll do that. It sums up the differences. You see, the Labour Party want people to be grateful that the Government built them a house. So the bureaucracy will decide where they are, what they look like, and then they’re going to run the ballot where you’d feel lucky if you got one, and they’re going to do this at scale. HomeStart gives them the cash to go and find their own house, and—better than that—it’s not luck. You can earn your way to it. You know the criteria; if you meet them, you get the money, and then you get the house. But they want to run it differently—they want them to be grateful for getting a house built by the Government.

You see, what’s at the heart of the policy is not actually the individuals and families; it’s what Labour would prefer as the delivery mechanism. That’s their driver, and it’s always the Government system. We’re going to be the only country in the world, I think, reliant on a State-owned monopoly for social housing. No-one else does it. Why? Because it doesn’t work in the long run.

But here’s another example. If children really are at heart of what the Government’s on about, why are they abolishing national standards? Why? Parents didn’t ask them. Kids didn’t ask them. The only people who asked them to do it were teacher unions. We agree with progression reporting, but if you want progression reporting, it’s got to be based on a standard, and I’m just saying to the Minister: don’t re-enact the shambles of the start of NCEA where they tried to have assessment with no standards. That’s exactly where you’re headed. I’m warning the Minister right now. He’s in for two years of torture, not from us but from the system.

But the core of it is this: we don’t care about the average or the sample. Parents say, “My child’s not average. My child’s not a sample. I want to know about my child, and I want a report on my child, and I want to know that that report means something.” It can only mean something—[Interruption] Well, actually, national standards work best for those kids for whom public education matters the most. There’s never been more attention on Māori and Pacific achievement than in recent years, because the standards showed us the truth. We were honest, we wanted to know it, and we wanted to grapple with it. The Government has already decided to hide the truth—to hide it because it’s inconvenient and, more importantly, because you have to change things to get it fixed.

Well, here’s another challenge. I invite the Prime Minister to go to Vanguard School and stand in front of those kids and tell them the Labour policy, which is that they’d shut them down if they could, and then ask them her famous question—ask them her famous question. Say to them, “But how do you feel?” Ask the 15-year-olds, in the letters, “How do you feel?”—the young people whose lives were turned around because it’s just a little bit different, that school; one of half a dozen, or 10—just a bit different. Not every kid fits the mainstream system—that’s reality. Reality is what a 16-year-old says about what changed their life, and if the Prime Minister doesn’t go there, then she never really meant it, did she? She never really meant that those children were right at the heart of the Government’s considerations, because 15-year-olds know.

I know what they’ll tell you. They’ll tell the Prime Minister, “That’s changed my life”, and she’s going to have to say “I don’t care. You’re wrong. Your parents are wrong. Your teachers are wrong. You, aged 15, whose life is better—you’re wrong, and we’ll shut you down if we can.” Well, maybe she can do it. Let’s wait and see—I’m looking forward to it.

One other issue that was debated—I’d say, on partnership schools, just don’t go backwards. Don’t steal from the kids who depend on—

Hon Members: Oh!

Rt Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well, if they’re doing badly—here’s the other question for the Prime Minister: if they’re doing badly at their State school, what are you going to do about it? And I don’t mean your intentions; I mean this child in this school—what is the Government going to do about this child?

And here’s one that’s just a bit off the social issues, and that’s fresh water—much discussed. The Government will be forced to follow the policy of the previous Government, because, again, with fresh water they think it’s just a matter of political choice—you just choose to have high-quality water. OK, so here’s a measure, or two measures. One is: we will track the measure of quality in the Avon River in Christchurch—right? The measure of this Government’s success is the Avon River in Christchurch. And one other: the number of spillage days of raw sewage and stormwater into Auckland Harbour. According to the mayor, it’s 160—an event you’d be prosecuted for in rural New Zealand. So we’re going to track it, and I wonder, if you can just choose fresh water quality, then that will be better by next Christmas. So there’s a benchmark; next Christmas, we’ll go back and have a look, and see if they chose it or not. I know what their intentions are—that’s to clean it up—but let’s just see what they’re going to do about it.

There’s so much that we could talk about from that Speech from the Throne, but, as I’ve outlined, good intentions aren’t enough. New Zealand’s done so well—it’s done well—and we are going to hold the Government to account on two things. One is maintaining the strength and vigour and resilience of the New Zealand economy, because however you measure it—whether it’s jobs, it’s incomes, it’s improvement in people’s lives, or it’s opportunities and dreams. Secondly, we’re going to hold them to account on their own social policy, and I don’t think we’ll have too much trouble embarrassing them, because it’s pre-internet. These are people who haven’t thought about it. They’ll be held hostage by lobbyists and laziness, and so many vulnerable New Zealanders need us to keep their feet to the fire.

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Today is a new beginning. It’s a new beginning for you as our Speaker, and I congratulate you again, Mr Speaker. It is a new beginning for this Parliament. It’s a new beginning for our new members, and I acknowledge Tamati Coffey and Jo Luxton for your wonderful introductory maiden speeches. I am incredibly proud of each and every one of you and the fact that you will be joining an already incredible team of representatives in this House.

But it’s so much more than that. It’s a new beginning for everyone who hopes to own a home of their own. It’s a new beginning for our children. It’s a new beginning for our education system and for our health system and for our environment. And on this side of the House, it’s a new beginning for a coalition Government.

Perhaps it would be more accurate though to say that this is a Government that is, yes, both a coalition Government and a realisation of the alignment of three parties who, while we come from different perspectives, share important common values, policies, and intentions. At its core, this Government believes that our people come first, that our environment is a precious taonga, and that we must reject the narrow selfishness that has pervaded our politics for far too long.

I want to specifically say to Winston Peters and the New Zealand First Party, I thank you for your decision to back a Labour-led Government. As coalition partners, we know you will bring strong advocacy for all New Zealanders, but especially those in the provinces longing for a Government that gives them a fair go.

To James Shaw and the Green Party, we know that your forthright advocacy for the environment has shifted the entire political discourse in New Zealand. I am so pleased that you now have the ability to keep driving that work and other important work in this Government.

To my Labour colleagues, new and not so new, I am so delighted to be here with you on this side of the House. We have fought long and hard to get here. I know we will make the most of the opportunity, and indeed the privilege, that we have in front of us to make New Zealand an even better place. It is a new beginning for this most MMP of Governments, but it is founded on the oldest of ideas in our democracy—that a Government represents the will of the majority of our people. We are committed to respecting that will.

It can also be a new beginning for the new Leader of the Opposition. I acknowledge the Leader of the Opposition and the important role you have, and I understand the Opposition’s desire to defend their record. I would simply remind them that in defending their record they must also defend record homelessness. They must also defend dirty rivers and lakes. They must also defend inequality, and yes, child poverty. So, by all means, defend the record of the last nine years while we get on with fixing it.

Before, however, I move on to my more substantive comments, I do want to reflect on some of the Leader of the Opposition’s constant rhetoric in a couple of areas. Allow me to vent some frustrations, if you will, particularly around the issue of tertiary education and, more to the point, this Government’s policy of extending free education into the natural next step, and that is post-secondary.

The Leader of the Opposition has continually claimed that a checkout operator will be paying for others to learn. At what point did the Leader of the Opposition lose his ambition for New Zealanders so much, that that checkout operator themselves could not aspire to go on to tertiary education? At what point did that checkout operator themselves not have children that they have aspirations for too? I can tell you that on a checkout operator’s wages, you’d be hard-pressed to save for the fees required. This Government has aspiration for the checkout operators of New Zealand, and we are proud of that, and we stand by them. I say to those checkout operators, having been one myself, “You too could become a Minister of Finance or, indeed, the Prime Minister of New Zealand.”

I also want to reflect on the rhetoric that the Leader of the Opposition has used to refer to lawyers as being the only ones who will take up the ongoing year of free education. Again, this demonstrates to this side of the House how out of touch they have become. One-third of school-leavers go on to university. The rest will become our builders, our plumbers, our electricians. This policy is as much—nay, I would say, more—about them than it is anyone else. It is about furthering education. It is about this Government’s belief that education should be about lifelong learning. Education, if we are to succeed, will not be a destination but it will be a constant movement for each and every one of us through our lives. That is why one of the short-sighted decisions of that last Government will be overturned by this one, and that is returning night schools to New Zealand.

Finally, the Leader of the Opposition talked about his willingness to cooperate on child poverty, if we continue to collect individual client’s data through our social agencies and our NGOs. It sounds like the trade-off that he gave to NGOs as well. The difference here, on this side of the House, is that we have listened to those concerns. Yes, we will be an evidence-based Government. Yes, we will use data in the way we inform policy. But we will not do so in a way that jeopardises individual people’s privacy. When domestic violence groups tell you that what you intend to do puts a service at risk, this Government will listen, and that is the difference in the way that we will govern.

On education, the Leader of the Opposition made reference to this Government hiding data. Well, here’s a wake-up call. National standards, if that indeed is the data that we’re apparently hiding, are neither national nor standard. Our intent is to provide information to parents. But, again, we will listen to the evidence. We will listen to our educators, and we will do best by our kids, and that means dumping national standards. If you want to talk about hiding data, then there will be a lot of time in this House to talk about what we’ve discovered in the school properties portfolio, but that time will come.

So yes, on this side of the House we do have intentions. We have many intentions. I was pleased to see the Leader of the Opposition discovered some intentions on child poverty. It’s a shame that it only happened a few weeks ago.

Members, as I always argued during the campaign, winning is not the final destination; it is just the start. It is the moment when the faith that voters and the public have placed in you as a party is actually tested, and it’s tested every single day for three years. Now, the Opposition have a role to play in the testing side of the ledger. I know that role well. I know it a little more than I would’ve liked to have known. I know how important it is that we be held to account, that we be questioned, and that we be cross-examined—that we say what we mean and we do what we say, and we be challenged if we don’t.

But knowing all of that about the role of Opposition, I want to say this: no one will hold us to account more than we hold ourselves. Every day this team will remind ourselves of why we are here and who put us here. The moment we forget that is the moment that we are gone. Secondly, we intend to challenge this Parliament too. I’ve often said I would like to do things differently. I’m going to start on a few issues dear to my heart. There should be no politics, for instance, in child poverty and child well-being. It should be a source of pride for all of us to strive to be known to be the best place in the world to be a child. That does mean I will take up the Leader of the Opposition’s offer. I will extend to the National Party and to ACT the chance to work together on tackling those issues that matter most. What they do with those offers is, of course, each party’s call. But sometimes, in the people’s Parliament, Opposition is about more than being oppositional.

We believe there is a larger role we can play too, as the people’s Government. We believe in using the power—here it comes—of the State to achieve things together that we cannot achieve alone. We believe in using the power of the State to do things for the common good that the private market cannot, because when you’re in the Labour Party with a long history, the State is not a dirty word. It was the State that gave tens of thousands of New Zealanders an affordable home. It was the State that put generations of young people through high schools and universities. It has been the State that has protected people from poverty in old age. These are all things to be proud of.

There are moments in time when we recognise that things could indeed be better, and it’s time we did that again. There is a difference. We do need to do things together. Of course we will not shy away from our leadership role, nor will we ignore the voice of our communities. We know that many of the ideas and challenges that we face, and the spirit to seize the opportunities of an ever-changing world, actually lies in our NGOs, iwi, educational institutions, businesses, and backyard workshops. Our job is to be a partner, to be an enabler, and to be a champion for good ideas wherever they are found, even if they’re found over there. Ultimately though, whenever and wherever we face a new challenge, no one should ever be left believing that the problems we face are just too hard.

Market failure should not be closely followed by political failure too. That’s why it’s our job to step in when the housing market becomes dysfunctional. That’s why it’s our job to step in when our rivers are dying and climate change looms large. Just like it’s our job to know that when we act, social return is as important as a financial one. And that is perhaps where our greatest challenge will lie as Government.

Since coming into Government, I and my Ministers have been briefed by officials on almost every issue you can imagine, and I must say, at times, it has been sobering. It is clear from these briefings that we are facing almost a decade of chronic underinvestment, and it is also clear that it is far worse in some areas than we even imagined. The chronic underinvestment means our hospitals and our schools are groaning under the pressure of a growing and ageing population. It means our roads are gridlocked and we’ve inherited a widening gap between what needs to be spent—for instance, on public transport and roads—and what has been set aside by the previous Government. It is going to take my Government time to get these vital services and infrastructures back to where they need to be, but it is a challenge we will take on.

Our country is a wonderful country, but undoubtedly it could be better, and we will do what it takes to make it so. For too long, housing, health, mental health, our environment, child poverty, and the soaring prison population were put into the too-hard basket, and I do want to expand on that. I want to give you one stark example. During the campaign, we didn’t hear much on the soaring prison population, but we need to talk about it as a country now. It is simply not good enough that we have one of the highest imprisonment rates in the developed world and that Māori make up 50 percent of the prison population. It is not good enough that the prison population has gone up 28 percent since 2014—all this at a time when the crime rates are static.

This is a waste. It is a waste of lives. It is a waste of families. It is also a waste of money. I’m also going to be frank. If the prison population continues to grow at current rates, taxpayers will be forking out for a new prison, at a billion dollars a time, every few years. That previous Government knew it, and what did they do? And what did they do? The status quo is not good enough and we will not settle for it. And I happen to agree with the Leader of the Opposition: it is a moral and fiscal failure, but it was also a failure of that last Government.

We won’t settle for the status quo on housing either. We are under no illusions that the dysfunction in our housing market does indeed have deep roots. But New Zealanders deserve a home of their own. They should not have to pay extraordinary amounts of money to get one. And we have already acted. We heard for years from the former Government that helping New Zealanders into the housing market by banning foreign speculators from buying existing houses was too hard—that it would breach our international trade agreements. Well, guess what? It was all possible. Our Government, within days of gaining office, has banned foreign speculators from buying houses. It was the right thing to do.

It does go to prove what can be done with energy and a desire to get things done, and it shows that things can be done differently, and I promise you that things will be done differently. But it means meeting a massive social deficit with the investment it deserves, and then we will reap what we sow. I’m talking, for example, about the social return we’ll see from making that first year of tertiary education or training fees-free. I’m talking about the social return we’ll see from lifting student allowance and living costs for students. I’m talking about the social return we’ll see from requiring all rentals to be warm and to be dry so that our families are healthy and well. I’m talking about the social return we’ll see from the winter energy payment, from Best Start, and from increases to paid parental leave, because, after all, what better investment is there than investment in children, in families, and in homes? But the public doesn’t just expect us to make investments; they expect us to right wrongs. They expect us to even out the playing field, to stand up in the space that exists between what should happen and what is happening.

That is why we committed to reviewing our mental health services and making sure that people are getting the help and the care that they need when they need it. That’s why we will hold an inquiry into the abuse of children in State care. That’s why we will lift the minimum wage, and it’s why we’ll bring fairness into the workplace. It is even why we inflation adjusted Teina Pora’s compensation today. And that is why we will tackle child poverty.

Poverty is what a person is left with when all other options are extinguished. Now, I’ve often talked about it being a motivation for my entry here into Parliament and into politics, and it’s been what has kept me here too. I am happy for this Government to be measured on what it does for children, which is why we will legislate not just the measures we will use for poverty but the targets to reduce it too. And we’ll do that using a bill that I’ve had in the ballot for probably about six years now, to prove that we’ve long held the view that we need to measure and target child poverty.

I am also happy for us to be held to account, to show the public where we are now and where we have moved. I also want every one of those Māori seats, for instance, which we are honoured to hold, to ask us at the end of three years: what have you done to improve housing? What have you done to give our kids better prospects, to lift whānau out of poverty, and to build the relationships we need to do all of that together? It is an honour to lead a party in a Government that holds all of the Māori electorate seats and has the largest representation of Māori in any Government in our history. My pride is only matched by my sense of enormous responsibility to our tangata whenua. It will be our relentless focus to support Māori across the motu to achieve whatever they set out to.

There is a new beginning here too. The Hon Kelvin Davis will be our first ever Minister for Crown/Māori Relations, working alongside Nanaia Mahuta in her role as Minister for Māori Development also. The role that the Hon Kelvin Davis holds will look ahead as the major Treaty settlements come to an end and we move to the next phase, where we seek to see whānau, hapū, and iwi thrive and prosper.

We’re not only looking for better relationships, better outcomes for our kids, and better social returns; we are also looking for better financial ones too. We have set ourselves some rules when it comes to financial management. We called them the budget responsibility rules and they exist for this reason: we know, and we have always known, we cannot achieve the outcomes we aspire to for New Zealand without a thriving economy. But we’ve also never believed that a thriving economy required some of the trade-offs that the last Government seemed happy to make. We will not make progress by suspending problems. We’ll not make progress by standing back and waiting for problems to go away. That is why we will resume contributions to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund, because that fund has been an unqualified success and we intend to make the most of it.

It’s why we are absolutely committed to resolving the housing crisis and taking a multitude of steps and levers to make that happen. That’s why the mass Housing New Zealand sell-off ends. That’s why there will be a housing commission, there will be KiwiBuild, and there will be a tax working group. These measures aren’t a means to an end themselves. They are part of our solution because New Zealand deserves a different, better kind of economy: one with higher incomes, one that is more efficient, one that is more productive.

Over the past 30 years, the share of the economy going to wages and salaries has declined by billions of dollars. But have we seen the more robust economy that we were promised? Instead, we have a GDP per capita that is barely growing. We have too many kids who are unemployed now. Our economy has become geared towards speculation and extraction, rather than value-added exports. I want to see an end of the race to the bottom on wages. You can only go so far working longer and longer, harder and harder, squeezing more out of your workforce. Low wages aren’t simply a problem for low-wage workers, though. They’re a problem for businesses. They’re a problem for the economy as a whole. I want us to have the kind of economy where businesses are able to compete on innovation, on offering the best product, not by keeping wages low. But I’m under no illusion that this is why we need to do things differently. We need to build partnerships that involve the Government, business, employers, employees, and we need that now more than ever.

Astonishingly, a child born this year may well live to see the year 2117. It’s a huge challenge to imagine how different that world might look: a world where robots have left billions without work, perhaps, to take just one popular dystopian example. But a more optimistic point of view might ask: if so many people today are doing jobs that hadn’t even been heard of 50 years ago, is it not possible that in an automated world the opportunities will be as wide as those that followed the factories and the mills and the industrial revolution? And is it not possible that a Government that takes an active role in exploring those future possibilities might help transform our economy to take advantage of them and to make sure they are widely and fairly shared?

This Government believes, without question, that it has a role to play in asking these questions, and looking ahead and formulating ideas for a changing world. We did it with the Future of Work; we’ll keep doing it as a Government.

And those ideas must extend to every challenge of our future, particularly the ones that future generations come up against. The environment, for example, is in too precarious a state for us not to take action. We cannot afford one more degree of warming, not if we want to, hand on heart, tell our Pacific neighbours that we did everything that we could to not just be advocates—to not just be advocates—but that we ourselves took action on the challenge that is lapping at their feet and at ours. So yes, under this Government there will be a zero carbon Act. There will be an independent climate commission. There will be action on climate change. This will not be done by edict. It will be done instead in careful consultation with communities, particularly those that will be affected, and we’ll ensure that we assure them of the just transitions that are needed.

But, of course, as much as change will have to happen simply to ensure that we protect the environment, there’s also undeniably enormous economic impact. This administration has committed to exploring economic possibilities for green economic transformation. I acknowledge James Shaw and the Green Party for the work I know that they’ll do alongside us in that area.

We’ve also agreed—all of us in this governing arrangement—that New Zealand needs to measure success differently. We need to move beyond narrow measures and the views of value, and broaden the scope and definition of progress. Our economic strategy will focus on how we improve the well-being and living standards of all New Zealanders. This Government will develop a comprehensive set of environmental, social, and economic sustainability indicators to better show how we are going as a country. It will be world leading, and it will make us a Government of transformation. There will be a clear focus on sustainable economic development, supporting regional economies, increasing exports, lifting wages, reducing inequality, and there will in that be talking, listening, and proposing.

You know, I think when New Zealanders voted for MMP, it was clear that they had had enough of change being pushed through without discussion and consultation. I would suggest that one of the messages of MMP was on just that. So I warmly welcome that this election’s evolution of MMP has brought us to a necessary culture of cooperation. Every sector of New Zealand society—every party, every organisation, every individual—can play their part. We’ve had, as the saying goes, nine long years to watch and weigh our options. We take up our role now with clear plans, with clear strategies—strategies we will communicate with New Zealanders every step of the way.

It is possible. It is possible for us to have the kind of debate that brings New Zealanders with us. But I do acknowledge that New Zealand has changed. It’s not quite the place it used to be. Some people feel more isolated, less connected. It’s possible for us to live in our own familiar pockets and have very little experience of the lives of other people in cities and towns, suburbs and communities. The less well we know one another, the easier it is to make false assumptions and have less inclination to support one another. I believe the kind of Government we have just formed is a good example of the kind of cooperation we need to see more of. And perhaps there is no better thing to help us find common ground than knowing what we are capable of.

We aren’t afraid, as a nation, of problem solving, even if our solution is different to everyone else’s. We are fair minded. So now, with all those values in mind, we need to have a plan, one we can feel proud of, one we can get behind. This Government has a plan. We do not just have intention; we have a plan: one to build a better New Zealand with decent homes for all, with the schools and hospitals we need, with an environment we can cherish, and with decent, well-paying work for our people—one we want to build together.

I cannot fix the housing crisis alone, but we can together. I cannot end child poverty alone, but we can together. I cannot generate higher incomes alone, but we can together—together, alongside NGOs, businesses, council, iwi, and other community groups. Each and every one of us has a role to play in building a better New Zealand. I’ve always said that I believe what unites us is stronger than what divides us, and the campaign only confirmed that to me.

So here is my final promise to all New Zealanders. Whether you voted or not, and no matter who you voted for, I will be a Prime Minister for all and this will be a Government for all. I hope we can focus on what unites us, rather than what divides us, because there is so much to do. We can be better. We will be better. And this is our chance to prove it.

Mr SPEAKER: Before I call the next speaker, I would just like to remind members of the rules of the House with regard to taking photos. While members are allowed to use their phones in the House, they’re not allowed to use them either for phone calls or for taking photos. I decided not to interrupt the two previous speakers when that was happening, but I make it clear that it was discussed by the Standing Orders Committee and, like a number of decisions there, it was contested, but the decision was that photos could not be taken.

Hon RON MARK (Deputy Leader—NZ First): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is a privilege and an honour to be able to stand and speak on behalf of the Deputy Prime Minister—our leader—the Rt Hon Winston Peters, and that I do today.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Could we, first of all, congratulate the Rt Hon Trevor Mallard on his election as Speaker of this House. Congratulations also to the new Deputy Speaker and the Assistant Speakers. We look forward to maintaining the harmonious relationships that have begun, and to which we are accustomed. We want to congratulate all the MPs who have been elected to this House, whether newly elected or returning and, most especially, my colleagues from New Zealand First.

We in New Zealand First are greatly appreciative of the support we received across the length and breadth of New Zealand—from Kaitāia in the Far North to Stewart Island in the South. New Zealand First voters signalled that they had had enough. We here in New Zealand First heard their message. It informed our subsequent negotiations, and then our decision to enter into a coalition with the New Zealand Labour Party. We will not forget our voters or their expectations of us over these next three years. In many respects, it was a difficult campaign for all of those parties not labelled Labour or National. We all felt the squeeze as the media chose to frame the election contest as a straight two-horse race, which it was not. So let me pose this question: how, after our eighth post-MMP campaign and election, can the political media still be lagging so far behind the reality of New Zealand’s multiparty politics?

But in another respect, we could call the 2017 general election the “keystone election”. Former Prime Minister Sir John Key’s decision to abandon National—as we knew he would—left it vulnerable to his lieutenant’s judgments, and so National ended up running around during the campaign like keystone cops. Self-styled campaign maestro, the Hon Steven Joyce, tripped up in a hole of his own fevered imagination—a pretty slight, indeed, just like his pretty legal defence of lifting Eminem’s music from three years earlier.

The decision by National to tell the public to cut out the middleman was designed to kill us off here in New Zealand First. Well, that short-term tactic, the electoral arm of National’s all-pervasive “short-termism”, didn’t succeed, and New Zealand First and the country has emerged the stronger for it.

But enough of the past—well, almost—maybe. New Zealand First ultimately succeeded because National was tired. It was tired of the public. It was tired of criticism. It was tired of cooperating with anyone but its mates. The maestro’s strategy was always going to lead to a cul-de-sac. All could see it, bar the honourable member and his colleagues. But for the remnants of its third-to-last victim, the hapless Colin Craig and his Conservative Party’s nearly four percent, National had no more votes left to feed on, so its electoral fuel was spent. So National put themselves there, where they now sit.

The campaign also revealed that Labour leader, Jacinda Ardern, had a personality and had skills that voters found refreshing and appealing and encouraging—the Prime Minister has some serious game. The rise in support for Labour that followed the Prime Minister’s elevation was historically significant. That is a fact we are now very happy to acknowledge, even if at the time that it was happening we felt somewhat less inclined to do so.

MMP is about learning how to compete hard for a party vote share within an overall strategic framework of cooperation with like-minded parties, so that once the dust has settled separate parties with unique identities can come together in the public’s interests. During our history of proportional representation, parties that have remembered that wisdom have succeeded. The parties that haven’t remembered it have only repeated their same old mistakes. On election night, with still over 15 percent of the vote to come in, the media once more fell over themselves to declare the Government formation a done deal.

The public, however, understood better than their fourth estate that the election night result was only a provisional one. There was no panic. There was no capital flight. In fact, New Zealand seemed to survive it all right. The sun kept rising in the morning and setting in the evening, and the All Blacks carried on winning in our absence. The people went about their business undisturbed. No one fainted during the tiny window of uncertainty while our democracy’s votes were fully counted, at least not on this side of the House. Then once the final results were declared, with each party now being delivered its final hand of cards by the people, the process of Government formation began.

We in New Zealand First entered into negotiations with National and Labour in good faith. We maintained that good faith throughout with both parties, and we will continue to maintain and honour the confidentiality agreements that we made. We believe that good faith was reciprocated. Our focus was then, as it is now, on policy. We wanted as a coalition partner the party that would share our policy vision going forward. We knew we couldn’t win everything, but we wanted to work with the party that, having committed to an agreed-upon policy vision, would work with New Zealand First to translate it into action, to make New Zealand a demonstrably better place. We wanted as a partner the party that, like us, believed in the potential of all New Zealanders from all walks of life to be the best that they can be.

This positive view of the New Zealand people, their strength of character in good times and in bad, their resilience, their hope every single day for their children to do better, be better, and reach higher than they had, was always on our minds as we worked through negotiations, policy area by policy area. For far too many New Zealanders, the neo-liberal forces of the past three-plus decades are seen as having left too many of their countrymen and women powerless to shape their own futures.

In another similar age, when wealth was also grossly unequal, the same forces of avarice, greed, and rampant inequality saw individual pitted against individual in a Darwinian struggle for economic survival. Brother was arrayed against brother, father against son. The warmest ties of love and fraternity were disregarded. In that previous gilded age, old leaders were cast aside when they refused to give expression to the sentiments of those whom they would lead, and new leaders sprung up to give direction to the cause of freedom—and I’m thinking of a few on that side.

In reaching the decision to join in our two-party coalition with the Jacinda Ardern - led New Zealand Labour Party, the New Zealand First Party found in Labour the party most willing to share our vision of building a more prosperous, fairer New Zealand to help restore old verities. Our party is committed to making this coalition work. Our supporters in the wider New Zealand public need it to. That is also our track record.

The New Zealand First Party’s word is our bond, and we have given it. We ask for the same in return. We acknowledge here too the confidence and supply agreement entered into between Labour and the Green Party. While we in New Zealand First come from different traditions and ideas, we share a love of land, of the sea, of the air, and that is a solid foundation for our majority moving forward. And make no bones about it, we are the majority, supported by over 50 percent of the voting public.

The Speech from the Throne outlined the goals we have set for ourselves for the next three years. It is a challenging but realistic programme that will bring to a halt the prolonged nine-year period of drift under the previous Government. Instead of avoiding the hardest problems, the coalition will confront them. Instead of denying that problems exist, the coalition will solve them. Instead of cronyism, we’ll have the enthusiasm and confidence to bring everyone along with us, because all of us here share the same ambition to forge a better country. We believe the people will be with us.

The coalition agreement between Labour and New Zealand First reinforces our commitment to effect transformative change. The regions are our primary focus, because provincial New Zealand has missed out for far too long—nine years too long. We are proud to play our part in restoring vital infrastructure. We will work with the regions to identify and prioritise how best to utilise our investment approach. The $1 billion per annum regional development fund will fuel provincial growth. It’s a significant investment, and we are proud to have secured that. New Zealand First has also secured the commitment to regionalise some Government services, such as the New Zealand forestry service. But we will not wait for people to catch up with our active approach. Our sense of urgency will drive us, and our commitment to a new planting programme—a hundred million trees a year, one billion over a decade—will have a triple purpose; a triple purpose. It will help regenerate the regions; it’ll help create vital jobs and new opportunities for any who want to work. Our initiative also links directly to the Government’s actions on climate change.

New Zealand First also secured as part of its regional development strategy a rethink into the country’s wider port strategy, examining whether the Ports of Auckland should be moved to Northport near Whangarei. It was noted in the Speech from the Throne. There is also a win-win strategy at play here: more vital infrastructure, more jobs for the regions, and freeing up capital development in Auckland’s most sought-after real estate.

The Labour - New Zealand First coalition has taken bold and wide-ranging choices across a large number of policy areas. We are proud to have played our part in securing an immediate rise in the minimum wage, rising to $20 per hour by 2020, and we will tackle the scourge of homelessness head-on. It is not right that in this bountiful and beautiful country of ours we have economic refugees sleeping in door fronts.

We support also the move to help New Zealand’s most vulnerable people, our mentally ill. There has been too much neglect, and it stops now. We will help people to buy an affordable home and create more choices for our young through educational or vocational opportunity. We will support all of these policies, and more, that aim to restore dignity and opportunity. We are very proud to confirm that a new-generation SuperGold smart card will be introduced. New Zealand First is pleased to help older New Zealanders, who have contributed so much to their country, through a free annual health check and an eye check, as well as other new entitlements and concessions that will come with that smart card. Probably one of the smartest things that is going to happen in this Government is that we’ll be looking after our elderly.

Younger New Zealanders, after nine years of enormous opportunity costs, billions and billions of dollars forgone by National—we’ll see contributions to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund restored, protecting older New Zealanders by safeguarding the provision of superannuation at 65, alongside of restoring super fund contributions. It offers greater intergenerational fairness than from the previous Government.

The Hon—and this is from the Rt Hon Winston Peters—Ron Mark, Minister of Defence and Minister for Veterans, will ensure future defence procurement is of high quality, giving taxpayers the assurance that their hard-earned dollars, their hard-earned taxes, are being spent wisely, while also providing funding certainty and greater rigour to assist defence with their vital planning forward. We will also ensure that the interests and well-being of the men and women of our New Zealand Defence Force, and the veterans who have served our country, are once again heard within the heart of Government.

The Hon Tracey Martin, in her role as Minister for Children, will work closely with the Prime Minister to help lift children out of poverty. As the Governor-General so eloquently said, if we put child well-being at the heart of what we do, then the well-being of all New Zealanders will be lifted. We have to do better—it’s a moral imperative.

The Hon Shane Jones will drive New Zealand First’s and the coalition’s regional strategy. He will also, in his role as Associate Minister of Finance, work with the Minister of Finance in the upcoming review of monetary policy.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Rt Hon Winston—and, by crikey, aren’t they so pleased to have him back over at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, eh?—will be working tirelessly to advance New Zealand’s interests. Whether with our near neighbour Australia, in our home in the Pacific, or beyond, we will be unapologetic about helping to create opportunities for our exporters, whatever opportunity lays, be it in bolstering trade opportunities in the Commonwealth, the post-Brexit European Union, or with Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, customs union—oh, yes: crisis, what crisis? We will ensure that in any future trade agreements that this coalition Government launches, the protection of New Zealand’s sovereignty and its ability to determine its own future, free of coercion by global entities who care nothing for us, is front and centre.

Last but by no means least, we share the sentiment from the Speech from the Throne: we stand with the families of Pike River. We are already working closely with the Hon Andrew Little on honouring our commitments to those families. We understand our moral obligation, and we will not shirk our duty and our responsibility to them.

New Zealand is a nation whose values have been forged by a long history of shared sacrifice with like-minded nations. Those traditions will be respected in the deepest and most tangible ways. We are also an independent, sovereign country, an energetic people whose best days are still ahead of us. It may be a cliché, but it is nonetheless true that there is nothing wrong about New Zealand that can’t be put right by the best of New Zealand and its peoples. Democracy matters, but it only flourishes when we treat it with the reverence it needs to flourish.

For too much of the last nine years, democratic processes have been ignored or abused. No more shonky processes. The coalition intends to enhance the integrity of our electoral processes and to ensure that Parliament’s processes better reflect multiparty politics—I’ll say that again: that they better reflect multiparty politics. We will also ensure, as a matter of priority, that the make-up of Parliament continues to reflect the expressed preference of voters.

As we said on the day that New Zealand First made its decision to enter into a coalition with the Labour Party, there were great risks in whatever decision we took. We could’ve taken an easier choice, committing to only a slightly modified status quo. The markets, whether financial, political, or in the media, would’ve approved. Our egos would’ve been stroked. We would’ve been called wise and pragmatic. But we chose a harder path—a harder path, one of regeneration and change. We could’ve gone for the baubles—no, actually, we couldn’t. Policy gains drove us from the beginning, and they pointed us in a more challenging direction.

We do not for one second, however, resile from our choice. We are pleased we made it. Change was required. Change is happening. Change is here. The Labour - New Zealand First coalition firmly stands here to represent people who are equals before the law. There will be no favourites. We want business to understand the needs of the poor, just as we want Kiwi battlers to understand the contribution of business in creating opportunities for work and prosperity. We are all in this together equally. To paraphrase what was said long ago, the man who is employed for wages in Kerikeri is as much a businessman as his employer. The lawyer in Feilding is as much a business person as the corporate counsel in Wellington.

The merchant at the crossroads store in Rotorua or Sanson is as much a business person as the financier in Auckland. The Southland farmer—who goes forth in the morning, toils all day, begins in the spring and toils all through summer, and, by the application of brain and muscle to the natural resources of this country, creates wealth—is as much a business person as the futures trader or the ticket clipper in the city playing roulette with other people’s money.

We are entering a challenging phase of history, and we need to carry the best of our traditions forward even as we strive for new understandings. We are looking forward to it. Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

Hon JAMES SHAW (Leader—Green): Kia tau te rangimarie o Te Rangi e tū nei, o Papatuānuku e takoto nei, o te taiāo e awhi nei, ki runga i a tātou. Tīhei mauri ora! E Te Māngai o Te Whare, tēnā koe. Ki a koutou huri noa i Te Whare, ngā mihi o te wā ki a koutou katoa.

[May the peace of the Sky Father standing here, Mother Earth lying here, and the embracing environment be upon us. Behold the breath of life! Salutations to you, Mr Speaker. Acknowledgments of the moment to you all.]

I’d like to start today by acknowledging our new Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern. I first met Ms Ardern about 10 years ago in London, when she was the newly minted president of the International Union of Socialist Youth, and straight off the bat, I asked her if they still let socialists into the Labour Party these days. Clearly, she has forgiven me, because otherwise she would’ve never made me her Minister of Statistics. I did ask for that—I did ask for that, in more ways than one.

Anyway, not too long after that, she had to head home to New Zealand to become a member of Parliament, where her values and her shrewd judgment and her warmth and her empathy gained a much wider audience. So “Jacindamania” did not come as a surprise to me, but it was only truly after this election, during the negotiation process that led to the formation of this Government, that I came to appreciate just how formidable those qualities are. They played a key role in forging the bonds of respect and trust that bind the parties that form this Government together. This is—and it’s been said before—a true MMP Government, and I can assure the people of New Zealand that its leadership is in good hands.

I’d also like to acknowledge the Deputy Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Winston Peters, who also knows a thing or two about negotiations, and his colleagues in the New Zealand First Party. Our parties, as has been documented, do not agree on everything, but we do agree—as has not been documented—on far more than we disagree, and we do look forward to working with them over the course of the coming years to find common cause and to deliver the best for New Zealand in what will be a historic and transformational Government.

I would also like to acknowledge the Rt Hon Bill English and his horde. Although we disagree on, you know, everything, I do respect Mr English’s service to his country and the fact that his party was nearly as popular after nine years in Government as it was when it was first elected. I expect National to be a formidable Opposition. I welcome that, because I believe that our Government will be better for that. So, you know, we were off to a good start yesterday, with Simon Bridges flexing his muscles, which he works on so hard in the gym every day, and we look to see more of that in the future.

It is 27 years since the Green Party was first founded, with the goal of bringing the principles of ecological wisdom, social responsibility, appropriate decision-making, and non-violence to New Zealand politics to solve the problems that traditional politics could not. It has been a very long and a very winding road, but today the Green Party has arrived in Government.

I’d like to pay particular tribute to the long-serving founders of the Green Party and, in particular, Rod Donald and Jeanette Fitzsimons. It was their courage that set us on this path, it was their vision that guided us, and it was their strength that sustained us. I know that their eyes are on us, weighing our actions and holding us to the highest ethical standards of behaviour that they expect from their successors, and I know this because Jeanette Fitzsimons keeps telling me this. I’d also like to acknowledge our former leaders of the Green Party Russel Norman and Metiria Turei, and all of our current and our former members of Parliament. And I would like to thank our staff and our many volunteers, and all of those who stood as candidates, who voted for us, and who supported us. Our country and our world will be the better for your support. We carry your support and your work and your expectations with us into this Parliament, and now into Government.

On the night that the formation of this Government was announced, the Rt Hon Winston Peters said that “too many New Zealanders have come to view today’s capitalism, not as their friend, but as their foe. And they are not all wrong.” Two days later, our new Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, said that when it comes to housing the poor, capitalism had been a “blatant failure”. Now, I agree with both of those statements, but I know that many in this House do not, and some of their supporters do not. They believe that the Government should not interfere with the economy. They believe that people’s life outcomes are the fair and just results of market forces and that what they earn is a fair and true reflection of their value in the economy. They believe that government cannot create value and that government is not the solution to the problem; it is the problem. That has been the prevailing view expressed in this House earlier.

Amongst many politicians and economists in this country and across much of the developed world for the last 30 years, our politics, our economy, and our society have been dominated by a belief in the efficacy of free markets, but there is a fatal flaw at the heart of that argument: you cannot exclude government from the market, because it is the Government that enables the market to function. To say that you want a free market without Government interference is like saying that you want a house but you could do without the roof or the walls or the floor, which is perhaps why so many Kiwis are living in cars these days.

The State creates and enforces the laws by which our economy functions. When people say they want less government in the economy, what they’re really saying is that they want different rules, and usually they’re saying that they want different outcomes—ones that favour themselves and the interests that they represent. But they’re also trying to create the illusion that the economy can be neutral, that it can be fair, and that it can be impartial, when what we’ve had in New Zealand in recent years is anything but that.

What we’ve had is an economy with high inequality, low wage growth, low productivity, and runaway inflation in our housing market; an economy that has poisoned our rivers and threatens the extinction of thousands of native species; an economy that is failing to act on climate change; and an economy that is failing to deliver for far too many New Zealanders. And the market itself did not decide to do any of those things. Previous Governments set laws that allowed those things to happen. The market was an excuse for those Governments to hide behind while they did it, and to claim that the unjustness and the unfairness of the rules that they set were somehow fair and just, just because they were the will of the market.

Well, while the Green Party is in Government, we will be open and we’ll be honest with New Zealanders about our values and our goals. We are here to support families and to lift children out of poverty. We are here to save our rivers and our endangered species. We are here to solve problems that the market cannot, and the first and the greatest of those is climate change.

It is a great privilege and a great responsibility to be the first Green Minister for Climate Change and Associate Minister of Finance for the Green Infrastructure Fund. All of the things that we care about, whether it’s a better society, a fair economy, conserving our environment, or sustaining our future—all of those things intersect on this one issue, which is the gravest and the most formidable danger to our country, our society, our economy, and our environment that we currently face as a society.

In New Zealand, previous Governments have been noteworthy only for their inaction on climate change. We had a previous Prime Minister who actually took pride in saying that he was not a leader but a follower on climate change. Instead of actually reducing our emissions, New Zealand purchased fraudulent carbon credits offshore and claimed that this somehow met our obligations. Since that time, the previous Government budgeted hundreds of millions of dollars to buy more offshore credits, instead of investing that money here at home, in our economy, and solving our problems first.

Under this Government, that commitment to do nothing—that commitment to be a follower rather than a leader—ends now. As of this moment, today, New Zealand shall join with those countries that seek to lead the fight against climate change. The previous Government’s approach to dealing with climate change was to say, “Look, we’re a small country. We can’t make a difference. Why do we even try? Let’s do nothing.” Our Government’s approach is to say, “What can we do? Let’s make that happen.” To coin a phrase: let’s do this.

So what can we do? Well, New Zealand is in a unique position in the world to make a global contribution to this great cause. We are a small but advanced economy, but we have the emissions profile of a developing economy. If this country can solve the technological and economic challenges of transitioning our transport and our energy and, yes, agricultural sectors over to a low emissions model, then we are solving that problem for the rest of the planet—and that is intellectual property. We are a small part of the world and we are a remote part of the world, but we are still a part of the world. It is in our strategic interests to save it. We can make a difference, and we will.

Now, one thing I learnt in the private sector is that you can only manage what you measure. This is at least as applicable to the public sector, and that is why I am also very proud to serve as the Minister of Statistics. As one wag on Twitter pointed out, the Greens have seized the production of means. The previous Government also knew that measurement is important. That is why they fought so hard against measuring child poverty in New Zealand, because if they didn’t measure it they couldn’t, therefore, be held accountable for it. This Government will make the measure and will take the measure of child poverty. This Government will take responsibility for child poverty, and this Government will reduce child poverty.

This Government will also take the measure of our economic performance beyond the measure of gross domestic product. Now, GDP is a useful tool, but the economic output of a country’s economy is not the same thing as the well-being of the people in it, or of the environment that sustains us. We have had 29 quarters of real GDP growth, but wages are not keeping up with the cost of living; 29 quarters of GDP growth, but two-thirds of our monitored rivers are unfit to swim in; 29 quarters of GDP growth and the most unaffordable houses in the world relative to incomes; 29 quarters of GDP growth and 29 quarters of traffic gridlock in Auckland City; 29 quarters of GDP growth and about 3,000 native species at extreme risk of extinction; 29 quarters of GDP growth, and climate pollution levels that are 19 percent higher than when the National Government came to power; 29 quarters of GDP growth have not filled the bellies of the kids who go hungry to school.

Governments have got to aim higher than that. Governments have got to aim higher than merely increasing the market output of their economies. High levels of population growth have delivered economic growth, because when there are more people there is more economic activity. We have been listening to Messrs English and Joyce, you know, pretend that that, somehow, is real growth for the last decade. But that population growth was not matched by investment in infrastructure or regional development or emissions reduction or environmental management or, frankly, any kind of coherent plan to lift or improve the wages and well-being of New Zealanders. Mr Joyce famously said, “We don’t do strategy.” Well, that’s clear.

This will be a Government of change. Some people are afraid of change, and that is understandable. It is natural to want things to stay the way they are, especially if you’re doing well out of the status quo. But we don’t have that choice. Change is already here. Our climate is changing. Our environment is changing. Our economy is changing. And our society is changing. That change can either be unplanned and catastrophic or it can be anticipated and well managed. Simply sweeping the great challenges of our time under the carpet and hoping that they will go away or that nobody notices is the kind of expedient and short-term thinking that gives politics and politicians a bad name.

In my maiden speech, three years ago last Wednesday, I said that “I enter Parliament as a member of our country’s loyal Opposition. My role is, in part, to hold to account, to challenge, and to speak truth to power, but I am not committed to partisanship for its own sake. Political tribalism is, I believe, the single greatest barrier to creating enduring solutions to the great challenges of our time. I know that the first step in finding the answers is to work together. Time is too short for resignation. Things are too bad for pessimism. It is too big a task for petty politics. It is too important for partisanship. These things we must transcend and transform. If any other member of this House from any political party or any member of the public hears this challenge and wants to rise to it, my door is open.”

When I said those things, it being a maiden speech, I was speaking for myself. But to me it also sums up the Green Party’s way of doing politics when we are at our best: seeking to solve the great challenges of our time, putting solutions above partisanship, and focusing on the long term. Being in Opposition or on the cross benches for the entire 18 years of our parliamentary history gave us a lot of time to get good at that. It is my hope that the new Opposition takes a similar approach—and a similar time scale. If we as a nation are to restore and replenish our forests and our rivers and our birds, if we are to end child poverty, and if we are to lead the global fight against climate change, it will take longer than three years. It will.

Today is just the beginning of the beginning. Today is the day that the Green Party has to take up the responsibility of Government and to deliver on the promises that we have made over successive decades to the people of New Zealand. And it is time for New Zealand to again show the world that although we are small we can be a great nation who can play a great role in a great cause, and that role starts today. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I didn’t want to interrupt any of the leaders’ speeches—I know we’ve got the leader of the ACT Party coming—but I did just want to check with you, given, I suppose, your position as Assistant Speaker prior to this about the reading of speeches. Without going into the gory details, I think we have seen some very significant reading, and so for the rest of the debate I just want to get some guidance from you on that on what the position was.

Mr SPEAKER: Sure, I’m happy to do it. There was one leader in particular who—one person acting for a leader—read a speech that had been supplied and had been approved by the party leader. So I was made aware of that fact beforehand and was deliberately looser than I would have been. But there have been some discussions between myself and the Deputy Speaker, and we will be, with the notable exceptions—you know, a bit of leniency for new members, or certainly leniency for new members, and for Ministers who have technical bills where the detail and the wording is very important. But I think all of us know that if members make speeches from notes and from their heart, you have better-quality speeches than reading out things that have—and I’ve seen it on both sides of the House—been very obviously drafted by research units. That wasn’t the case today.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of the ACT Party in reply to the Governor-General’s speech. I think we have seen today the birth of E! channel politics in New Zealand. The Prime Minister’s delivery was the best that I have seen in this House before and after I entered it myself. I thought Ron Mark’s speech showed the voice of somebody who had been to a speech therapist and said, “Make me sound like Winston.” I think the problem with those speeches is that the substance in this Government lies elsewhere. We’ve just seen one doddery man whose own electorate voted him out of office win the prize after conducting a bizarre sealed-bid auction with a twist.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. I’ve reflected on the comment that the member had made with regard to another member. He will withdraw it.

DAVID SEYMOUR: I withdraw it. The fact of the matter is that in normal auctions the person who makes the bid pays the bill. In this particular sealed-bid auction Winston Peters won the prize, the Labour Party and their hard-working Ministers get to carry it home, and the Green Party will get to watch while the poor hard-working—but in this case hapless—taxpayer gets to pay and pay the bill. This throne speech contains a major contradiction: this Government is going to spend much, much more money while paying down debt and keeping taxes the same. They’re not offering to reduce spending on anything—not one mention of reducing spending in the Speech from the Throne—and yet they’re going to pay down debt and maintain taxes. How will they do it? Well, the answer is very simple: it starts with bracket creep.

Last year, New Zealanders paid $744 million in extra income tax thanks to bracket creep. The tax rates didn’t change, just as the Speech from the Throne promises they won’t, but New Zealanders found themselves forced by inflation into higher and higher tax brackets, leaving more of their money for the taxman. Over the next three years, New Zealanders will get a surprise $3 billion tax bill, if inflation stays about where it is, thanks to bracket creep under this Government. That is $1,500 of extra tax for the average household in this country and in the Epsom electorate, I’m afraid to say, we’re going to be paying a lot more than that for this Government.

But $3 billion in extra tax is nowhere near enough to make up for even one of the areas of promise that this Government has made in health, in education, in regional development. So how else will they do it? The surplus. This Government is lucky enough—let it not be forgotten—to inherit an $18.5 billion surplus over four years. I can’t think of a Government in the world incoming this year or any recent year that would be lucky enough to inherit a surplus of that size. The contradiction in the Speech from the Throne, though, means they’ve already spent this too. The problem is it’s not going to work because the real power behind the throne has already foretold dark clouds on the economic horizon ahead and he’s probably right. How long can a 10-year post-global financial crisis expansion so far continue as quantitative easing eases and inflation returns along with higher interest rates around the world?

New Zealanders have got used to—over the last nine years of ACT-National Government—low mortgage rates, low unemployment, strong growth. The new Government seems to take those things for granted but history tells us we’re heading for a crash. And how will Grant Robertson balance a Budget in just seven months’ time if the welfare bill is up, the Government’s cost of borrowing is up, and the tax take is down? We are going to experience Australian-style Budget cuts and tax increases, which have been—thankfully—foreign to New Zealanders for the last decade, because the problem with socialism is that soon enough you run out of other people’s money.

But that’s not half of it—that’s not half of it—because New Zealand’s economic vulnerability is not actually on the Government’s books. In fact, coming out of nine years of ACT-National Government we’ve got one of the best Government balance sheets in the world: about 23 percent of GDP public debt—that’s nothing. The real problem that we have is on the private balance sheets of New Zealand households. It’s the mortgage debt, it’s the private debt that leaves us vulnerable. That is why New Zealand cannot afford a profligate Government that is going to stealthily raid the chequebooks of New Zealanders with its stealth tax—$3 billion over the next three years—and a Government that is going to spend every last bit of cushion it had as we head for global economic difficulties that they themselves—that the Deputy Prime Minister himself—have predicted.

So who to blame? Well, some people will blame Winston Peters for forming a Government with the left. Some people think MMP isn’t fair because it allowed a coalition of losers, so to speak, to form a Government. But those aren’t the real problems and I’m sorry to say to my National colleagues that the real tragedy of the last Government was not that it lost power but it didn’t use the power enough when it had it.

Hon Amy Adams: So it’s everyone except your fault. Is that right?

DAVID SEYMOUR: That’s absolutely right, Amy Adams. The truth and the light are here. You had the opportunity to do something about it and you didn’t. But the fact of the matter is that we find ourselves with an incoming Government’s agenda that is almost entirely in response to one fundamental problem: it’s too hard to build homes in New Zealand, and we build half as many as we built in the 1970s when we had vastly inferior technology. A Government that had the opportunity, Amy Adams, to reform the Resource Management Act—had the opportunity, didn’t do it, and that’s the problem.

Hon Amy Adams: Well, you and I both know why that was.

DAVID SEYMOUR: The problem, Amy Adams, is that we find ourselves facing a Government that actually has some better ideas—that actually will do some of the things that we didn’t have the gumption to do. And I actually support Phil Twyford when he says he’s going to remove the urban growth boundary, when he says that he’s going to find new ways to fund infrastructure, because those will be essential to solving the real underlying problems that New Zealand has, not simply trying to paper over the cracks with more spending.

The Speech from the Throne says this Government will be one that has children at the centre of everything that it does. I’m very confused as to why they choose to exclude those children who choose to attend a partnership school. I have to say I’m very grateful that my colleagues in the National Party are now coming to the aid of partnership schools. However, let’s not succumb to historical amnesia the way politicians often do when the boot moves to the other foot. Partnership schools are a core ACT policy that would not exist otherwise. We fought for them every step of the way, and when I first arrived in this House we had Hekia Parata saying the Government had no plans to open any more.

I have been much more disappointed, however, with the new Minister of Education, who has not been a Minister for a couple of weeks, it is true. He is new, and perhaps he deserves some forgiveness, but he has to understand that being a Minister, everything he says has an impact, and people assume that his utterances—even casual chat to an old journalist mate—are reported as being Government policy.

My challenge to the Minister of Education with respect to partnership schools is to be a professional and come clean. He must release an official statement to clear up the uncertainty around the schools’ future. It should tell them what to expect for the 2018 school year and what further discussions with what scope they should expect in the future. He must undertake to visit any school he intends to shut or alter the contract of so he can actually say that he understands what he is dealing with—not just hide here in Wellington like a coward. He must stop spreading misinformation about the schools, such as that they are funded to a larger extent than other schools, which simply is not true. With that challenge to the Minister of Education, I retire and resume my seat. Thank you.

Hon AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn): Madam Deputy Speaker, thank you for that, and what a pleasure it is to be able to address you in the Chair. I look forward to working with you in your new role. Madam Deputy Speaker, members of Parliament, we heard today, of course, the Speech from the Throne, in which the new Government gets to set out its vision for the next three years, its plan, and exactly what it is going to deliver, but the only thing I could take away from that speech was that this is a Government that just isn’t ready. They’re not ready, and you can see that so clearly, because they have no legislation.

Earlier today we had a debate about the fact that almost the entirety of the Order Paper consists of National legislation, which Labour and the Greens and New Zealand First have spent the last nine years telling us how much they hate and how they would do it all better. They left it all there because they have nothing to replace it with. Later on this afternoon we’re going to be debating a bill that has been part of Labour’s plan for some time around paid parental leave, and yet they still don’t have a bill. Here we are just an hour or so before we debate it. The bill is not in the House, it is not ready to go, and I can tell you the only reason we going to be taking urgency is that they’re not ready to do the job properly, so they’re going to ram it through without the process.

As the Leader of the Opposition said this afternoon, the Greens, whom we have had nine years of sanctimony from, about good parliamentary process and not rushing things, are now allowing this new Government to put legislation through on the hoof with no advance notice—it is not even tabled in this House mere hours before we are going to debate it—and no select committee process, for no reason other than they’re not ready.

It is clear from the Speech from the Throne that there’s no detail. I listened to the speech very carefully, and the Leader of the Opposition made these comments as well. Very carefully we listened, and we heard lots of great intentions about world peace and feeding the children—I didn’t hear “cure cancer”, but it was almost implicit—but there was no detail. This is a party that has had nine years to think about how they would do it differently, to think about what they would prefer to see happen, and yet there was nothing in the way of details. As we’ve heard from Bill English already today, simply having a good intention is not enough, and they will find that out soon enough.

We’ve seen that they have very few costings of the long shopping list of expensive promises we heard about today in the Speech from the Throne. I was sitting there next to our finance spokesperson, and we were just mentally nudging each other about how we could see the debt rising and rising and rising. All of this is spending promises that weren’t costed and weren’t put to the people of New Zealand. The people of New Zealand weren’t told that they were going to get in there and spend like drunken sailors. What we did hear—the one concession that they did make in that Speech from the Throne—was they absolutely admitted that they will pay back less debt than National was going to pay back. So already, on the very clear measures that we’ve made it clear we’re going to hold this Government to account on, how have they performed versus where National was already taking this country? They’re paying back less debt and they’re spending more of the money that they will take out of the pockets of hard-working New Zealanders.

That has been the problem for so long with parties on the left. They honestly believe they can spend your money better than you can—that they can spend the money of hard-working New Zealand families better than those families can. Every single dollar of spending that we heard about in that speech today—and there were hundreds and hundreds of millions; in fact, billions of dollars—down to the last cent, isn’t their money. It’s not. It is the money of every single New Zealander who gets up and goes to work every day, and we’re not going to sit here, over the next three years, and not remind them that that’s not their money and that they are not best placed to spend the money of hard-working New Zealanders.

They simply haven’t yet moved beyond platitudes. They got that down pat during the campaign, but I would expect a Government to be in this House ready to lead, with legislation, with costings, with detailed plans, with measures, but there is none of that. We had platitudes, we had good intentions, we had open-ended spending promises with no numbers on them, but we had nothing that looked anywhere near tangible.

This is, I think, one of the very simple realities that you understand when you’ve had the privilege of being in Government, when you’ve had the privilege of being a Minister: spending money is easy. That is the easiest part of the job you have as a Minister, and if all I had to do in Government was spend money and give in to everyone who wanted everything and throw money around, it would have been very popular and would have had screeds of wonderful headlines and happy people. Here is the reason we don’t do it—well, the reason the National-led Government didn’t do it: actually, you are bankrupting the future of this country and the future of our children, and I wasn’t prepared to do that.

We understand, in a way that clearly the parties on the left don’t, that you’ve got to earn it before you spend it, and that’s something that every business and every family in this country knows. Yet Labour and the Greens and New Zealand First seem to think that they can just keep spending and buy themselves popularity and the chickens will never come home to roost. I simply don’t think that that is credible.

So today’s speech, as I say, was just a long list of all of the ways they’re going to spend other people’s money, without any honesty about the cost of that and how they’re going to pay for it. That was the interesting thing. Again, I listened carefully, and 99 percent of that speech was about the spending. I heard nothing about how they’re going to pay for it. Is it the magic beans? They must have one of those magic money trees at the bottom of the garden that just shoots out free money, because there was nothing in that speech, for all that they’re going to run surpluses and manage the books and yada, yada, about how they’re going to pay for it.

Andrew Falloon: More debt, more taxes.

Hon AMY ADAMS: Here’s the interesting thing. Here’s the interesting thing. Well, we already know there’s going to be more tax, Mr Falloon, because they’re cancelling the tax cuts that are in place right now, meaning every New Zealander will pay more from 1 April.

One of the things that is absolutely, abundantly clear to those on this side of the House and is hardwired into our DNA is the understanding that jobs and incomes and a good standard of living and the prosperity that this country wants do not come from the Government. They don’t come from us sitting in this House. They come from people who get up every morning, who go to work, who put their own money on the line, and who say, “I’ve got the confidence to spend money to start a business and to employ staff.” If we are going to have a prosperous country, if we are going to create jobs that have better incomes, and more opportunities for our young people, and if we as a Parliament and the executive, whoever that is from time to time, are going to have the luxury of having money to spend on the best in healthcare, the best in education, the best in rehabilitative treatment and mental health and a good, strong environment—all of those things cost money—we have to have a strong economy.

When we talk about the economy we don’t talk about it because it’s some esoteric thing that’s a “nice-to-have”. It is at the heart of a prosperous, successful country that can afford the standard of living we all want and can lift kids out of poverty. The No. 1 thing that benefits families, that speaks to the life they’re able to give their children, is whether they have a job and a good income. And jobs and good incomes don’t come from the Government; they come from businesses. We have to have a system that encourages New Zealanders to want to invest, to put their money on the line, and to go out and hire staff.

I have to say I’m really worried for our economy in this country when the first things that we’ve heard from the new Labour - New Zealand First - Greens Government are the sorts of things that are going to terrify the average small business in this country. Straight away, they came out and said 90-day trial periods are, effectively, gone. So one of the core things that has put us in the position where we now have the third-highest employment rate in the world, and has been giving our businesses the confidence to take a punt and employ someone and see if they can make it work, is gone. It has been a remarkable success, and yet Labour is killing it.

They’re going to get rid of youth rates. They’re going to get rid of the ability to take a chance on a young person, bring them in, and train them up. These things are working. It’s not an accident—we don’t have the third-highest employment rate despite it. We have this successful economy and we have the 10,000 jobs a month being created because we’ve set up the conditions where businesses know that they can invest, hire, and take on workers.

And yet this Government, straight away, has gone back to its unionised roots—back to the 1970s where now unions will be able to force their way into workplaces, force the employers to go into discussions with them, and then force them to reach agreement at will. You tell me which employer is going to want to start a business, grow their business, take on more staff, and invest their capital when they’re under that sort of a threat? It is going to be the beginning of the end of the strong, growing, successful, prosperous country that National worked so hard on for the last nine years and will continue to advocate for.

The Speech from the Throne today was about building a culture and country of dependency—a culture and a country of welfare, of handouts, of reliance on the Government—where whether you work or not, whether you make any damn effort or not, you’ll get looked after. Well, this side of the House stands for people who get up every day, who work hard, and who put effort in. We want everyone in New Zealand to have the opportunities, but what you do with those opportunities, how your outcomes are delivered, is down to your own efforts. This side of the House backs aspiration and success; that side is all about dependency and welfare, and we’re going to make it very difficult for them.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): Thank you, Madam Speaker, and can I start by congratulating you on your appointment as Deputy Speaker of the House. I was just saying to colleagues over here how strange it feels to be standing up and saying this speech as you, the Deputy Speaker, are the former Minister of things I will be talking about. But anyway.

Can I also acknowledge the former speaker, Amy Adams, for the work that she did in the previous Government as a Minister. I think she was a very hard-working Minister, and I do want to acknowledge that. She did take up a large amount of her time in her speech talking about her concerns with regard to our ability to handle the financial responsibilities of being in Government. I do want to remind that member, Amy Adams, that, actually, when Labour were last in Government for nine years, we ran nine surpluses; when her Government was in Government for nine years, they got one. So, Amy Adams, please don’t be concerned about our ability to be able to manage our financial obligations, because I have every confidence that this side of the House is up for that, Amy Adams, member of Parliament.

I do want to start by saying that I stand here both proud and humbled to be part of this 52nd New Zealand Government—proud because the New Zealand people have backed this team to deliver much needed, overdue change in this country, and humbled because my colleagues and I understand the responsibility that we are undertaking. We are clear on the job that needs doing, and my colleagues and I have the energy, the courage, and the determination to make that happen. Tangible, concrete change is what we will deliver, particularly in the way we support the most vulnerable amongst us. I think the Prime Minister made it very clear, with regards to her speech, about that being an absolute priority for this Government.

For too long Government has treated those asking for help as liabilities and a cost to the State. We saw that with the previous Government using tools like predictive risk modelling to determine the long-term potential cost to the State of individuals and their families. We saw their intention to shift away from the decile model in schools, which I’m not saying is perfect, towards a model that would determine the risk of the students that were at the school. My concern at the time was, really, that that Government had no understanding of the impact that that negative stigma would have on those students and those people that they were purporting to be wanting to help.

As the Prime Minister has stressed today, New Zealand needs to measure success in new ways. Reducing the money spent on benefits was considered the measure of success by the previous Government. They thought by just getting people off benefits that New Zealand would be better off, but they had no regard for whether or not those people or their families were in fact better off. We believe that simply pursuing an off-benefit approach is not sufficient—that it is simply out of sight and out of mind, particularly given the fact that that Government wasn’t measuring the outcomes of what happened to people when they did go off benefits. Were they, in fact, employed? Well, we didn’t often know whether that was the case.

As far as we’re concerned, the concept of social investment—the concept of social investment—is not bad, but the way that that Government decided to roll out their social investment approach was incredibly problematic in our view. It ran in contrast to what we see social investment being in European countries that run it, where it is successful. Real social investment, as far as this Government is concerned, is about investing in people, and that was the very important factor that was missing from the previous National Government’s approach. We see it as ensuring that when people leave the benefit, they are better placed to go into secure work. We see the need to ensure that they are better placed to increase their earning capacity and that they are better placed to support their families.

There was a very important component to that side of the House’s social investment approach, and that was the complete lack of investment in upskilling and training. It was all about pushing people out into the next minimum wage job, and they weren’t necessarily going to be better off.

We want to look at the social investment approach. We want to look at whether or not our spending is making a positive difference to the lives of people on welfare, and the children and others they care for. We want to know that Work and Income is helping to support people into sustainable employment, and for many people that will mean the first step actually being to be placed or supported into meaningful upskilling and training. We want to know that the work they go into is secure, is well-paid, and is sustainable. We want to know that their mental health is being taken care of. We want to know that they’re able to better look after their families. We want to know that the social and economic gains from our interventions are seen within the well-being of these individuals and their families.

Measuring disadvantaged people’s well-being rather than measuring them by the hurdles they face, and how that well-being can be enhanced by Government interventions, must become the central focus of a reoriented social investment approach. I had those concerns about the focus on risk factors, and want to see more of a focus on resilience factors. What does enable people to get through those hard times? All of us are concerned that we are spending money in the right place. So there are, of course, fiscal concerns for any Government, but we also want an overriding concern to be about the well-being of these families and how we measure that as well.

Focusing on people’s potential can have a long-lasting effect. We want to change the focus of the benefit system from being a punitive, harsh system to navigate to one that concentrates on upskilling and training people, and ensuring that they are better off. Currently, we know that the number of people leaving the benefit to study, to improve themselves, has dropped every year for the past four years. Why is that? What in the system we’ve inherited has resulted in more and more people not believing that study and training is a viable option for them? This is just one of the questions that I’ll be asking.

The opportunity to train, to study, is a major issue for the future of the country as we cry out for skilled workers, and we will turn this around. This came up in our Future of Work programme, particularly the chapter that I worked on with Minister Lees-Galloway, on the security of work and income. We need to focus on this, particularly for people that find themselves in times of unemployment.

We do need to get our priorities right. Fewer people have been leaving a benefit to take up training and study than those who go into prison. It’s not good enough. And I have to say that it was concerning, with the former Government, that some of their initial actions showed how opposed they are, or were, to this approach. They cut the training incentive allowance as one of their first actions, stopping sole parents from being able to access study support or financial support to be able to study, and they cut access to adult community education.

Now, both of those things are so important, not just for helping the individual to get ahead, to be able to get into more meaningful employment and better-paid employment, but also because all the research shows us about the importance of particularly the mother role-modelling educational achievement to her children. Why did that party, when they were in Government, make the decision to do that? It was a silly decision.

I am concerned that we don’t know where the majority of people leaving a benefit end up, whether they are in a better position, and whether they are thriving. I am concerned that some people are making dangerous choices, placing themselves in hardship, just to avoid having to deal with a benefit system that has been designed to make people battle for help. The feedback that I have been getting over the last year or two has been, from social services, that they too are concerned that there are a growing number of families who are not accessing any income from work and not accessing support from welfare.

It was made difficult, deliberately, by the National Government, and it meant that we ended up with an increased amount of poverty in this country and more and more children living in poverty. We will be looking to mend the welfare safety net. That is a commitment from this side of the House. We will be looking to repackage what was a good concept, but was flawed in its roll-out, and that was the social investment approach. We will be looking to make some major changes over the next three years and moving forward. We are excited about that prospect.

Hon NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central): Madam Deputy Speaker—what a pleasure it is to say those words. Can I just personally acknowledge you. I am torn. You have been an extraordinary Minister and member of Parliament; to see you in the Chair, though, is a great day for this Parliament. I know you will be fabulous.

Look, it is a time where we take stock and we take a moment to reflect. We’ve had a general election, and obviously the parties across the House have been able to form a Government. But the message that I would give to these parties—because people are coming up to me in my electorate, in the airport—is that you will be judged by that final statement in the Prime Minister’s Speech from the Throne. It is about the people. It is about the impact that your decisions have on the people of New Zealand, and the detail matters. And the message that I am getting from constituents, from business people, from people in the community sector, is that this is a Government that is in a rush, that hasn’t thought through the detail, and that is trying to dismantle a whole lot of things without reflecting on what may be some good things.

The first is where the Government has campaigned on change. I would just ask them to reflect on a couple of areas. We know that what matters in terms of young people getting a job is for the half a million small-business people in New Zealand, any costs that they have will literally determine whether they can employ a young person. So why would this Government, early on in its tenure, rush ahead with things like the fuel tax and dramatically increasing the minimum wage? We increased the minimum wage. Every year that we were in office we were increasing the minimum wage, but if you do it so dramatically—if the Government does that—then young people don’t get jobs, and that means that you are countering what your key objectives are. The costs that businesses—the reason that businesses are so worried and confidence is dropping is because of all the costs that are being proposed, whether it’s a fuel tax, whether it’s the minimum wage, whether it’s the new labour laws, or whether it’s the uncertainty around immigration. That means that young people may be hurt as a result of that. Please think through the detail and understand that it does and can hurt young people.

In the area of social investment, in the area of education, what we know, again, is that we all agree—on this side of the House we support, and in fact a Cabinet decision happened, to move to a system of progression. But every parent in New Zealand has a right to know how their child is doing. The first thing that the new Minister of Education said was “We’re scrapping national standards.” I have been inundated by parents across New Zealand who have said, “Fine, but what are we replacing it with?” There is huge uncertainty.

Please work with us to ensure that we have—look, we support national standards, but please work with us to ensure that we guarantee every parent has that right to know how their child is doing. It is not OK to send schools and families into complete chaos by saying you’re scrapping national standards, without the detail of a system of progression.

In the area of partnership schools, again we are seeing a Government that is in a huge rush, is inexperienced, and unfortunately, in my view—and I am a little bit concerned about this—is showing to be deeply partisan. When it comes to partnership schools, again we got a huge amount of conversation from the Opposition about how much they cared about disadvantaged children. Well, many of these children—many of these children—have not achieved in other areas of our education system. They deserve to have a chance to be able to do well, to be able to get an education, and to go into the future and have a great job. And what have we had from the current Government? Complete and utter chaos—complete confusion.

Initially, the Minister said—and we heard this through the campaign—we had Willie Jackson, we had Kelvin Davis, and we had Chris Hipkins all saying completely different things. We had a policy that potentially the legislation would be repealed. Then we heard that they would be negotiated on a case by case basis. Then—and I couldn’t believe it—I literally looked on my phone and Chris Hipkins had said to a journalist that four of those schools would be gone by 2019.

Lo and behold, thank goodness, he has reversed that position, and now we have a review under way, until today. Suddenly, we now have in the motion a piece of legislation that would wipe out one school. It is complete chaos. It is completely partisan. It is not about disadvantaged children.

Please work with us. Work with those schools. We accept that you want to get rid of the partnership school model. We accept that you are going to convert them into something else. But they deserve to know what exactly are the criteria that they are going to be held to. They deserve to know who is doing this review. They deserve to know, as does the taxpayer, what the costs of converting some of these partnership schools are. These are basic things and this is the basic way to treat people, and these families and these kids deserve that.

We’ve just heard from Carmel Sepuloni in terms of the area of welfare, and we’ve heard about social investment. She made some comments regarding, again, the decile system. I know that the Minister has probably only had a briefing to the incoming Minister and very few papers. But her statement regarding our risk index system was wrong.

We unashamedly wanted to scrap the decile system because it was discriminatory, and everybody that I meet agrees with that. The whole purpose of the risk index was to provide something that was anonymous and that wouldn’t be discriminatory. But, again, as we heard from the Leader of the Opposition today, one of the greatest tool kits in one of the greatest machines to be built, to actually help people, those people who have family violence, criminal justice notifications, or who are in receipt of a benefit, and to help those children who have been in State care—this Government has already set about to dismantle it.

I would ask the Government to reflect, to take a breather, and to realise it will be judged on these next few months. How about you recognise that you spent a number of years in Opposition and while you do not agree with everything that we did, if you do the slash and burn and get rid of a whole lot of things, then people will be hurt and people will remember.

The detail matters. Trying to scrap national standards without a system to replace it and trying to say that partnership schools will be gone, maybe into something else, without telling those parents whether their kids are turning up to school next year matters. The detail matters.

So whether it is education or social areas or that business is deciding whether to employ someone but is hearing about a fuel tax and is hearing that the minimum wage is going up for all of these people, their circumstances matter. In the words of Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, at the heart of this Government is supposed to be people. If the members opposite care about those people, then they will not be in a rush. They will not be as partisan and they will think through the detail. He tangata, he tangata, he tangata.

Hon TRACEY MARTIN (NZ First): Kia ora, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can I first of all just say how brilliant it is to see a woman sitting in the Chair. It’s high time—

Hon Ruth Dyson: And a competent woman, at that.

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: And a confident, strong, articulate, intelligent—just a well-rounded, well-deserved woman sitting in the Chair. So it’s wonderful to have you there. I did actually pitch last time for a woman to get into the Chair because I thought it was high time we had one again. I continued to get the answer that, well, we had one once. So now we have another opportunity, Madam Deputy Speaker, through you, to show them how it’s done. So thank you very much and I welcome you to the Chair.

I just want to take this moment also to acknowledge you as the previous Minister, not only as the previous Minister for Social Development but the previous Minister for Oranga Tamariki. I’ve been privileged in the last few days to have been sworn in as the Minister for Children, which has responsibility for Oranga Tamariki. As learned colleagues have mentioned, we are a new Government—I think, 12 days—and there’s a lot of absorption going on, in my case anyway. There are a lot of briefings and a lot of absorption. But one of the things I can confidently say is that the structure that you set into place, the vision that you put into place, and the people that you put at the top of that organisation I believe set it in good stead for the work that was intended.

Speaking as the Minister for Children, I want you to be confident that we will continue that pathway and the vision that you set for that organisation, and that was to put children at the heart of all decisions. So I want to acknowledge you in the work done in that area.

It’s an organisation that’s only six months old, and there is a large culture shift that needs to take place. I spoke to a gathering of 217 senior managers of Oranga Tamariki yesterday, and stayed for an hour or so to actually listen to their conversations. So I know the challenges that they have, but I believe that the people that are inside that organisation are up to the challenges.

At every level of that organisation, there is a desire and a will, and if I pick up on the desire and the will and the conversation that the member who just resumed her seat before me, the Hon Nikki Kaye, talked about, I believe there is a desire and a will across this House to actually improve the outcomes for all of our children, but particularly probably for the 5,600 in State care currently, particularly for those that are entering the youth justice system—and there are systems that we need to improve so that they don’t end up in the youth justice system—particularly for the 190,000-odd children that come to the attention of Oranga Tamariki through notifications that then have to be triaged and managed as to their level of need. So I acknowledge that, and I welcome the opportunity to work across the House, particularly in that portfolio area.

I do have to say, however, because this is a place of truth, that for the Hon Nikki Kaye to reach out and ask and request us to work closely with the Opposition—it’s a little interesting to juxtapose that against yesterday and today. It’s a little difficult to juxtapose that against the Leader of the Opposition’s statements that they will make select committee very difficult.

I want to make a request of the Opposition members. Select committee is one of the best things we do in this Parliament. It is one of the things that we do in our democracy that other nations come to have a look at. This system is the Westminster system, but the United Kingdom came here to see our select committee process because of the collegiality and the way that politics is put aside more often than not to come up with good legislation for this country. So I put out a plea to the Opposition. You may have 54; I don’t know how many members you’ve got. You may have that many members, right? Honestly, it’s not relevant, but anyway, you may have that many members, but please don’t use it as a threat.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Numbers matter.

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: Please don’t use it as a threat at select committee, Mr Woodhouse, because that is what was put forward. Select committee is where we are collegial and we work for the betterment of New Zealand.

So I understand the National Party are disappointed. I understand that there was an assumption that they would rule by right and go forward and carry on on their pathway, and I understand—

Matt Doocey: It’s only because you purged all your centre-right New Zealand First MPs.

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: —that that will take a while for the National Party to get over, but the select committee is not the place, Mr Doocey. The select committee is not the place. There is a reason why the public of New Zealand has placed you there and has actually asked you.

So if we go back to the Speech from the Throne, you are quite right. The tone is different than that of the speeches given on behalf of the Rt Hon John Key or on behalf of Bill English and the National Party. They dealt a lot with figures. Those speeches dealt a lot with money. It was disappointing to hear the Hon Amy Adams joke, in a way, about child poverty, and I think she said—what—“Child poverty, yada yada ya.”

Chris Penk: Oh, come on. Give me a break.

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: Go on, have a look at the Hansard, young man, and you might find that that’s exactly what she said. So it’s really disappointing to have child poverty dismissed in that way.

This Speech from the Throne was about people. It wasn’t about banks.

Alastair Scott: No, it wasn’t. It was about spending.

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: It wasn’t about money. It wasn’t about—I mean, there’s a young man sitting up the back there, from the Wairarapa, who—

Alastair Scott: It was about spending—spending other people’s money.

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: It’s interesting. The people we’re talking about don’t have any money to spend, Mr Alastair Scott. These people don’t have any money to spend. They are the people that you forgot about. The people that we are now going to bring to the fore and out into the light are the people that your Government forgot about. That was what the Speech from the Throne was about. We are going to turn this conversation to be about New Zealanders—New Zealanders first.

New Zealand First, the Labour Party, and the Green Party have, in a mature MMP environment, got a strong and collegial working relationship. We understand the direction we are going in. We have a plan and an agreement between all of us to take this country there. What’s interesting is that this party, who could not get reform through because they couldn’t get enough friends together to make it happen, is attempting to create a narrative of discord. It will not work. We are committed and connected and collegial on this side of the House. And our conversations will always be about the people, and particularly about children—children inside homes that have not been able to afford the appropriate amount of food, and children inside homes where the stress of violence and other things have taken place.

And I do find it a little rich that the Government members stand up and criticise—let’s take, for example, this Government’s commitment to children—by talking about national standards. This was a Government who said that they believed in Māori children, but the first thing they did was take away Te Kotahitanga out of our schools, and, at the same time, they convinced the country they were replacing it with something, but the budget went away the following year and all plans around supporting Māori children inside mainstream schools were gone.

This is this Government. I ask the public of New Zealand to go back and look at this Opposition’s, or the previous Government’s, speeches with regard to the changes they made in the first 100 days when they came in three terms ago. Go and have a look at the shock that this country went into, the cuts that this country and these people, our citizens, had to endure. Go back and have a look, because there’s too many young members over there deciding that they will make some critique of the Speech from the Throne on this side, which puts people first, without knowing their own history. So go and have a look before you decide that the sky is falling, and then, once you’ve gone and looked at your own history, some of us on this side might accept a little bit more critique from those on that side. Kia ora.

Hon TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua): Madam Deputy Speaker, kia ora. Thank you very much. It’s a privilege to stand, so soon after this House has reconvened, to speak in this debate. May I start by congratulating the Speaker on his election and appointment as Speaker of our Parliament. I have observed him over nine years in this Parliament. I believe that he has played every role here, and believe that this final one that he has before him is one that he will deliver with some aplomb and will be astute at. The reason for that is he is passionate about Parliament, and I look forward to the internal struggle that occasionally there will be—putting the politician in him aside and focusing purely on what’s good for this House.

Madam Deputy Speaker, may I also congratulate you on your appointment as Deputy Speaker, and I know you too will do a wonderful job. We share neighbouring electorates, and it’s been a pleasure to work closely with you over previous parliaments—as it will be in this one—to serve the people of the Bay of Plenty so very well. You now have the opportunity as a Deputy Speaker to do even more, not only for the people of the Bay of Plenty but, more broadly, for all of New Zealand and this House.

By the way—and I don’t want to be political too quickly—congratulations to all of my colleagues in the Bay of Plenty. We hold every seat there. It is the—one, two, three—fourth term where we hold every single seat. It does show me, as opposed to what the last speaker in this House said—the speaker from New Zealand First, Tracey Martin—that not everybody listens to everything that New Zealand First says, and that’s a good thing in the Bay of Plenty.

May I also congratulate Tamati Coffey, who I share some area with in the Bay of Plenty. Tamati, of course, is the newly elected member of Parliament for the Wairakei seat. He lives in Rotorua, and I know he’s passionate and will work very hard on behalf of his constituents.

The new Government—I want to congratulate them and to congratulate Ministers. You’ve been given a real opportunity and honour, which is something that, actually, nobody on this side of the House takes for granted or believes that you don’t have to work very, very hard for. I wish you all well. I know that—as I did when I first became a Minister—you will find many of the things you want to do much more challenging. But the solution to these things is to look for solutions; not just do what it is you thought was right before you had the ability of having the wisdom of officials and others.

To the three-headed Hydra that Tracey Martin was just talking about, which is this Government—and I must say that Ms Martin’s speech as a new Minister was the best speech I’ve heard so far from the Government and from a Government Minister, which I accept is not saying too much at this stage. But I would also say that the challenge that they will have is keeping one group over there away from one group over here, because the Government was formed before the leaders of all parties could say they had actually met each other, and I’m not sure that’s the best way to start something that will be cohesive, that will work well, and that will deliver for New Zealanders. I don’t think the issue is necessarily with the Greens, and I’m not sure you’ll hear me say that a lot during this term, but in this instance I don’t think it is about the Greens. I think the challenge will be how you put aside some of those issues that have been between these two parties in the past, and it’s not by chance that they sit so far away from each other.

The Leader of the Opposition has asked me to continue in my role for National as the spokesperson for trade, and it’s something that I’m extremely pleased to do. I’m grateful to him for that. By the way, wasn’t that a fantastic speech from the Leader of the Opposition? I’ve waited nine years for a great speech from the Leader of the Opposition and, finally, it has been delivered. It actually was good enough to be a speech from a Prime Minister. But look, we’ll give the Prime Minister some time to come to terms with, you know, speaking about content for 30 minutes.

But when it comes to trade, I hope all parties in this Parliament accept and agree that trade and our access to overseas countries is detrimentally important to our economy—without question, it’s important to our economy. We’ve heard other parties, including Labour, say that they are a party of trade, and I hope that over the next three years, as the Opposition spokesman for trade, I can actually support them in what they go to do and that they do deliver high-quality deals for New Zealand.

Now, in the last two years that I was Minister of Trade, I spoke a lot about the need for bipartisanship, and certainly from the Opposition—I can’t speak for one member of the Opposition, but for every other member here on trade I believe I can, because we’re quite a big Opposition—we will support trade deals. The Government and our negotiators—the hard-working officials at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade that go and do the negotiations for us—will be able to go overseas knowing that they have the support of this Parliament, and knowing that when they come back with a high-quality deal, New Zealand can actually honour its commitments.

The first opportunity for that—I don’t want to call it a challenge, but an opportunity—comes this weekend at APEC in Vietnam, where 11 countries will come together and consider the future of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement. New Zealand has shown considerable leadership on TPP in the entire time it has been before this Parliament, from when it was first launched—

Clayton Mitchell: You don’t have to give up your sovereignty to have a trade agreement.

Hon TODD McCLAY: —under a Labour Government until today. The member opposite for New Zealand First is already quibbling, but the challenge that he has—irrespective of what he thinks about trade—is that as part of a coalition Government, he will have to actually vote for these sorts of things. He will have to vote for these sorts of things. So when you talk about sovereignty, what it suggests is that when he says he’s from New Zealand First, what he wants to do is actually focus on only the harm that others could do to us in New Zealand—an example of that happening—instead of focusing on where you can find opportunities to deliver for all New Zealanders. Now, I encourage the new Government, when they go away to APEC this weekend, to deliver for that for New Zealanders.

A lot of work has been done by all of the countries, including New Zealand, during this year in stitching that back together after the US pulled out of the agreement. Many of the things New Zealanders were less sure about and were concerned about actually have already been removed, not through renegotiation, but through the 11 agreeing a way forward that doesn’t deliver benefits to the US, who’ve pulled out, but also offers the opportunity for them to come back and to be encouraged back at some stage.

The biologics, some of the intellectual property—those things have already been removed during the course of this year in our discussions. But I want the Government to know when they go away that they have the support of this Parliament and they have a majority in this Parliament, because that New Zealand First member has just indicated that he won’t support trade. Of course, the Greens have never supported a trade agreement in this Parliament.

Clayton Mitchell: Typical—putting words into other people’s mouths.

Hon TODD McCLAY: New Zealand First has never supported a trade deal in this Parliament, and if that member is saying New Zealand First will support trade deals in this Parliament for the first time going forward, then, actually, that suggests he’s more interested in his job than in the rhetoric he has had around trade over the last nine years.

But, ultimately, TPP is important for New Zealand, as other trade deals are, and the Government goes away with our support. It’s not something that was always well-known or assumed over the last nine years, but they certainly do. And the reason for that is trade is good for New Zealand, trade is very important to the regions and to all of our country, and, ultimately, high-quality trade deals deliver for New Zealanders everywhere.

So, finally, what I want to do is just ask a few questions that others may consider as this debate unfolds over the coming days and weeks. Will New Zealand First and the Greens support the Labour Government when it comes to a vote on TPP in this House? Will New Zealand First, particularly, and the Greens support the Labour Government when it comes time to put legislation through this House for the upgrade of the China free-trade agreement that was started last year? At APEC it was announced, and it is unfolding and should be finished within a year. It is an agreement that will update what New Zealanders are able to do and will modernise. Will the two support parties of the Labour Government vote for that?

When it comes to the EU deal that we’re on track to deliver in New Zealand within the next few years—and, in fact, just a month ago, the president of the European Commission said he wanted to fast track a deal with New Zealand that was announced earlier in the year and to have that done before Brexit is completed, where possible—will New Zealand First and the Greens vote for that deal or not? If the answer is that they won’t, then the agreement that has been formed is shambolic when it comes to trade.

But Labour can depend upon a party that has always put trade before politics and delivered for New Zealanders, and that’s the National Party. They get to go away and negotiate these deals on behalf of New Zealand knowing that they can have some support. They need not compromise because they need to worry about where they will get their votes from—New Zealand First in coalition, or the Greens in confidence and supply—but they can go and do the best deal possible for New Zealand.

I commend the Trans-Pacific Partnership 11 as a high-quality deal to this House, if and when it is delivered on this weekend. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): It is a privilege to be able to address this debate here today. I do want to start by acknowledging Mr Speaker on his appointment. I first met him back in the 1990s, in the context of the parliamentary rugby side, when he was a co-captain and I was a junior National speech writer. He never selected me for the playing XV; he always made me in charge of bringing the oranges on at half-time, so I always thought he had it in for me. I’m hoping that in his new role he will look more favourably upon me, in terms of taking a debate call in the House. I want to acknowledge you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for your appointment. It’s a great thrill to have you in the Chair, and I know that Parliament will be all the better for it.

It’s also nice to reflect that six years ago today was when I was fortunate to be here in Parliament and to second the Address in Reply debate, and it was a very proud moment for me and my family. Also, reflecting six years on, how proud I am to have been part of the National Government, and, more latterly, part of Cabinet, which worked very hard alongside all New Zealanders to deliver a strong economy, great job growth over the past few years, and confidence in the future, and reversing the flow of migration across the Tasman has been a wonderful thing to see in recent times. Sure, the world is never perfect at any given stage. We all have challenges, and we’ve seen the challenges of rapid growth around the country.

I must say, I was a little bit offended, like many New Zealanders, by Winston Peters’ description of the situation that he was inheriting on the night of his point of decision. One lady I was talking to in the local supermarket said to me, “Imagine if a new CEO was just taking on a job and said, ‘Oh well, the company’s all going to go down the tubes in the next couple of years, but don’t blame me because it’s all going down the tubes and I’m taking over this new role. But don’t blame me—everything’s going down the gurgler.’ ” It’s such a bizarre way to start a Government, and a bizarre way to frame the beginning of what is supposed to be a hopeful new Government. It was a deeply distressing moment for many of us. My only hope is that the leadership of the Labour Party will be able to deliver something better out of it than that.

We have shown already that we are going to be an active and vigorous Opposition, ready to hold the Government to account, but, of course, we’re also conscious of the fact that an important role in Opposition is to take the time to reflect and to think about the policies that we have brought, the progress of the country, and what we could do better in the times ahead. It seems to me that there are three challenges that I might refer to. One is the most fundamental challenge that we’ve always faced as a country, and that is how to maintain and grow our international competitiveness, because that is what our living standards ultimately rely upon.

If I had a slight frustration during the campaign trail—I heard it a lot from the Opposition spokespeople, including from David Parker, who was standing with me in the Epsom electorate—it was this idea that “New Zealand is a wealthy country, we should be able to afford to do X, Y, Z, and people should have higher incomes.”, etc., etc., as if it is somehow based on a matter of “Right, this is what we deserve as a country.” Well, there’s nothing that we deserve that we don’t earn from our own hard work, and we earn those incomes only if we maintain international competitiveness in a very competitive world. So New Zealand businesses have to go out there and deliver a better product at a better price every year—year in, year out—in a very competitive world. This idea that we can just keep adding costs to New Zealand businesses and that it will have no effect on our international competitiveness is of course nonsense. So we have to be very careful of that over the coming times, and the early indications from this Government are pretty alarming.

The second area is continuing to make progress on dealing with the long-term challenge of helping people off welfare and into work. We’ve been very successful in the past few years in creating up to 10,000 new jobs every month in this economy, which is the most powerful thing you can do for young people, particularly, and anybody wanting to find workers—to provide the jobs for them. We want to see that continuing. I do worry. We’ve also—and you, Madam Deputy Speaker, have been an integral part of this over the past few years, around working with our welfare system to encourage people to get back to work and to look for work in every opportunity. We will be watching very closely to make sure that this Government doesn’t go backwards on some of the progress that we’ve made in that area, which has enabled people to have that satisfaction of work, working on the basis that everybody can do something. Not everybody is in the position to be in full-time work—particularly with young children—but everybody can do something.

Thirdly, I think we should be thinking creatively about how we address what is a wider global issue that every developed country in the world is facing at the moment, about how you deal with wealth inequality. We have seen during the last decade—since the global financial crisis, with interest rates being at very historically low levels all around the world, an explosion in asset prices all around the world, including in housing—particularly in highly desirable countries such as New Zealand and highly desirable cities such as Auckland and Tauranga and Wellington—and that certainly has had an impact on wealth inequality. There’s no question about that, there’s no debate about it, and it is a very challenging issue. We as a Government worked very hard in this area, primarily to increase the supply of new housing to take pressure out of that dynamic, and we’ll be watching very closely the efforts made by the new Government to take that further. Personally, I think we will support things that will help, but we’ll be very actively thinking ourselves about how to make better progress in that area in the years to come.

In the areas that I’ve picked up, around tertiary—well it’s a very interesting sort of situation that we’ve got here. What we have is—it was interesting. I was hearing the Prime Minister say this morning that Labour has a clear plan. After nine years in Opposition, they’ve come in with a clear plan. But then she was on the radio this morning talking about immigration and the numbers, and was not really clear about what they were doing there. I know during the campaign they promised quite clearly that they were targeting a reduction of international students by 15,000 to 22,000 a year. That’s the specific target they had in their policy. I would make the point that last year we had about 70,000-odd international students coming into New Zealand, so we’re looking at an explicit target of reducing the international education student numbers by about a quarter. If you think about that, this is a $4.5 billion industry that employs upwards of 30,000 New Zealanders. You don’t have to be Archimedes to work out that if they do what they say they’re going to do, we’re going to have hundreds of millions of dollars taken out of the New Zealand economy and thousands of New Zealanders losing their jobs over the next few years.

They’re not just jobs in terms of just teaching these international students, but it’s the international students who come and live here and work here, it’s the service industries that support them, and the tourist industries that entertainment them when they finish their studies. So it drives me a little bit crazy to hear the Prime Minister saying how much she cares about people and how much this Government will care about people. Well, what about the people who are going to be losing their jobs because they are cutting—lopping—one-quarter off the international education market? What about those thousands of people who get up every morning and do a good job for their clients or their international students, who in their hearts want to go out and teach them and who get up in the morning and do their job with great satisfaction, who are going to have that taken away from them because this Labour Government doesn’t believe in that sector; doesn’t believe, particularly, in private education in any way, shape, or form; and is particularly targeting the private training establishment sectors. What does she say to those people?

Rest assured, we will be watching very closely and making sure that that important sector remains robust and strong and can continue to contribute to our strong economy and to deliver jobs in this country, as it has in the past few years. Like every industry in this country, there are challenges in international education, but the logical way to go about it is to focus on the enforcement of the rules and be active in that area, but do not lop off a quarter of what is an important industry for this country. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Minister of Conservation): E Te Māngai o Te Whare, tēnā koe. Tuarua, ki ngā mema o tō tātou Whare, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Salutations to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Secondly, greetings, acknowledgments, and accolades to you the members of our House and to us all.]

Congratulations, Madam Deputy Speaker. I look forward to you and Speaker Mallard’s rigorous and astute guidance of this House. Can I also endorse the comments by my colleague the Hon Tracey Martin. The National Opposition has an opportunity to ensure that select committees deliver much better legislation. As a Minister, I want to see legislation that comes back to the House from select committees having been thoroughly considered, having taken on board the comments and submissions of submitters, and having been improved. There’s an opportunity now for us to strengthen our democracy by having select committees work in the way that they are intended, rather than in the past term, when Ministers used them as a rubber stamp, and it was Ministers that controlled the legislation rather than select committees. So please use that opportunity and be constructive.

It’s a very great honour to have been elected back into this Parliament by New Zealanders, and it’s a very great privilege to serve under our Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, whom I have no doubt will be absolutely outstanding as Prime Minister. It’s a privilege, too, to speak as the first Green Minister of Conservation, Minister for Land Information, and an Associate Minister for the Environment. I’m proud to assure New Zealanders that, under this Government, we will have a Minister of Conservation and an Associate Minister for the Environment who believes in nature and in safeguarding the values of our species here in Aotearoa.

We believe in the right of New Zealanders to have access to clean rivers, healthy beaches, and wild landscapes where our indigenous plants and wildlife thrive and where there are adequate funds invested in predator control to get them out of the serious trouble that they are currently in. We believe that we have got a responsibility to safeguard these species, which came to these islands so many years ago and are the first inhabitants of Aotearoa, so that generations unborn can enjoy them and so that they can thrive for their own sake. We haven’t seen that under the past National Government, because they believed in nature for exploitation, not in sustaining it for its own sake, and not in recognising its importance as natural capital, as a natural asset that provides us with clean water, with the air that we breathe, with the places where we recreate, and that provides the infrastructure for critical industries like tourism and like our primary sector.

Nature is at the heart of our success as a country. It’s these wild and distinctive landscapes that are so important to Māori and that are at the core of our identity as New Zealanders. Nature is at the backbone of our economy. It’s critical to the success of our provinces. It’s where tourists go. It’s essential for jobs in the provinces, and it provides economic opportunities there. So we have got a duty to safeguard nature to ensure that our environment is healthy, because a healthy environment is the basis of a healthy economy—not the other way round, which is what we’ve seen over the last nine years. It’s our job to safeguard it, not to strip-mine it, and not to commercialise it, as National has sought to do in its previous term. That has been what has happened under National. We’ve had our rivers, our aquifers, exploited for intensive agriculture, dryland ecosystems in the Mackenzie Basin and Canterbury and elsewhere converted to farm pasture, and biodiversity values destroyed, and for what? A few dollars. We cannot have a strong economy long term if we destroy the natural capital that that economy depends upon.

It was under National that we saw conservation law changed under urgency to allow logging on conservation land, something that had never happened in the previous 30 years of the department’s existence. That won’t happen under this Government. It was under National that we saw an ambitious plan for predator-free New Zealand but no plan to implement it and no adequate funding either. That won’t happen under this Government. There are 4,000 species—indigenous species—many of them found only here in Aotearoa New Zealand that are threatened with or are at risk of extinction, yet under National only 16 percent of the conservation estate had sustained predator control, and only 338 of those 4,000 species were under active management by the Department of Conservation (DOC). There is wide agreement across the three parties in Government that National has underfunded conservation and has failed to recognise the importance of nature to our economy.

That’s why there is a strong commitment in both our confidence and supply agreement and the coalition agreement with New Zealand First that we will invest in conservation. We need to do that if we are to safeguard our security long term and the security of species like geckos, skinks, bats, and our native birds like the kea, the kiwi, and the kōkako. DOC is responsible as kaitiaki for all of these species on our conservation lands and in the marine reserves, but those species don’t know administrative boundaries. They live on private land as well, and under the former Government we had the department failing in its statutory responsibility to be an advocate for nature, to ensure that decision makers like councils knew about the value of those species, their habitats, and the impact that developments like conversion to dairying and like irrigation could have on them. Under this Government, we will restore DOC’s ability to speak for nature and to ensure that the enormous technical knowledge and expertise of Department of Conservation staff are brought to bear in significant resource consent decisions and plans that are going to impact on our native species, on our plants and wildlife, and on our wild landscapes.

Under National, we had funding for advocacy slashed to $600,000 annually. We had a reduction of 40 percent in the number of planners who could speak for DOC in those Resource Management Act (RMA) hearings. Under this Government, we want an effective RMA. We want those matters of national importance that are set out in section 6 to be taken account of by councils and to be brought to bear in decision making, not the exploitation we saw under the former Government.

There is a lot to do under this Government. We have a major challenge in getting rid of the despair and the gloom about how nature was treated over the last nine years. We are going to change that. We will be significantly increasing the funding for conservation so that we can improve the prospects for many of these 4,000 species that are teetering on the brink.

We want to ensure that we plan better for tourism. We’ve had a major increase in visitors to New Zealand, but a failure to actually plan for their impacts on areas like the Mackenzie Basin, where we have small councils with a small rating base struggling to cope with thousands of extra visitors and without the infrastructure.

We need to ensure that there are more jobs in the regions. We can do that if we develop more facilities for tourism in our provincial cities and towns, but not by commercialising our national parks and not by commercialising our conservation lands by allowing big luxurious lodges and other commercial developments there.

We will speak for nature, because we recognise that it is at the heart of our economy and that we have got a lot to do to rectify the neglect and the underfunding of the past nine years. It’s a challenge I look forward to, and I want to reassure all New Zealanders that we recognise the importance of these lands for them and we will be investing in our future and the future of these species that call this place home. We can do so much better, and we will. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

Debate interrupted.

Members Sworn

Members Sworn

Munokoa Poto Williams was presented to the Speaker, made the affirmation required by law, and took her seat in the House.

Mr Speaker administered the Oath of Allegiance to Priyanca Radhakrishnan, who then took her seat in the House.

Address in Reply

Address in Reply

Debate resumed.

Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister of Housing and Urban Development): I move, That this debate be now adjourned.

Motion agreed to.

Urgency

Urgency

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I move, That urgency be accorded the introduction, first reading, and second reading of the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill.

This bill was part of the Government’s 100-day plan—is part of the Government’s 100-day plan—and has been well traversed in this House on several occasions previously. Previously, the bill was passed through all stages, to third reading, before being voted down the first time. The second time, it was passed through all stages before being financially vetoed at the third reading. Therefore, the Government does not believe it is necessary to take the bill through a further select committee process.

Urgency is required in order to introduce the bill and have a first reading today. Without the use of urgency, the Government would be unable to progress any other business today other than the Address in Reply debate, because the Order Paper has only just been reinstated. Therefore, there is an important element to doing that.

We did seek whether there would be leave forthcoming in order to introduce the bill without the need for urgency and do the first reading today, and it was clear that leave would not be granted for that. We also sought whether leave could be granted for the bill to have its first and second readings without the need for urgency, and there was not leave forthcoming for that either. Therefore, in order to progress this matter, in order to give the parents of New Zealand certainty as to when their paid parental leave increase will come into force, the Government believes that urgency is required.

A party vote was called for on the question, That urgency be accorded.

Ayes 60

New Zealand Labour 45; New Zealand First 8; Green Party 7.

Noes 55

New Zealand National 55.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill

First Reading

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): I move, That the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

This Labour-led Government is committed to doing its part to give children the best possible start in life, and this bill committing New Zealand to provide 26 weeks of paid parental leave (PPL) by 2020 will help to reduce some of the stress placed on families when a new child arrives. Extending paid parental leave is just one component of our overall families package, which includes increasing Working for Families payments and extending it to 30,000 more families, introducing the Best Start payment for all families, and additional accommodation and winter energy payments.

Through the introduction of the Best Start scheme and our increase in Working for Families payments, the Government will target money and support for babies and toddlers at low and middle income families. We believe that every Kiwi child deserves the best start in life, regardless of their background.

In the first year of a child’s life—particularly the first six months—it is important for a newborn’s development to get full-time personal care. It is also important for parents and caregivers to get support to manage budgetary and other pressures. Full-time care and monetary support can greatly assist with allowing the time and space for parents and other caregivers to develop close bonds with children, and with reducing parental and family stress. The measures also assist with enabling mothers to breastfeed exclusively for the first six months, which is the World Health Organization’s recommendation. All of these things combined support children’s health and development, and improve short-term and long-term child and societal outcomes.

I acknowledge that the previous Government did take steps to expand the reach of our parental leave scheme, including by broadening the types of working arrangements that could qualify for parental leave. The last Government also made increases in the duration of parental leave payments. However, despite having a majority of the House in support of Labour member Sue Moroney’s bill to extend paid parental leave to 26 weeks, it was vetoed by the former Prime Minister, who was the then Minister of Finance. “It couldn’t be done.”, he said. Well, we say it can, and it will, because we will be a Government defined by its heart, putting people at the centre of everything that we do.

There is currently a fundamental shortcoming in our parental leave scheme. New Zealand’s current paid parental leave entitlement of 18 weeks is one of the lowest in the OECD, with the average number of weeks of paid leave for mothers among OECD countries being 48 weeks. Eighteen weeks is well short of the six months, which, according to the Australian Productivity Commission and the OECD, is the minimum time necessary for child and maternal health and welfare benefits. We know from earlier quantitative surveys on the parental leave scheme, and from the many public submissions in support of the two members’ bills sponsored by Sue Moroney, that many mothers in New Zealand are compelled to return to work sooner than they wish to after the birth of a child, for financial reasons. In fact, the data told us that a third of mothers taking paid parental leave were working five months after they started their parental leave.

The majority of recipients of paid parental leave take the leave at the end of other paid leave, such as annual leave, in order to maintain income for as long as possible. The Government is introducing this bill to enhance the paid parental leave provisions, to ensure families with a newborn—and other primary carers responsible for young children—are supported, to give that child the best possible start in life.

An earlier evaluation of parental leave, which looked into the experience of employers, found that two-thirds of employers agreed that PPL allows them to plan and manage workloads with greater confidence, and 70 percent said that PPL helped them to retain experienced staff. Enhancing paid parental leave for families should not have an adverse impact for business and employers. Employers are already required to provide job-protected leave to eligible employees for a minimum period of six months if the employee has been working for them for at least six months but no less than 12. For employees who have worked for them for 12 months or more, the period of extended leave is one year. The change we are progressing today does not require employers to provide any additional leave. What it may do is provide more certainty for employers, given the likelihood that more parents will take the full 26 weeks if the leave is paid. This may give greater confidence to employers about the length of time they need to backfill the role.

If I may turn my attention to the mechanics of the bill that is currently before the House. The bill is a straightforward one. It provides for an increase in the duration of paid parental leave from the current 18 weeks to 26 weeks. This is achieved in two stages: first, an increase to 22 weeks from 1 July 2018, with a further increase to 26 weeks from 1 July 2020. As with previous extensions to our PPL scheme, these new time frames will apply where the actual or expected date of delivery of the baby is on or after the date of the change. In this case, babies born on or after 1 July 2018 will be eligible for the additional four weeks of paid parental leave, and babies born on or after 1 July 2020 will be eligible for the full 26 weeks. In the case of whāngai, Home for Life carers, and formal adoption, the relevant date is that on which they assume the permanent care of the child. This will benefit the full range of primary carers currently eligible for parental leave payments, providing increased support for working parents with newborns, and families taking on the permanent care of children under the age of six. It will enable those carers who are not currently in a position to take additional unpaid leave to reach the six-month period, considered a minimum for optimal child development, and where many benefits of full-time personalised care are realised. It is our view that this investment in the well-being of parents and their newborns and young children is critical to achieving better social and economic outcomes for all New Zealanders.

I want to acknowledge the efforts of many people, but in particular those of Sue Moroney in championing this issue in this House. This is a matter that this House has supported twice over in the past, and it gives me great pleasure to bring it in as a Government bill, with the opportunity for us to finally progress this issue and achieve the 26 weeks’ paid parental leave that New Zealanders have been crying out for for so many years.

This bill responds to the needs of working parents and caregivers and newborn children, by providing better assistance to provide more financial certainty. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn): Mr Speaker, thank you. I will take a call in this first reading under urgency on the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill, and note that it has been tabled only a very few minutes ago. The Opposition, of course, therefore, are having their first chance to have a look at it. But I see that it’s not just the Opposition that haven’t had the chance to put it together; there is this somewhat flimsy accompaniment with the bill, which is simply called a “cover sheet”, and which clearly has done away with the requirement for a regulatory impact statement (RIS) in the normal way, which I do find somewhat interesting given the vehemence with which the Government, when in Opposition, insisted on due process and insisted on proper regulatory impact statements. They jumped up and down with outrage when there wasn’t a full assessment and ability to understand the impacts. This cover sheet, I have to note, notes that there will not be any regulatory impact assessment for 100-day plan priorities. Clearly, the Government thinks that the most important things they are doing don’t deserve a proper impact assessment. In fact, Treasury notes that the RIS contains only very minimal analysis of likely impacts. Fiscal impacts are apparently set out in the Cabinet paper, but, of course, we haven’t been given any of that, and social impacts are only touched on, but there’s no assessment of broader impacts.

So straight away, the very first piece of legislation that this new Government brings to the House—firstly, they’re using urgency where there is utterly no reason to do so. This is a bill that takes effect—it’s very first iteration takes effect—on 1 July next year. And yet, straight away, this is a Government that is so unready to govern that they didn’t have their legislation ready and don’t trust themselves to put it to a select committee, where the public, very properly, would want to have a say. I say that because, while the National Opposition is going to support the bill—and I will touch on why that is in a moment—the National Opposition can absolutely see that there are opportunities in this bill where the public would want to have a say, because, actually, it is not just about the number of weeks, which is all that Labour had in their manifesto. There are some very real issues.

Now, I would point out to the House that, actually, it was National that increased paid parental leave from 14 to 18 weeks, and it was National that campaigned as well on increasing it to 22 weeks. But I would point out to the Government that, actually, we would like to think that, given that this is an issue that they have chosen to put forward as their first piece of legislation, they would want to see it work as well as they could for young parents.

There are some very important issues that, as far as I can tell in the limited time the Government has permitted us to see the legislation, simply aren’t in here. Those are issues that we included in our policy, like ensuring that there is flexibility, so that both parents can take some of that time off together, and also ensuring that there is other support for parents and newborns, which we had put in our policies, around free dental care during pregnancy and more IVF funding. So even if you didn’t want to go into the wider newborn support, there are very real issues to look at in how the weeks of paid parental leave are allocated.

I think it is really very revealing, and very sad, that the Government is not taking the opportunity to put this bill to a select committee. I can see—and I listened very carefully to the Minister’s speech—that there wasn’t a single reason given as to why this needed to be done in urgency. He didn’t even touch on it. And yet here is a Government who, when they were on this side of the House, used to wind themselves up in faux outrage, and how quickly we see how little the principles that they espoused for nine years fell to the wayside when it didn’t suit them.

Actually, the reality is it’s a rushed piece of legislation—

Hon Iain Lees-Galloway: No, it’s not.

Hon AMY ADAMS: —and they don’t want the public to have the chance to have a look at it. And if it wasn’t a rushed a piece of legislation, Mr Lees-Galloway, why wasn’t it on the Table a heck of a lot sooner than about half an hour ago?

This is a bill that this Opposition will support, because we campaigned on taking paid parental leave to 22 weeks. We are in fact the party, as I said, that did extend paid parental leave, not once but twice, and we have always said that we wanted to see that expanded as and when fiscal and economic conditions permitted. So we have no problem with that.

What is interesting, though, is that we shouldn’t kid ourselves: these are big-ticket spending items. At least $60 million a year—at least—for the first jump, and then at least that much again. Actually, we don’t know, because the fiscal costings, to the extent that they have been done—we are not being told about them. They don’t want the public to know, they don’t want the Parliament to know, and they don’t want select committees to examine it. They’ve buried it in a Cabinet paper they haven’t put out. They’ve refused Treasury the opportunity to do a full regulatory impact statement, and you have to start wondering: is that because the numbers don’t add up? Whatever the numbers are, we know that it’s a lot of money. As I said earlier this afternoon in the Address in Reply debate, it’s very easy to spend money, but at some point in time the numbers are going to have to be made to add up.

One point that I want to make is that the cost of doing this—yes, the policy was in Labour’s manifesto, as it was in ours, but the cost of it wasn’t in their pre-election fiscal plan that they put out. Now, how much did we hear through the campaign about how they’d costed everything and they were being fully transparent and they were going to be a Government of transparency? This was going to be the “people’s Parliament”. Well, straight away, the people are being shut out. They are being excluded from the right to have a say.

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

Mr SPEAKER: The House is resumed. [Interruption] Order! Mr Strange—your first mention in the House is a reprimand. That’s not a good thing. When we broke for the dinner, we were debating the first reading of the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill. The Hon Amy Adams is speaking, and she has three minutes and 57 seconds remaining to speak.

Hon AMY ADAMS: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will enjoy every second of those three minutes and 57 seconds. When we broke for the dinner break, I had been working through explaining that the National Opposition will be supporting this legislation because of its consistency with the position that we have taken for many years of extending parental leave as and when fiscal conditions allow. In fact, it was that Government that extended it twice in our term, and, of course, National campaigned on 22 weeks’ leave in this year’s election—that we wanted to extend it as conditions permitted.

The point that I was making, though, is that this is an incredible turnaround of principle from parties who until now have derided, castigated, abused, and got outraged over the use of urgency. Now, when the National Government took urgency it was very clear as to the need and the reasons for doing so. This Government, on its very first piece of legislation—and, actually, policy that they’ve had for some time; it’s not a new idea to them—have taken urgency for no good reason for legislation that won’t take effect until 1 July next year. Now, you could say, “Well, it doesn’t really matter.” Well, it does, because I believe that the public can add value to this bill. I think there are a number of ways that paid parental leave works, quite apart from the issue of how many weeks are available, that could validly be explored, and we counted a number of them in our policy.

But the other thing, of course, which I talked before the dinner break about, is the fact that this rushed and hurried and last-minute, seat-of-the pants process has left this bill very light on the sorts of details that this House needs to properly scrutinise and that the public would want to see. We talked about the fact that there are no fiscals at all. There were certainly none included in Labour’s pre-election information, and I mentioned previously that Treasury, who have a very important job in assessing these things, have already noted that the assessment contains “only very minimal”, and I am quoting, “analysis of the likely impacts”—only very minimal analysis.

Then, what I didn’t touch on before dinner was the fact that the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, again, have noted in their comments that compressed time frames have “limited our ability to consider a full range of options. The phased nature of the extension means that there is less certainty for the costings”. Now, why on earth, when you have a policy that Labour have been talking about for some time, would you have a process that has such rushed time frames that none of the agencies who are tasked with properly scrutinising and providing information to this House—none of them have the ability to do their job? It is an absolute attack on this House in the first bill out of the gate. So that tells you a lot about where this Government sees itself and how it’s going to run, and how quickly it dispenses with its principles.

And I want to just reflect for a moment on the Green Party, who have spent nine years telling us that they do not support the use of urgency except in very exceptional circumstances. I’ll quote from Gareth Hughes, who just this year said that “[there’s] huge room for improvement, as the Hon Trevor Mallard talked about … Urgency is a particularly important one. All members of this House … have seen legislation passed under urgency when it [didn’t] have to happen … It should [only] happen … in extraordinary circumstances,”. And how quickly they give that away for a chance to sit at the big table. How quickly the things that they told us—that they are a principled party—and the things that they stood for are given away. The first bill out of the gate: no process, no select committee, no fiscals, and no proper assessment.

So we will support the bill on its merits, but I have to say: if this is how Labour and the Greens plan to run their Government, then I am appalled at how quickly they’ve given up on the things that they told us really matter to them.

Hon JENNY SALESA (Minister for Building and Construction): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, and as this is my first speech to the House for this 52nd Parliament, can I just begin by congratulating all of our new members across the House. Can I also congratulate the Hon Trevor Mallard—

Hon Ruth Dyson: The right honourable.

Hon JENNY SALESA: —the Rt Hon Trevor Mallard—for being our new Speaker of the House, and I sure hope that you will be patient with all of us, Mr Speaker. Can I also just say that I was heartened by your speech yesterday, Trevor Mallard, because you said you wanted this House to be a much more family-friendly environment, and can I just say that in this House right now we have Heeni right here. So thank you for your words yesterday, Mr Speaker.

I am humbled that the very first piece of legislation under this new Labour-led Government is an extension to paid parental leave. This has been a long battle with many barriers that have been put up, especially by members from across the opposite side of this House, and I’d like to take this moment, if you would allow me, to acknowledge the former colleague Sue Moroney for all of her work, for having championed paid parental leave for many, many years. Sue—she fought an amazing campaign. She had the support of the majority of this House, and we know that this is not the first time that we’re actually debating this paid parental leave legislation. At the very last moment when this paid parental leave was brought to this House, it was financially vetoed by the former Prime Minister the Rt Hon Bill English. So now we can complete her legacy in this House.

I’d like to also spend a few moments to address the previous member who spoke on this bill—a kind reminder to the Hon Amy Adams that this is not the first time we are debating paid parental leave in this House. This is not the first time that we have introduced it for first reading and gone through the whole process: select committee, second reading, third reading. This is not even the second time, the Hon Amy Adams, that we are going through this process; this is indeed the third time we have discussed paid parental leave. We have had regulatory impact statements, we have had departmental reports, we have had thousands and thousands of members of the public submitting on paid parental leave. Can I just kindly remind the Hon Amy Adams and the National Party that this is the third time we have debated paid parental leave. It is a no-brainer that extending paid parental leave to 26 weeks will ensure a better start in life for our babies. I’m glad to know now from the Hon Amy Adams that the National Party have done a U-turn. They’ve finally seen the light and will be supporting this bill at first reading.

Paid parental leave is an investment. It is an investment in our parents, it is an investment in our children, it is investment for all of New Zealand. It will have long-lasting benefits for our children and for Aotearoa New Zealand. We value our people, we value our mothers, and we value our fathers. Our parents and our children will be at the heart of everything that this new Government will be implementing. Parents in Aotearoa New Zealand can look forward to the passage of 26 weeks’ paid parental leave. This is something that the Labour-led Government promised we would deliver on in our first 100 days, and in order to support our working families and our newborn children in a better way, we will be delivering on that promise.

This Government is committed to major investments in housing. We are committed to major investments in education, in health, in police, and in infrastructure. We are also committed to protecting our environment, creating more jobs, and lifting the incomes of families and reducing child poverty—the very first time that we will have a Minister who will be looking and monitoring to ensure that we reduce child poverty. And we will continue, at the same time, committing to all of those by making sure that we keep to being a financially and fiscally responsible Government, as Labour Governments have been before us.

As Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern stated earlier on today, “No one should live in a car. No one should live on the streets. No one should have to beg for their next meal.” No one—no child—should be experiencing poverty. I’ve seen this first-hand in my area in South Auckland. I’ve seen mothers who have come to me, and these mothers live in cars. They live in garages, and I’m glad to be part of a progressive Government that will be addressing inequality, that will be eliminating and looking towards ending child poverty. New Zealand should be a fully inclusive, supportive society, and this is something that this Government is actually focused on: building strong families and ensuring that our children are supported in this journey. The Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill is about recognising the importance of bonding between infants and their parents—between Speakers of the House and infants. [Mr Speaker holding a baby] It is about making sure that our children have the best possible start in life. It is about doing what is right.

I agree with Plunket, who have been in operation in our country for over 100 years. They have been strong supporters of paid parental leave for many, many years, and I quote from Plunket: “the benefits for society of extending paid parental leave will outweigh the costs over the long term”. Enhancing opportunities for infants, securing and ensuring that they are attached to the family unit, is really crucial, especially in the first six months of their lives. Increasing paid parental leave, according to Plunket, is something that will ensure that we will look at saving costs in health and saving costs to our welfare benefit system. The simple fact is New Zealand is lagging behind the rest of the OECD in paid parental leave. We are one of the lowest countries in the OECD for paid parental leave as it is now. Even when we extend it to 26 weeks, we will still be behind the UK, which is currently offering 37 paid parental leave weeks.

Paid parental leave will be increased to 22 weeks by 1 July next year, 2018, and it will go up to 26 weeks by 1 July 2020. Paid parental leave is a key part of our families package—the Labour Party’s, that is—and I say that it is indeed a pleasure to stand here to be part of a Government, three parties, where Labour, New Zealand First, and the Green Party collectively are proud of supporting this paid parental leave bill. It is the right thing to do for our children, for our parents, for our whānau, and for our mokopuna.

Today marks the start of a progressive, inclusive, empathetic, and very strong Government. I am proud to support the work of my former colleague Sue Moroney, and I’m glad to be part of a Government that will see her vision realised. This begins our work programme to give New Zealand families the best start in life, and, in the words of Sue, and I quote, “It is simply about priorities, and the priority should be [our] families and giving [our] children the [very] best start in life.” Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura): Thank you to the Labour Government for clapping as I stood. Mr Speaker, knowing how often you have said to us on so many occasions that we should not rise and read our speeches, I can assure you that I won’t be. I’d like to, obviously, acknowledge the person who has just resumed her seat, the Hon Jenny Salesa, and say to her I am very pleased that we have another strong voice in the South Auckland area. The member and I have often worked together on various things, and it’s always good to see someone who has such a nice personality, although she does read her speeches, come through and become a Minister.

Hon Chris Hipkins: Oh, Judith, you were doing so well. Why did you have to spoil it?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Ha, ha! That’s because I know my job. That’s because I know my job, Mr Hipkins.

I would like to talk about this bill, because I think this is an excellent bill, and I’ll tell you why I think it’s an excellent bill: because it’s actually National Party policy for the 2017 election. I’ve got it here, for those on the other side who might have missed it, but it’s our policy. It’s always good to be able to support a Government or a party that wants to support the National Party’s policy. Of course, it was the National Government that increased paid parental leave last time, and it’s great we’ve been hearing tonight—

Hon Member: Twice!

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Twice, in fact. Of course, a miserable Labour Government, which left office, thankfully, in 2008, was not, actually, nearly as generous as a National Government—but we are so used to that.

I think one of the things that I thought was so interesting is how everybody tonight has talked about our departed former MP Sue Moroney. And I think we should acknowledge the work that Sue did. She was always an effective member of the Opposition. She worked hard, she tried hard, and she got dumped so far down the list of the Labour Party that she just gave up and went home—except actually she is now apparently going to work for the Public Service Association, so good luck with that over there in the Labour Government. I think Sue might want a bit of utu, because, frankly, why wouldn’t she?

Hon Ruth Dyson: Well, she’s not like you.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: But anyway, apparently they didn’t like her when she was the whip. Watch out, Hon Ruth Dyson. They didn’t like her when she was the whip, and look what happened to her.

So let’s just talk about this bill again, our National Party policy that the Labour Government has kindly taken up for us. It is—

Hon Member: Not as good as ours.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Not as good as ours. It’s good to note that New Zealand actually has one of the highest participation rates for women in the paid workforce in the OECD, and we could do better, personally. And I think the whole paid parental leave issue is one that does enable women, in particular, and men, to continue to work in the workforce, have a job, and have a family and raise the children. As a mother, who has, in fact, raised a child when I was working full-time in my own law firm with no parental leave—terrible employer, of course, to myself—the fact is that it is quite a big, tough call for a lot of small businesses, particularly if there is a client-solicitor relationship or some sort of client relationship there. It is tough, but I believe that New Zealand businesses have, overall, really embraced the concept of paid parental leave, because they can see that, obviously, so often it’s the best woman for the job, in my opinion. I think many of us often think that about it.

When we see that, as mothers, we know that mothers can do anything, and we also know that the people who actually look after children, who raise them up, are far more realistic about life generally and far more forgiving of people’s foibles, because when you’re doing what you have to do as a parent, you’re working, you often have broken sleep through the night, and you learn to sleep in three- to four-hour blocks, normally, and you actually either survive with that or you don’t. And I want many women to see that to come back into the workforce after the paid parental leave is really important.

There is some international research that indicates that the longer that women take paid parental leave for, the less likely they are to come back to the workforce. I think that’s something that people should be able to discuss, and to think, “What’s going on there?” Is it that women do, in fact, as mothers away from the workforce, lose the confidence to come back? Maybe they have learnt that they don’t want to go back, but I actually think it’s got a lot to do with confidence, myself. Certainly, when I had my own law firm I often used to particularly want to employ women who were coming back to the workforce with children. Apart from the fact I knew they could do anything, and actually really loved being at work, the big issue I noticed was quite a lot of women coming back to the workforce after they had left to have children underestimated their own value as to what they could add to the workforce, and often simply just weren’t sure that people would take what they said. They’d lost a lot of confidence. So I think there’s a lot that we could talk about with that.

In particular, it’s a bit of a shame this is not going to select committee, so I—as a new member of a select committee again—could actually partake in that discussion, because I think this is important. It is not just a matter of saying, “Oh, go and have this leave or these other things.” It’s actually also about giving people the confidence to do the job, but also knowing that they are valued and that their time as mothers and their work as mothers and their experience as mothers is something that adds to their value into the workforce. So, personally, I think it’s a great thing to be able to have this.

I well remember when the first bills came through, when it was first introduced back in the old days of a miserable Labour Government, and it wasn’t open at that stage to people in small businesses—as in, self-employed people.

Hon Iain Lees-Galloway: How did National vote on that bill, Judith?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Because it didn’t actually involve self-employed people—people who are self-employed, like I had been, who were in fact being asked to pay for things.

Hon Iain Lees-Galloway: So because you didn’t get it, you voted against it?

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: No, no, it’s about being fair. I know that Mr Iain Lees-Galloway will never have the experience of life that I have. He needs to, perhaps, just consider—and he would be a much better person if he did—that it’s all very well to make silly little comments from the sidelines, but sometimes he’s actually expected to do something. So I’m looking forward to him actually doing something now that he’s a Minister. I think it will be an interesting experience that may even be new for him.

So really, this bill is an exceptionally good piece of National Party policy ably taken up by the Government—

Hon Amy Adams: Not that ably.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: —but having said that, missing, as my friend the Hon Amy Adams has told me, some of the better, the kinder, and the more caring parts that we would have put in.

It’s so good, Mr Speaker, to see you so embracing children in the House, as well.

Hon Amy Adams: Literally.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Ha, ha! I thought the baby was very good and didn’t cry either, by the way. I thought it was excellent—I see very good parenting going on there. But I well remember when I first started in Parliament. It was a mere 15 years ago; I was then 22.

Hon Members: Ha, ha!

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: OK, 22 in my mind. Anyway, I can well remember the Rt Hon Jonathan Hunt—and the Speaker and a few others may well remember that we would have had the call about a stranger in the House at that stage, and it would have been a very difficult situation. My good friend Katherine Rich—who, many will remember, actually became a mother twice as a member of Parliament—found that some of the nastiest comments were unfortunately directed to her by people who today are professing to be such advocates for women in the workforce and mothers in the workforce. People like Katherine were given a very hard time.

If you want to talk to someone like the Hon Ruth Richardson, who was, in fact, one of the very first mothers with babies in Parliament—I also remember that Mrs Tirikatene-Sullivan was one, too. The difficulties that they faced from an extremely male-dominated, hierarchical situation, where there was no thought about children being part of a normal working environment, seem utterly bizarre today. Certainly, growing up on a farm like I did, with my mum and working on a farm, me working—or not really, actually; mostly getting in the way. But kids on farms are used to their parents working, being in the workplace, and learning not to end up in a dangerous situation or anything else. So I don’t think it’s that difficult.

I personally think, as a former employer, that I really loved having kids come into the workplace, and I’m really pleased to see them here today. I think when they’re two it might be a little challenging, but, you know, it won’t be me that’s having to do that job. I just think it’s great to see kids being part of our Parliament, because, actually, isn’t that why we’re all here?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN (NZ First): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. Thank you very much. Can I acknowledge my colleague that just resumed her seat. It’s always great to follow the Hon Judith Collins. I was going to say Tizard—sorry, I beg your pardon. It was a bit of a mind blank. It’s been a while since I’ve been here, and considering you’re only 37 years old, I don’t know how I made that mistake.

It’s always a joy to follow the Hon Judith Collins because it’s a juxtaposition between just hilarious and extremely outrageous, some of the statements that are made by the honourable member—for example, to hold up a leaflet around the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill and now say that this is National Party policy. Can we just clarify—I need to go back, because there will be some National Party members over there who will believe Ms Collins that this was National Party policy.

So let’s be clear about what has happened. First of all, let’s be clear that this bill has had two select committee hearings, and in the last one there were 6,755 submissions. Of those submissions, 99.94 percent were in favour, hence why this Government—this New Zealand First - Labour Party - Green Party, collegial, really positive, moving-forward-with-a-plan Government—is not going to cost the taxpayers more money. We already know what the taxpayers believe and want—6,755 submissions; 99.4 percent.

Now, let’s get to the comment that this is actually National Party policy. Let’s remember that it was Sue Moroney that forced—forced—National into extending paid parental leave because of the 26 For Babies campaign. Let’s get real. All those other young members over there, the new members of the National Party; you need to listen up, because you don’t want to believe the spin. The worst thing you can do is believe your own spin, all right? That’ll catch you out with the facts every single time.

So Sue Moroney ran, and across the country there was the 26 For Babies campaign. The previous Government convinced Sue Moroney, because she was a good, decent, honest woman who believed in collegial cross-party consensus in this House, to hold off bringing her bill back to this Parliament. It was a gentleman’s agreement, and what did the previous National-led Government do? They undercut her bill by bringing in legislation of their own. They convinced her to not bring it back to the House, they convinced her to delay the bill on the Order Paper, and they undercut her. That is how this became National Party policy, if it ever was. It’s one thing to campaign on it; it’s another thing to actually get up and do the work. So this is the Government that’s going to do the work.

Can I thank my Cabinet colleagues. Can I thank the Hon Iain Lees-Galloway for working with New Zealand First, and can I thank him for the acknowledgment of fathers inside the bill. Mr Seymour may stand up a little bit later, and he did actually contribute the last time this bill was in the House, which is why it’s no surprise to the Opposition members that the last time the bill was in the House he stood up and gave a contribution taking to task any mention of fathers not availing themselves of paid parental leave.

In this country, 1 percent—1 percent—of fathers avail themselves of paid parental leave. In Sweden, when we were able to identify and encourage fathers and allow them, in a socially acceptable way, to take this leave, that percentage jumped to 25 percent. I would hope that once we pass this bill through, once we acknowledge as a nation that 26 weeks is the minimum that our babies should expect—the minimum that our babies should be cared for and acknowledged and supported by their Government—we will then work forward, because we are a progressive, collegial, positive Government of New Zealand First, Labour, and the Green Party, and we are going forward and we will encourage fathers to participate more.

As the Minister for Children now, one of the things that I know we need to do better is to engage fathers in the lives of their children—fathers who are under stress, families who are under stress. We need to acknowledge more, as a Government, those equal parental rights—those parents and their importance to every child. The mention in the explanatory note of the bill acknowledges them as equal parents. I’m so pleased, and I thank my colleagues for actually making that change for us.

This has been a long time coming. It’s been a long time coming not because we haven’t discussed it for a long time—it’s been discussed again and again and again. It’s been a long time coming because, for whatever reason, the previous Government decided that things like a flag referendum at $25 million, things like a Saudi sheep farm in the Middle East, were more important to fund than our children—were more important to fund than to bring in financial support from the State to say that “for those 26 weeks we believe in having a parent at home, and we’re going to support you to have that choice.” The previous Government used to trumpet that word “choice”. Everything was about choice, except when they didn’t agree with it.

So we’re really, really pleased. New Zealand First is very, very pleased to stand and support this bill through urgency. And it is urgent, because our families need it. Our babies need it. Our mothers and fathers need it. They need the security to know that as soon as possible they can plan for this.

The Hon Amy Adams stood and said again and again and again that there’s no regulatory impact assessment—there’ve been two. The Hon Adams stood up and said that there’s no financial mapping—there have been two sets. If the previous Government says that it was their policy, did they not price it out? Are they saying that they didn’t price it out? There have been two sets of financials go through this House. How did the Rt Hon Bill English do a financial veto if there wasn’t already financial mapping? Upon what basis did he do a financial veto on this bill if the Hon Amy Adams said that there is no financial mapping? How can those two things be true?

So let’s just go and fact-check what we’re talking about here. That’s what I’m asking the Opposition to do. Don’t stand and just start putting out piece after piece after piece because it makes a nice sound bite. People can go away and check what was said before. They can go away and check your actions before. That’s what the Opposition now needs to be careful of—nine years of Hansard, nine years of actions, like the financial veto on a bill that 99.94 percent of submitters said they were in favour of. Twenty-six weeks for babies—across the country they marched, went to meetings, held coffee meetings, and showed up with postcards, posters. It was a full campaign. That is the only thing that took the ice out of the heart of National.

I am pleased to hear that the National Party is going to vote for it, but let’s just be clear on our rhetoric. We know where this came from. We know whose policy it was. Don’t take it away from Sue Moroney and the amazing work she did. Let’s get our rhetoric right and in Hansard. Kia ora.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I want to just congratulate the four presiding officers that have been elected by this Parliament—yourself included, Mr Assistant Speaker.

It is interesting because I actually kind of agree that this is an important piece of legislation, and so to have a piece of legislation that’s before the 52nd Parliament—the very first piece of legislation that’s come to this House—as one that National is supporting the Government on I think is significant. But I want to reiterate one of the reasons why we are supporting it. We campaigned on increasing paid parental leave to 22 weeks. So in our time in office, we increased it from 14 weeks to 18 weeks. We campaigned on increasing it to 22 weeks. Can I tell the House that when the debate was going on about increasing it to 26 weeks at that time, one of the biggest concerns, particularly from small businesses, was jumping significantly from 18 to 26 weeks, and the importance—so whether it was chambers of commerce, or whether it was local small businesses or medium-sized businesses, which actually make up the majority of our economy, it was the ability to transition and take such a leap.

So we support this legislation. I actually think it would be useful for the Government to have considered some of the other areas that we believe were important in supporting new families with newborns. Some of that absolutely is aimed at the dad, or the second parent. It’s really unfortunate that hasn’t been included in this bill, and that’s why I think that the lack of scrutiny and the lack of an ability for the public to submit in the select committee is a real concern. But I want to come back to that.

Some of the other things that we had included, as well as our kind of incremental steps to increase paid parental leave, campaigning on 22 weeks—one of the things that I think is really important is the ability for both parents to take paid parental leave at the same time. This is a comment that lots of my friends made when they had their children—the fact that one of the parents was able to have time off was great. Actually, you know, when I had children, you weren’t entitled to paid parental leave, and the reality was if you were self-employed, you had no rights to get any paid parental leave. I think some of the changes that we made in our time in office actually made the paid parental leave system far more flexible, far more realistic, and far more practical for real Kiwi families. That’s something I’m particularly proud of.

One of the things when you find out as a family or as an individual that you’re expecting, as I did with my first pregnancy—the last thing you want to have to worry about is: how are you going to pay the bills? So paid parental leave absolutely is critical. I applaud the Government for making this a priority, and the fact that National is supporting it—because we campaigned on it. But the thing you shouldn’t be proud of is the fact that this is not going to a select committee.

So there are a lot of new members in the House, and I want to congratulate our “class of 2017”, particularly from National, but across the House. I want to say, one of the things that is absolutely the most critical job you do in Parliament is your work on a select committee, and the biggest job you do on a select committee is listen. You listen to the submitters, whether there are five of them, whether there are 50 of them, or whether there are 5,000 of them. I remember when we were debating the resource management law amendment, the power of the select committee process was so, so clear to me. When we were sitting in Auckland, a person had come before us, a member of the public who had driven for five hours to appear before the select committee so he could have his say in our democratic process—he could have his say. He was allocated five minutes because, literally, we had hundreds and hundreds of submitters we were hearing. He turned around and drove for five hours home.

That Government—you have taken away the opportunity for ordinary New Zealanders to have their say on this legislation. And you say it’s the same bill. Rubbish! Read the titles—two different bills. Actually, what you may have done is incorporated some of the things that real New Zealand families want: greater flexibility.

So one of the things, as I say to the new members in the House—the select committee is a critical part of your role, whether you are a Labour MP, whether you’re a National MP, or whether you’re a Green MP. The ability to scrutinise legislation, to listen to the public, to ensure, and to actually make the legislation better than when it was originally drafted—you’ve just removed that opportunity for the public to do that. So you’ve removed the opportunity for families and you’ve removed the opportunity for employers, and I think that’s absolutely outrageous. Your first foray, your first piece of legislation in this House, and you’ve removed the right for ordinary New Zealanders to have their say. So, yep, you’re an inclusive Government—congratulations! Remember this record. The very first piece of legislation you brought to this House—no scrutiny, no select committee, pushing it through in urgency. And I love the fact that the Greens are sitting there so quietly—so quietly.

Actually, when we were in Government we worked incredibly hard. We worked incredibly hard with the Business Committee to ensure that the use of urgency was absolutely minimised—absolutely minimised—because we understand and we believe that it is an important part of our democracy and is what makes our Parliament so successful and, actually, revered across the world. There are other parliaments who say, “We want to learn from your select committee process.” because in other parliaments they don’t have the same scrutiny of legislation.

So on this particular bill—the very first one you’re introducing—you are ripping off New Zealanders for having their say. And it’s an important say because, as I said, one of the things is flexibility. I would have liked to have seen a greater level of flexibility for families to be able to look at how they look at their paid parental leave, how they take their leave together, and what their options are, and, actually, some of the best information I got when I was the Minister for Women was about families who were dealing with the challenges of juggling work. Do you know what? One of the biggest challenges to support women into employment or to return to work was how it was going to work for their partner.

I think you’ve lost an opportunity to do more to support women into employment by taking a narrow focus, as you have. If you had taken the time, you know, 1 July—absolutely, I’m with you. I want that to happen on 1 July next year. You had the time and you chose not to take it, which is really unfortunate.

One of the things around scrutiny—and you’ll learn this as a Government—is the information that comes from Treasury, the officials’ advice. So, unfortunately, in this particular case, the scrutiny is narrow. Fiscal impacts are set out in the Cabinet paper and social impacts are touched on, but there is no assessment of the broader impacts, for example, on employers—particularly small or medium sized enterprises—or on women’s employability. I would have thought they were fairly critical things for the Government to consider and absolutely for the Minister to have considered. We have a very high participation rate for women in employment in New Zealand. I think that’s a record that is fantastic, and the fact that businesses, in particular, have not had the ability to be involved and to provide input into this bill may be a detriment to the very women that we are trying to support in supporting an increase in paid parental leave. I think that would be a crying shame.

I do want to say, in addition to not having a select committee—I just want to come back to the comment about the Green Party, because, of course, it is the Green Party who has the Minister for Women. Every time we had urgency, they talked about transparency and they talked about public participation. The Prime Minister herself has talked about being an inclusive Government. I’m not sure how you can be inclusive when you don’t include the New Zealand public.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Minister for Women): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. Congratulations, Mr Deputy Speaker, on your appointment and—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Assistant Speaker.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: —sorry, Assistant Speaker—and congratulations to all of the new members who have been elected to this House and, in particular, the new parents who are here in this House. I think it will be an interesting challenge to take on your role as new parents as well as being new parliamentarians. But I am very confident that with the approach of the new Speaker to make Parliament even more family-friendly, we can lead by example and, hopefully, extend that out into the rest of New Zealand.

I’m so thrilled. This is the first speech I’m giving in this House as part of this new progressive Government between the Labour Party, New Zealand First, and the Green Party, and I’m really excited about what we’re going to be able to achieve together. I think it’s a fantastic opportunity finally in New Zealand to really achieve the full benefits of MMP, where multiple parties can work together constructively to represent the views of a wider range of New Zealanders. And having won, of course, the majority of the votes, I think New Zealanders are going to be pleasantly surprised at how much of what progresses through the House during this term of Government actually appeals, and represents what is a consensus, to most people in New Zealand.

So I am absolutely thrilled to be speaking on this bill, the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill, as my first speech as Minister for Women, as was referred to by the previous speaker, the Hon Louise Upston, who has previously been the Minister for Women. The Green Party believes that parenting is one of the hardest and most important jobs that one will ever do, and as a country I think we have to recognise that we all benefit when we support parents to give their kids the love and attention they deserve early on in their lives.

As the previous speaker raised the issue of the Green Party, I think I will address that first before I speak to the bill, which is that the Green Party has at times been critical of the use—not so much the use—the abuse of urgency, which was particularly prevalent in the first term of the last National Government. I suppose that those members might not remember, especially those who weren’t there for 2008 to 2011, but in fact the National Government in their first term absolutely abused the urgency process time and time again to curtail a select committee process to pass through legislation that had not already been through a select committee process, when in fact this bill—although it may have confused the Hon Louise Upston because the title is different and the dates are different, in fact, it is the very same legislation that progressed twice through this House with the majority support of members in the previous term of Government, but was then vetoed by the then National Government, who now claim to have campaigned on this legislation as policy.

So it’s a little bit disingenuous to hear the faux outrage from the Opposition, who must be terribly frustrated to find themselves in the position of Opposition, but it is really disingenuous to be criticising this process when, in fact, we had two full select committee processes on this very legislation, with over 6,000 submissions—

Hon Michael Woodhouse: It was years ago.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: —last year with 99 percent in support of the legislation. So I think that people have had their say, in fact. Thousands of people had their say on this legislation, and why would this new Government waste any time, particularly when the Opposition is supporting the bill—and, you know, finally it caught on and campaigned on it a little bit too late—after nine years of not having implemented it.

But look, there is clearly majority support for this legislation in the House. We have heard from the public. There has been a very long campaign. And I want to acknowledge all of those people and organisations that have consistently and tirelessly pushed successive Governments to adopt better paid parental leave: 26 for Babies; the Council of Trade Unions; Sue Moroney, who was a tireless champion of this; the National Council of Women; Playcentre; Plunket; Tick for Kids; UNICEF; and, going even further back to when we were originally campaigning for 12 weeks’ parental leave, the Hon Laila Harré, who helped bring that to New Zealand in the first place.

I want to acknowledge—this has been a long campaign. It’s continually building. What it is about is a change of paradigm of how we understand work in our society. I think this is something the Opposition should pay a little bit of attention to, because during their nine years in Government, I don’t know if they ever really got to grips with the fact that there is a whole lot of unpaid work that makes this society work and happen—like, nothing would happen. The paid economy, which they pay so much attention to, could not exist without the contribution and care of people like parents—and mothers in particular—who are not paid for their work, yet that care and support of children is the very work that enables our society to flourish.

Paid parental leave is also a critical part of closing the gender pay gap, something that I am particularly committed to and will, on behalf of the Green Party, ensure is progressed in this term of Government—closing the gender pay gap in the core Public Service. And of course we’ll be working to close it in the wider Public Service and in the private sector. The gender pay gap is particularly pronounced for Māori and Pacific women, and I think they need to be acknowledged. There are many women in our society who are not being paid fairly for their contribution and there are even more women who are doing this unpaid caring work, and that is what paid parental leave does. It is the Government recognising that to us as a society, there is a value to paying parents to look after their babies in the first few months of their lives.

Finally, I note that some members in the Opposition have raised the issue of whether or not there are sufficient incentives for fathers and other parents to take the benefit of paid parental leave. I do think this is something this Government will be investigating. We would like to incentivise more fathers to take advantage of paid parental leave, but, in fact, we don’t need to wait for that. We can work on this with potentially future extensions to paid parental leave, which we can be working towards. In fact, the longer the parental leave is, the easier it is for both parents to take part in it, because there is an obvious need for women to spend time breastfeeding their babies. That is part of the reason why the 26 weeks’ leave is recommended. It is because of that benefit to the child of the first few months of bonding with the mother in breastfeeding, but the longer we have paid parental leave, the more fathers are able to take part in that and help contribute to parenting.

So I’m thrilled, as part of the Green Party and as part of this new, very positive, very progressive Government, to be speaking in favour and voting in favour of this legislation tonight. I think it’s a wonderful sign of what the next three years will bring for Aotearoa.

SARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill): Thank you very much, Mr Assistant Speaker. It is true: I am very pleased to be rising in support of this bill, the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill. Let me just preface that. I do have some concerns about the process that is being used, and I do have some concerns about some technicalities that the bill does not address, but, as this House will be aware, in the past Parliament—the 51st Parliament—I was a prolific speaker on paid parental leave, having sat on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, having worked on the Government bill that progressively, and, in a fiscally prudent way, having extended periodically paid parental leave and looked to nuance it to support preterm babies and their parents. But also, I was a member of the Government Administration Committee, where Sue Moroney referred her paid parental leave bill, so I have heard it from both sides.

I have always spoken in favour of the concept of paid parental leave. Being a mother myself of two children now—Christabel, who is seven, and Hunter, who is five—I understand what paid parental leave means. I understand the benefits of it. So I am very pleased to be supporting this bill, and I was extremely pleased in the campaign as well. This bill mirrors what we campaigned on as the National Party to extend paid parental leave, along with a suite of measures to give babies and families a great leg-up when they start on the journey to having children and raising children, so that those children and those families can achieve all of their hopes and dreams in this fantastic country, which is New Zealand.

Let me digress, Mr Assistant Speaker, for one moment to congratulate you and the Speaker’s team. I have worked with you, Mr Assistant Speaker, on the Government Administration Committee, and also heard that you were there for Sue Moroney’s bill. We did work very collegially, listening to those fine submitters that came along to select committee and educated us on paid parental leave and discussed some of the issues that were facing New Zealanders as they were working through having their babies and dealing with the workplace. So we’ve worked together. I’m very pleased at your appointment, along with the rest of the Speaker’s team, which I think will be a phenomenal team. I think that all of the Speakers bring something different to the House and, as a member of the Opposition, I will be looking forward to learning more about procedure and using it to our advantage to hold the new Government to account.

In that vein, let me also say congratulations to our new members over this side of the House. We also have some fathers here—some young fathers—that have just had babies themselves. I think in some regards it’s no different for women and fathers—the challenges they face having young children—so I congratulate them for coming to Parliament and bringing the experiences that they do. Also to the members opposite, especially the new members, congratulations on your elections. And to the women that have young children over the other side of the House, thank you for your courage to bring your babies here to the House. I could not imagine doing it the same. I had terrible pregnancies and I had very challenging young children in the first years of their lives, but I think what the members opposite who have young babies have done is put this issue at the forefront of the Parliament, and I am very pleased that Speaker Mallard has taken up that challenge. So I think that Parliament will be a better place and a more family-friendly place moving forward.

Look, as I’ve said before, paid parental leave is something that I support, but on this side of the House, we do believe in fiscal prudency. That’s why when we extended paid parental leave, we did it in a very measured way, and when we costed out our policy, we costed it out at $60 million for a couple of weeks’ extension. So to extend it even further would bring it up to around about $120 million. I think what the Government will start to learn is that when you’re looking at one issue in isolation, which may be a very good issue to look at in isolation, there are a suite of measures that can also help to give baby the best start in life and give families that leg-up. And, certainly, that’s what they’ll learn in Government—that it is about balancing competing priorities. You can’t put all your eggs in one basket.

Moving back to the benefits of paid parental leave, obviously extra time allows more bonding with baby. It allows for women to become more proficient with breastfeeding, and, believe you me, breastfeeding is not the most easy thing to do, especially if you do have premature babies. Again, I’ve got two myself. In saying that, even though the World Health Organization promotes breastfeeding, the bonding time taken when you are bottle-feeding your baby should not be sniffed at, either. It is still a vital time when you are holding your baby, you’re feeding your baby, you’re looking into your baby’s eyes, and really bonding to make sure that that connection’s there so that the baby has the best start in life.

Also, of course, paid parental leave is about job protection—that is important for us to progress women’s issues moving forward—and, of course, that very important financial assistance when you have a child, because, let’s face it, those little critters cost a lot of money, and it doesn’t get any easier as they get older, I can assure you. Some of the things that I am concerned about with this bill—and especially that it’s not going to a select committee process—is that the KIT hours, the keeping-in-touch hours, remain untouched. Now, one of the things that wasn’t properly discussed with respect to Sue Moroney’s bill when we were in the Government Administration Committee, was the keeping-in-touch hours. Keeping-in-touch hours are an important part of the paid parental leave system.

Hon Member: We passed it.

SARAH DOWIE: We passed it, absolutely, and we looked at it quite significantly in the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, but when you start extending out paid parental leave, what does that actually do to the keeping-in-touch hours? Keeping-in-touch hours are a really important tool in the tool kit to make sure that women do stay connected to the workplace. And, no, from what I can tell in this bill, it remains untouched.

I would like to see that go back to select committee so that we can investigate what the balance is between extending paid parental leave and perhaps extending some of those keeping-in-touch hours. It’s OK for some women—they want to keep in touch with their careers and their jobs and progress themselves that way, but they also want to have the best of both worlds, don’t they? They want to stay connected with their family and their children, but they also want to stay connected with the workplace, and that’s the important essence of keeping-in-touch hours. But if we lose that kilter, if we get out of balance, and if we start extending paid parental leave and start skewing it to one level, we could find—and the Hon Judith Collins raised this—there is some research out there that suggests that the longer that women stay out of work, the less likely they are to go back to work. Again, the select committee process is about looking at that research, seeing if it’s robust, looking at its legitimacy, and testing that theory. What does that do to the balance of paid parental leave versus keeping-in-touch hours?

Like I say, keeping-in-touch hours are a very important tool in the tool kit to make sure that paid parental leave is nuanced, that it’s fit for purpose, and that it’s flexible enough to apply to every single woman that has a child—for their circumstances—and also apply to those males that want to take time off with their babies to connect and be a good father.

The other thing that I think needs to be explored is the isolation factor. We don’t want women just to stay at home on paid parental leave and do nothing. Paid parental leave is an important part of making sure that women have the financial strength but also the time to connect with their community and get support from their peers who have also had babies going through the same milestones, and to stay connected with their community and, basically, combat any post-natal depression.

So, again, I’m pointing to nuanced issues of paid parental leave that should have been discussed at the select committee stage. I support the spirit of the bill, but there is still more work to be done.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): This is a split call. I call Raymond Huo—five minutes.

RAYMOND HUO (Labour): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. I would like to act with my colleagues in congratulating you on your new role, and I’d like to acknowledge Mr Speaker, the Rt Hon Trevor Mallard, and the baby he just held in his arms, which would serve as a good reminder that this bill is about our babies and that this bill is about our future and about the way we invest in our future. I’d like also to take this opportunity to pay tribute to Sue Moroney, who championed this move, and who worked passionately and tirelessly to make this bill what it is now.

We have been through two select committee sessions and we heard submissions—close to 7,000 of them—and 99.9 percent of the submitters were in favour of this bill, so it’s time for us to honour our commitments and it’s time for us to say to those hard-working Kiwis and mums and dads, “Let’s do something about that.”

We may set aside the politics for a little while and look at some scientific observations. The difference between the current 18 weeks and the proposed 26 weeks is about two months. During the two months, the babies will grow from the most vulnerable into babies who will stop regularly crying and will begin playing by themselves with the toys in a cot. At the end of five months, a baby will begin to develop their speech to two or three syllables on repeat—not quite as fluent as the Hon Judith Collins. By the end of 26 weeks, babies will start to roll and sit up by themselves. This is an important development for parents to be a part of, because it paves the way for a baby to crawl and, eventually, walk by themselves.

This is the essential bonding time—within the first year of birth—and the OECD report just confirmed the importance of that. The OECD report found that children have fewer cognitive and behavioural problems later on in their lives if they have essential bonding time within the first year of birth.

So this bill is good for the babies, it’s good for the mum and dad, and it’s good for the workers and employers. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker.

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill. I’m taking this call to support this bill, but before I get on to this bill, I want to congratulate you and I want to congratulate your co - Assistant Speaker. I also congratulate the Rt Hon Trevor Mallard and the Deputy Speaker, the Hon Anne Tolley.

I am supporting this bill because this bill is aligned with a policy that the National Party took into the election. I am talking about this recent general election—election 2017. Also, if you look at our record, as I was listening to a member from New Zealand First, she said that we can go and look at the Hansard for our record. Yes, definitely we can do that, and our record will show that we have always supported increasing paid parental leave, but—but—in steps that are affordable. In 2014, we committed to changing paid parental leave provisions, and we—

Hon Iain Lees-Galloway: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I appreciate that we are allowed to make debating points in the House, but when a member so egregiously misleads the House, what remedy is there available to us?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I’m sorry, the honourable Minister, I thought that was fine. Thank you.

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR: Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. If you look at the National Party’s record when we were in Government, we committed to increasing paid parental leave in 2014, and we did increase paid parental leave from 14 to 16 weeks in 2015, and then we increased it from 16 weeks to 18 weeks in 2016. Moreover, that was not just about increasing the length of paid parental leave; it was more than that. So many workers—like seasonal workers, casual workers, workers with more than one employer, and those who had changed their job recently—could not enjoy the benefits of paid parental leave before, so we made some changes in that space as well. Also, more people are now able to avail themselves of the entitlement, like primary carers. It’s about flexibility and it’s about having a policy that is effective, so with that approach, as I said, I am supporting this bill. We can see our record. We have always supported increasing paid parental leave.

I am also proud of my member’s bill that was drawn from the ballot in the last term, which focused on providing a good start to newborns. Unfortunately, because the time was up in the previous term, we could not finish the first reading, but I’m really looking forward to seeing that bill coming back on the Order Paper and it going through the remaining stages. Just to remind the House, my bill is to see that all newborns are enrolled with the general practice of their families’ choice before they are six weeks of age, so that they can be provided all the care that is needed.

So yes, we want to see that all newborns get a really good and healthy start in their life, and mums get a really good restart after going through that process of giving birth. The concern that I have, which has been raised by some of my colleagues, is about the process. I do not see any emergency for this bill to go through urgency, because, as far as I understand, this Government wants to bring this legislation in from 1 July 2018, and there are a few months remaining, so, definitely, there is enough time for this bill to go through the select committee process.

Even if it is the same subject matter, people should have the opportunity to have their say. Why is this Government denying New Zealanders the opportunity to have their say? Media should not be the way for people to express their views, concerns, or even support for the legislation. As we saw, Kirk Hope from Business New Zealand—through media; I learnt through media—welcomes this change, but on the other hand, he did say that it will pose some challenges for small businesses. These are the kinds of things we want to hear in the select committee process, because it is Government’s responsibility to listen to those concerns, to listen to those stakeholders, and to provide mitigation for that concern or challenge that is raised during the select committee process. This morning I heard Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern saying that “We will take New Zealanders with us.” and that “This new Government is going to be about people.” But here, people are out—New Zealanders are out. This is their first piece of legislation, and people are not having the opportunity to have their say in this legislation.

I am supporting this legislation, but I also want assurance from this new Government that there is enough money in the kitty to support this legislation, as we haven’t seen that. So overall, yes, I have concerns that this bill should go through the proper select committee process. I support this bill. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): This is a split call. I call Michael Wood—five minutes.

MICHAEL WOOD (Labour—Mt Roskill): Mr Assistant Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak. May I begin by congratulating you on your ascension to the Chair. It’s a pleasure to be able to speak under you in this debate.

It’s very pleasing that there seems to be wide support for this bill. It’s a bill whose time has come, after many, many long years of struggle and campaigning, and it’s good to see that wide support across the House. But the support at some times does seem to have been a bit confused in the course of debate this evening, and I wanted to devote just a couple of minutes to some of that confusion that has arisen.

It really started with the first contribution from the Opposition this evening, when the Hon Amy Adams, in high-brow high dudgeon as only she can carry off, spent 8½ minutes of her speech railing against the constitutional outrage, apparently, of the debate that we’re having tonight under urgency to achieve something good for the working families of this country. She spent 8½ minutes of her speech telling us how terrible that was, but then told us that she’d vote for it anyway. That was the first part of the confusion that we saw tonight.

We heard from Ms Adams but also from many of the other speakers high levels of outrage, apparently, about the process that we’re going through in the course of this bill—high levels of outrage that people will not have the opportunity to submit on paid parental leave, conveniently forgetting that twice members of the public have had the opportunity to submit on this bill, that twice they have submitted overwhelmingly in favour of exactly what the Government is proposing here tonight, and then, on the second time, when 1,600 New Zealanders submitted on this bill, it was the last National Government who ignored the submitters and who ignored the people by arrogantly vetoing that bill, after 99 percent of those submitters had said, “Yes, we want this to happen.” So please don’t come here—the National Party—tonight, and talk to this Government about process and ignoring the submissions of New Zealanders, because that is exactly what you have done, and that is exactly why we are standing here to get something done on this issue, when we could have had it done at least a year ago.

We heard concern from the Opposition about the future career of Sue Moroney. Well, I can tell you that we are grateful for the work she has done on this issue. She’s doing outstanding things and will continue to work for the working people of New Zealand. But I was confused and concerned that there was not similar concern about the future career prospects of Mr Paul Foster-Bell from the National Party. I can tell those members that I saw him in the Thorndon New World last week and he is doing very, very well indeed, and I’m a bit surprised they didn’t ask after him.

The confusion continued from the previous speaker, the National Party list MP Parmjeet Parmar from Bucklands Beach, who believes that the National Party has always supported paid parental leave. Well, fortunately, as I was preparing for this debate, I had a little look at the 2004 amendments to paid parental leave, which reminded me that the National Party, full of energy and full of vim and vigour, opposed the initial introduction of paid parental leave and then opposed the very first extension to 14 weeks of paid parental leave. Here is the Hon Katherine Rich speaking in that debate, and the Hon Judith Collins introduced Katherine Rich to this debate, of course—I imagine the Hon Judith Collins and the Rt Hon Bill English also contributed to this debate, and probably opposed it at the time as well. Here’s Katherine Rich: “I think that when discussing this bill [which increased paid parental leave from 12 to 14 week] we will … see [quite] a marked difference between Labour and National. One party thinks the future direction of this country comes from making the middle classes dependent on welfare. The other party thinks it is better to create a situation whereby people can be independent”.

There we see the very hard-right core of opposition to paid parental leave that still sits there within certain sectors of the National Party, and I think that’s at the heart of some of the confusion that we are seeing tonight. We heard it in Mr English’s speech earlier today, when any move by the Government to collectively secure the rights and the dignity of New Zealanders was sort of seen as the creeping red hand of communism. That is absolute rubbish. New Zealanders do not accept that. This Government will take whatever steps it needs to do—

David Seymour: No one’s telling it like it is.

MICHAEL WOOD: —I know that David Seymour thinks that as well—to make sure that Kiwi families have the very best start in life.

The confusion continued later on when we heard about fiscal responsibility. Well, let me tell you this: after this bill having been to the House twice and after it having been through select committee twice, it might be good for the National Party Opposition to know that this place costs $200 a minute to run and that this Government, which has heard from submitters and which has heard from New Zealanders, is ready to take action.

It is time for more paid parental leave for the parents of New Zealand. We’re not going to stand around, we’re not going to dilly-dally, and we’re not going to veto the bill like that party did. We’re going to act and we would love your support, but either way this bill is going to pass, and New Zealanders will be all the better for it. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Well, if this Government’s going to raise productivity, then they can’t afford to burn up $1,000 like that member, Michael Wood, just did. I rise on behalf of the ACT Party in opposition to this bill, and I suspect it may become a feature of this Parliament that the ACT Party stands alone in favour of the taxpayer, opposing the continual expansion of our entitlement culture and society in this country. The National Party, it’s been said, has a habit of campaigning from the right and governing from the left. Well, tonight, folks, you skipped a step, and if you don’t carry out the first step, you’re very unlikely to get to the second step.

I would like to draw members’ attention to this very helpful cover sheet on the regulatory impact statement recently implemented by the previous Government. It starts with a very simple question: what is the problem and proposed approach? Good problem definition is supposed to be the start of every piece of policy making, and, actually, the Prime Minister summed it up quite nicely in her Address in Reply speech that we will use Government to achieve things that we can’t achieve by ourselves. Well, that’s what good policy should do, but, folks, this ain’t it, because in this problem definition, it asks, “What problem or opportunity does the proposal seek to address? … This proposal implements the Government’s manifesto commitment”. That’s what it says. It doesn’t say that there’s a problem that we can’t solve alone that must be solved through the State. It says, “The Government campaigned on this and therefore we’re going to do it.” It is politics. There is no rational basis for this policy whatsoever because, if you think about it, there is no reason why people cannot anticipate the costs of having kids and cannot prepare for having kids and cannot provide for themselves when having kids.

Hon Member: There speaks a father in the making.

DAVID SEYMOUR: If it is true that they can’t—if it’s true that they can’t—then we’re going to have to do a hell of a lot more than extend paid parental leave by four weeks in 2020. I just take a brief aside to respond to the heckler at the back—I can’t tell who it is—who thinks it’s OK to attack me for being a guy, mocking me by saying, “You’re a father-in-waiting.” Well, actually, I’d like to have a debate on the facts, and the facts are that there is no reason for the Government to be doing this other than that they think it is politically popular. This is nothing to do with good policy; it’s to do with finding a group of people over here who have some money and giving it to a group of people over here because we think they will vote for us. Well, the job of this Parliament is to stand up for minorities, and one very important minority—common in the Epsom electorate, I might add—is the net taxpayer in this country, who deserves defence from the continual expansion of the entitlement culture that we see too often in New Zealand. They are not going to be getting it from the National Party tonight, and what a shame.

But if we go further through this regulatory impact statement—which, by the way, doesn’t tell us what the cost is. They won’t tell us what the cost is. The cost of taxpayer money is so cheap to the Labour Party—and, apparently, the National Party tonight—that they don’t even bother to tell us how much money this is going to cost. But the regulatory impact statement says other things. There is no assessment of broader impacts, for example, on employers—particularly small to medium sized enterprises (SMEs)—or on women’s employability. “It would be important to evaluate the monitoring data to assess these … impacts once the policy is implemented.”—in other words, we don’t know what the policy is going to do. We don’t know what it’s going to do for the SMEs, which two members got up and talked about so passionately in their maiden statements tonight, saying how important they are to prosperity all over New Zealand and in the regions. We don’t know what the fiscal impact is. We don’t know what the impact will be on employability, particularly for women. We don’t know what problem we’re trying to solve, but it’s politically popular—we’re going to take a whole of taxpayers’ money here, we’re going to put it over here, and, hopefully, get some votes in the process. What a sad shame to see the National Party joining in on this tonight.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): The Hon Michael Wood—Woodhouse, sorry.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Ha, ha! We got there. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and, firstly, as this is my first intervention in the 52nd Parliament, can I congratulate you and your fellow presiding officers on your election to that very important role.

Can I also congratulate the sponsor of this bill on stealing every single one of the jobs that I have previously had. He’s expressed disappointment, and I’m certainly disappointed not to continue to be the spokesman for those portfolios, but I can assure the Hon Iain Lees-Galloway that the Hon Amy Adams and the Hon Simon Bridges are very, very good friends of mine. I have a good memory, and I know where the bodies are buried.

But, look, I do find it incredibly disappointing that the first time I am on my feet in the 52nd Parliament, during the first piece of legislation that we are debating, it is a debate under urgency. I cannot tell you how much it feels like being in a parallel universe. As for the Hon Julie Anne Genter standing up and saying, “Well, there were times when we criticised the previous Government for their taking urgency.”—I challenge that member to name one time in nine years when this previous Government went into urgency when the Green Party didn’t have a complete fit over it.

I know it’s not proper to read speeches, but I am going to quote from Hansard. Tracey Martin actually reminded us to go and have a look at nine years of Hansard, and so I have. Here’s what I found: Jan Logie, in the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Amendment Bill, said, “the use of urgency by the Government has again denied people that ability to participate in this decision-making process and has thus removed the depth from this discussion in [this] House. We do not even have a regulatory impact statement”. That was two years ago. We don’t tonight.

James Shaw, in his 23rd speech under urgency on the Biosecurity Amendment Bill (No 2), said to the Government that “if you want to introduce urgency on matters that are, frankly, not urgent, then you can sit here and listen to it. You can sit here and we will spin this out.” Then Jan Logie—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! The member needs to come back to the bill.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: This is a bill under urgency, Mr Assistant Speaker, and I think, given the fact that I have been able to quote the plethora of speeches that have been given in this House about urgency, it behoves this House—

Hon Iain Lees-Galloway: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is well outside the Standing Orders for a member to directly challenge your ruling in the way that he just did.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Speaking to that point, Mr Assistant Speaker, I wasn’t challenging your ruling; I was continuing my speech. It is well within the standard scope of practice for a bill that is under urgency to have the issues of urgency debated on it.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Thank you to both members. The Hon Michael Woodhouse will resume his speech, but he will come back to the bill. Thank you.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. This is a bill that is being debated, incredibly unnecessarily, under urgency. It will, I understand, take effect on 1 July, which is nearly eight months away, and it is not that we are having urgency for the committee of the whole House or the third reading. The first and second readings—this is almost unprecedented. The first and second readings are being taken together to remove the opportunity for the public to have a say, and the reason for that, apparently, is because all this lazy Government has done is take a bill that was debated two years ago and changed the title, on the basis that 6,000 of Sue Moroney’s friends supported it, notwithstanding the fact that the estimated cost—and it was an estimate, because there were no robust numbers done—was about $240 million.

The Minister of Finance at the time ruled it out and said that he would exercise his veto, and he made that decision at first reading, which means that lots of people didn’t bother submitting to the select committee. It means the friends that David Seymour was talking about—those who may very well oppose this—did not take the opportunity to have their say.

Now I’m going to talk about the bill that did get passed into law last year, of which I was the sponsor. The Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill became the 2016 Act, and I just want to touch on a couple of the things that that bill did, to make a point about why it is very important that this goes to select committee. That bill increased the paid parental leave from 14 to 16 weeks, and then from 16 to 18 weeks over time. That was important.

But more importantly, in my view, was that it extended the range of people who would qualify for parental leave. Thanks to the advocacy of David Seymour, after a bit of a misunderstanding around Sue Moroney’s bill, there was an extension—a very important extension, I have to say—for premature babies, and even now they could get up to 28 weeks paid parental leave, depending on how premature the baby was. We reduced the time eligibility to six months out of 12—if you had been working, you would qualify. Non-traditional relationships like whāngai were covered, whereas previously they hadn’t been, and they weren’t in Sue Moroney’s bill. And, of course, there are annual adjustments now set in legislation, so we don’t have to keep going back and back and improving them. The point is, the thing about a select committee process is not to rubber-stamp the Government’s intentions. It is to make the bill better, and we are losing that opportunity.

Now, Sarah Dowie, my colleague and friend, gave a very good example of where this bill could be made better, and that is the keeping-in-touch provisions, which Labour opposed and Sue Moroney’s bill did not have. I am very pleased to note that in this bill they are going to keep them, but they are not going to extend them. So we are going from 14 to 16 to 18 to 22 and, eventually, 26 weeks, but with no extension to the keeping-in-touch provisions. Now, I don’t blame Labour for not thinking about it. It wasn’t their thing; it wasn’t in their consciousness. But this is the important part of a select committee process. This bill could be better. And yes, we did campaign on going to 22 weeks, but we also campaigned on very good options for parents to share the paid parental leave, which, again, are not in this bill, and they could be.

We heard from the Prime Minister that she wanted a fairer and kinder Parliament that would have robust debate and that would have good scrutiny. That’s what a good and strong Opposition is required to do—is obligated to do—and we will do it. But a collegial approach would have been to take this to select committee, even for a couple of weeks. We have done that very successfully on some of the legislation that we passed in the last Parliament and it was made better by the public submissions, and the fact that this isn’t going to happen is a crying shame. It’s a stain on the first bill that this Government introduces. And I, frankly, cannot believe the Green Party is sitting there chuckling away, thinking urgency is funny, when we can do better. We can make better legislation.

I heard an extraordinary comment from the Hon Tracey Martin. In justification for the ropey regulatory impact statement, she said—and I quote—“It’s not going to cost the taxpayer anything, because the taxpayer supports it.” Sorry, somebody has to pay for this. It left David Seymour and me scratching our heads, but that is literally what the Hon Tracey Martin said, and this document, frankly, is a fail. It is a definite D-. It’s a “Could do better. Did not achieve.”

The wording in this makes the public, the Parliament, and even the Government none the wiser about what the cost of this important change is. The Parliament is being asked to write a blank cheque, and if that is the idea that the Labour-led Government has about fiscal discipline, it’s going to be a very long and expensive three years.

This is a poor start on a bill that we support, but we should be doing so in a much more collegial way. We do the taxpayer and this Parliament a disservice when we cannot even give the public the dignity, the opportunity, of even a couple of weeks to actually kick this around and make it better. I’m really disappointed that we have to be so critical of the Government on this very important first start, and I certainly hope they can do better.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): Mr Assistant Speaker, can I begin my contribution this evening by congratulating you on your theft as my junior whip to your position as Assistant Speaker. I also want to congratulate my Christchurch colleague Poto Williams on achieving the same esteemed position as a presiding officer, the Hon Anne Tolley, and the Rt Hon Trevor Mallard. It’s a really interesting mix of skills, and I’m sure that you will work together well for the benefit of the debate and the contribution in this House. So I want to warmly congratulate you all.

I want to acknowledge the new Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety, the Hon Iain Lees-Galloway, and say what a fantastic piece of work to have in—is it 12 days since you’ve been a Minister? To have the first piece of legislation before the House on such an important topic is really, really worth commending.

I also want to acknowledge Sue Moroney, who has already had tribute paid to her. I had the privilege of chairing the Government Administration Committee, which twice looked at Sue Moroney’s bills. There were thousands of submissions. Two I can recall, out of thousands, were in opposition to this proposal, which is replicated in this legislation and is overwhelmingly supported as being the right thing to do for families, the right thing to do for better health outcomes, and the right thing to do for better education outcomes, and it was such an embarrassment that submitter after submitter told us how far behind the rest of the developed world New Zealand lagged. We like to compare ourselves with other countries and say, “We’re ahead of this.” In paid parental leave, we are so far behind.

So I just want to acknowledge the Minister and Sue Moroney and the submitters. That’s the reason why I am comfortable with this bill not going back to a select committee for the third time. We’ve had it at select committee twice. Let me tell you about the two submitters who opposed it. One said women shouldn’t have children and be in paid work. Anyone else agree with that—no? I can’t see a lot of support for that line of thinking in this House. Mr Seymour, you’re not on that side, are you? You think it’s all right for mums to have a paid job as well?

David Seymour: Why are you picking on me?

Hon RUTH DYSON: I was just asking—I was just asking. Unlikely opportunity that, you know—ha, ha! The other submitter said that the longer women were away from their paid job caring for their children, the less likely it was that they would be able to remember the work that they used to do.

Hon Members: Oh!

Hon RUTH DYSON: That’s right. I’m not even going to ask, because I know that Mr Seymour would think that was rubbish as well. I am really confident of that—really confident of that.

So let’s look at the fact that, overwhelmingly, thinking New Zealanders said through a select committee process that they supported this legislation on extending provisions to paid parental leave that were first introduced in 2002. That was first introduced by Labour; National opposed it. Then it was increased from 12 to 14 weeks by Labour; National opposed it. Then it was extended to cover self-employed people, by Labour; National opposed it. Sue Moroney’s first bill extending it—National opposed it. Then National increased paid parental leave from 14 to 18 weeks, on the advice of their pollsters—a highly principled decision.

The second time Sue Moroney attempted to get an incremental increase of paid parental leave to achieve 26 weeks for babies, Labour got the support of a majority of members of Parliament in this House. We had a majority to pass that legislation, so the Hon Bill English, as the finance Minister, put a financial veto over it. So I don’t want to hear the Hon Amy Adams or the Hon Michael Woodhouse or any other of those members crying crocodile tears over constitutional outrage, when a majority of members of Parliament supported a legislative procedure and a financial veto was issued over it. Then they come in here crying crocodile tears over constitutional outrage.

Mr—Madam Speaker. I am so not used to saying “Madam Speaker”, and it’s such a pleasure to be able to again. Madam Deputy Speaker, I just want to conclude by commending the 26 for Babies campaign. There have been huge numbers of people—individuals and organisations in our community—who have known this was the best next step that we could make in order to support newborn babies and their families. They’ve done an amazing amount of work. They helped us develop good policy. They challenged us and supported us. They made considered submissions to the select committee, and that’s why I remain confident that not only is this bill absolutely on the right track but I can support it going through under urgency. Thank you.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 115

New Zealand National 55; New Zealand Labour 45; New Zealand First 8; Green Party 7.

Noes 1

ACT New Zealand 1.

Bill read a first time.

Second Reading

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I move, That the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

Madam Deputy Speaker—and this is the first time I’ve had an opportunity to use that term in my nine years in the House—can I congratulate you and the other presiding offers on your election to your roles. I think your role as Deputy Speaker is a very strong signal that this Parliament has the ability to work constructively together around ideas and notions that are in the best interest of New Zealand, and I look forward to the togetherness, the constructive relationship, and the constructive approach that led to your election as Deputy Speaker when traversing other legislation, as, indeed, we have seen this evening.

As I set out in the first reading of the bill, this is fundamentally about giving working parents and caregivers sufficient time to care for and bond with their newborns and young children. There is ample evidence now that the attachment between baby and mum, or whoever the primary carer is, is one of the most important aspects of the development of a child. The opportunity to spend quality time together fostering that attachment and fostering that relationship is what we are supporting with this legislation this evening. The bill provides better assistance for working parents and caregivers, to ensure families with a newborn are supported, to give that child the best possible start in life. It is important for New Zealand society that parents and caregivers are allowed the time and space to develop close bonds with their children, reducing parental and family stress and thus supporting children’s health and development.

The fact that we are ready to progress this bill so early in the first hundred days of this Government is due in large part to the policy and legislative development undertaken by the Government Administration Committee, of which the Hon Ruth Dyson was the chair in the last term of Parliament, and its consideration of two separate members’ bills sponsored by Sue Moroney.

While this bill is being presented as a stand-alone piece of legislation today, I want to emphasise that for this Government extending paid parental leave is just one component of an overall families package, which includes boosting Working for Families for all those who currently receive it, and extending it to 30,000 more families; introducing a Best Start payment to help families with costs in a child’s early years; introducing a winter energy payment for people receiving superannuation or a main benefit; reinstating the independent earner tax credit; and implementing the accommodation supplement and accommodation benefit increases that were announced in Budget 2017. Through the introduction of the Best Start scheme and our increase in Working for Families payments, the Government will target money and support towards babies and toddlers and at low and middle income families, because we believe that every Kiwi child deserves the best start in life, regardless of their background.

I want to address some of the concerns that have been raised by members opposite. Some of them, I think, are serious questions. Some of them are a little bit more spurious. First, I want to address the fact that the National Party have now found themselves the “defenders of democracy” in New Zealand, expressing deep concern that this bill is not going to a select committee. Well, as we have traversed already, two previous bills that did exactly what this bill will do—extend paid parental leave incrementally to 26 weeks in total, over time—have already been to select committee. In fact, Sue Moroney’s member’s bill was in select committee for over 18 months, and received thousands of submissions and considerable scrutiny. In fact, the second time Ms Moroney’s bill was sent to select committee, many of the submitters simply resubmitted the same submission that they made for the first bill. Why on earth would we make them submit the same submission a third time?

Hon Ruth Dyson: We could just table the submissions.

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Clearly—actually, the Hon Ruth Dyson makes a good point: we could just table all those submissions. If the National Party is so desperate to know what people said at the last select committees, we could table those submissions.

But I want to acknowledge that, actually, in the first 100 days of a Government, urgency, is often used. When I first arrived in this House, the new National Government had just come to power, and they also used urgency to progress their 100-day agenda. In fact, the first piece of legislation that I spoke on in this House was the bill to introduce national standards—an entirely new approach, vehemently opposed by the education sector, vehemently opposed by anybody who knew anything about education, and yet the National Government at the time pushed it through under urgency with no select committee and no opportunity for public consideration.

But, members, I can go one better. Does anybody remember the last time that we had an increase to paid parental leave? It was done, surprisingly, by the National Government. It was an increase from 14 to 18 weeks. This was after Sue Moroney’s first bill, when their pollsters told them that they were on the wrong side of the debate. They increased it from 14 to 18 weeks. Does anybody recall when? Budget 2014—under urgency in the days after Budget 2014. The last time paid parental leave was extended in New Zealand was by the National Government under urgency—no select committee. So the crocodile tears from the so-called defenders of democracy over there do not wash with us, because this is the first 100 days of a Government, and, in fact, the very people standing and raising so much concern about extending paid parental leave under urgency did it themselves just a few years ago.

Hon Members: Don’t use the “h” word!

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: I can’t use the “h” word, and I shan’t.

However, I would like to point out that the one member who actually had something constructive to bring was Sarah Dowie. And I say to Sarah Dowie that we still have the committee of the whole House, and if that member brings a constructive amendment, we will consider it, because we do want to be a constructive Government that can work with all parties. So the offer is on the table to work with Sarah Dowie. If she brings an amendment that all parties of this Government can agree with, let’s have a look at it. Let’s see if we can strengthen this legislation using the processes that are available to us.

I also understand from the National Party that this has been their policy all along. Let’s just get it on the record, because none of their members have said it. Their policy at the last election—late in the campaign, at the last election—was to increase it to 22 weeks, not to 26. So let’s just have some honesty.

Members have raised the question of the fiscals. The total additional cost to the State over the next 4 years will be $325.2 million, according to the best estimates that the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) are able to give me, and at the appropriate moment I intend to seek leave to table those documents so that members opposite can consider those.

In summary, this Government believes that this bill, extending the duration of parental leave payments, will benefit New Zealand working families with newborn children, and those assuming care of a child under six. It will provide the financial certainty and confidence needed to take time off work to care for and bond with their children. This is true of the bill seen in isolation. However, it is even more true when it is seen as part of the overall families package, which will deliver a range of other supports to families with young children. This crucial investment in our children and families will produce a range of positive social and economic benefits for New Zealand as a whole, and I commend this bill to the House.

I seek leave to table a document prepared by MBIE and Treasury titled “Estimated cost of existing PPL scheme for July to June financial years”.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is there any objection to those papers being tabled? They may be tabled.

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

Hon AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn): Madam Deputy Speaker, thank you. I will take a call in this second reading—not very long, of course, after the first reading speech, but I have found it useful to listen to some of the contributions in the House. The challenge that we lay down on this side of the House to the Government was not one of the intention behind the bill or wanting to extend paid parental leave, because, as we have said all the way through, and as the Minister has just acknowledged, it has been the policy of the National Party to continue to extend paid parental leave as we did from 14 to 16 weeks, as we did from 16 to 18 weeks, as we indicated after this election that we would do, if we had the pleasure of being in Government, to 22 weeks, and as we indicated we would continue to do if circumstances allowed. So we’ve never had an issue with the extending of paid parental leave, but we have raised concerns about the fact that this bill could have been improved through a select committee process, and, in fact, I find myself agreeing with the now Leader of the House when he commented that “There are very few bills I have seen progress through this House that cannot be improved by a select committee process.”

Now, he was making that comment in respect of a bill that had a 24-hour necessity to come into force because of the operation of certain events, which I won’t waste this House’s time on at the moment but I can certainly tell anyone who is interested. This is a bill that takes effect on 1 July next year, so we’re not saying that there aren’t good reasons from time to time to use urgency. We aren’t saying that there aren’t situations where it’s warranted. We aren’t saying that it would change the opinion of this House or many submitters on the need and the desirability of extending paid parental leave. What we are saying is that it is quite arrogant to assume that when there is time available there aren’t useful suggestions that may have come out. The Minister himself has, quite rightly, just acknowledged that Sarah Dowie has raised a very sensible suggestion, which was in our policy; it’s not new. The Minister, if he was so willing to work with other parties, could have seen it himself and included it.

I also, in my first reading speech, mentioned another of the policies in our document, which is ensuring that the paid parental leave is more flexible, which, again, I’m sure that members of the public submitting could well have been interested to have a look at whether we could include. There is a missed opportunity there, because, as I say, we’re not saying that people are going to suddenly not support 26 weeks who previously have, but we are saying this bill could have been improved and the public could well have had things that they wanted to say about it. I don’t think it’s enough to say, “We don’t have to worry about that because we’ve had conversations about paid parental leave before, so we can just consider that ticked.” This is a different bill. This is not the same bill, and there are opportunities to improve it that have been missed, and there’s no good reason. And it’s all very well for the Government to say, “Well, you used urgency too.” The point we’re making is that it’s amazing how quickly the principles that were espoused by Labour in Opposition have suddenly become mere hindrances.

I raised in the first contribution to this debate the point that there is very little information in front of this House. Now, I take the responsibility of being a lawmaker in this House seriously. We’re in new roles now as Opposition, and part of that role of Opposition, as those members well know, is for us to properly scrutinise legislation and ensure that the debate in this House is well informed and those watching on television or reading Hansard or looking back in time have seen the issues teased out and given consideration. When the critical information like the fiscal cost of a policy is not included, I’m sorry, but that doesn’t give the kind of respect to this House that it should be afforded.

Now, the Minister, Iain Lees-Galloway, in his second reading contribution, just sort of said—with a hint of pique that he was being asked to explain it—that the fiscal cost was over $300 million - odd. This is not a small project; it is a $300 million figure. Now, clearly he had that number, and yet in the bill, in the information, in the first reading, none of that has been provided. He mentioned it in passing because we had the audacity to say, “Where is the number?” He had it, he didn’t previously give it to the House, and now he has and now he’s tabled it. I can’t see any reason why that information couldn’t have been before the House, as it should have been, with the bill, with the bill information to move forward.

I just want to reflect on the fact there’s been a lot of discussion in the House tonight, and I think a lot of it absolutely correct, around the importance of supporting parents—not just young mothers, but parents—with the newborns in those early months of their life. And it is an incredibly hard time. I don’t think there was a period that was more stressful on my relationships with my husband and our family as there was when we were trying to understand what the heck you did with this beautiful, gorgeous, completely bewildering little package that you got sent home from the hospital with, which for some reason slept beautifully in hospital and as soon as you came home never wanted to sleep—but maybe that was just my children. So that time at home is incredibly critical, but actually the issue is not as simple as one of how many weeks. Now, this bill is about how many weeks. We are supporting that; that is fine. But the point we are making is that there are other critical elements to how we support families in that period of time.

Actually, I know that Labour love to try to take the moral ownership of this issue as if they’re the only ones who’ve ever cared about it and done anything about it, and somehow the fact that we used a financial veto means that they are completely exempt from having to worry about process on their side. Well, actually, a financial veto is good process, and the reason it was used was because the fiscals were so significant. At least we were up front about what they were, right from the outset.

But what this National Party has done when it has had the opportunity to be in power is not just increase—not once but twice—the time of paid parental leave that is available to New Zealand parents but also significantly change the workability of paid parental leave. That is the point that I’ve been making on this bill in terms of lost opportunities and that Ms Dowie has been making and that others have been making. The National Party, when we were in Government, for example, significantly extended the eligibility of paid parental leave, so that it wasn’t just mothers and fathers who were eligible but grandparents and Home for Life carers, whāngai parents, and a number of others who were equally eligible. Labour just likes to rewrite history and ignore all of that, because they like to pretend that only they care. It was also National, by the way, who made paid parental leave available to seasonal workers, contract workers, and employees who have more than one employer. So there is a huge amount that this side has done to support New Zealand families and New Zealand women, and, as well, it is not, of course, just paid parental leave: we’ve extended and increased the amount of the parental tax credit—again, to help families in those early months to have more options about what they do.

While I am happy to stand here and support the bill, and we’ve made that clear and I made that clear in the first reading of this bill, I’m not going to be told that therefore we have no ability to comment on the fact that there are other things we can do. This is a party that has been equally active and supportive of New Zealand women all the way through, and I don’t accept the argument that somehow, because quite rightly, quite legitimately, and using absolutely correct process a financial veto was used when the conditions meant that that was required, Labour gets a pass from having to follow any sort of process at any time. All I am saying is live by your own words that many of you, including your own Leader of the House and, of course, the Green Party as well, used over the last nine years on many, many occasions.

This is the first piece of legislation that this new Government has brought to the House, and it is, on one hand, encouraging that it is a piece of legislation that finds such widespread, although not quite universal, support in the House. But it is very worrying, I think, that on this first piece of legislation they have simply—and dismissively, I think—not bothered to include the full information that was available to them. We know they referred to it in their Cabinet paper, but they have indicated it to the House, in passing form, only now. They have not bothered to see if there are ways to improve the bill—as they repeatedly told us was always the case with any legislation—when there is no particular reason to rush. If that is the way that this new Government is going to approach this House—with callous disregard for process when it suits them and incredible flexibility of their own principles when the situation supports that or suits them—then I think that’s worrying.

On the merits of the bill, it is one that we support, as we have always supported finding more ways to help Kiwi families be strong.

But let me just end on this one point. The reason that any Government, National- or Labour-led, is able to do things like this is that we have a strong and growing economy and we have healthy surpluses, and that has been a hard-fought work product of nine years of the last Government. We have left the new Government with the ability and the space to make these sorts of changes, and I just hope that they appreciate and understand that the spending part is easy; the earning part comes harder.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): I just want to thank the National Party for finally coming around and supporting us on this very important issue. The Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill shows the level of commitment this Government has to families and children. This is one of our Government’s top priorities, which is why it is the first bill to be read in this 52nd Parliament. This Government wants to ensure that families and their children are well supported and given more opportunities, and we know that this is widely supported by working New Zealanders. We know this because it has gone through the select committee process twice.

I would like to say that it is very disappointing and a little bit embarrassing to watch the National Party members stand up and feign indignation over the fact that we’re putting this through in urgency, given I think most New Zealanders out there would think actually it has gone through the select committee twice; it doesn’t need to go again. It is widely supported. It has had hundreds, if not thousands, of submissions put in on it. The public have seen the National Government put other much less important pieces of legislation through via urgency when they didn’t need to, so it’s embarrassing that they’re standing up and feigning the level of indignation that they are. We’ve had members on the other side of the House accuse us of being lazy for putting this through through an urgency process. That’s not lazy; that’s wanting to get decent legislation through that’s going to benefit New Zealand families and their children as quickly as we possibly can so we can get on to the next quality piece of legislation that will, again, benefit New Zealand families and children.

We had David Seymour saying earlier that we are only doing this to be popular. That was a very silly statement. This does happen to be widely supported by New Zealand families, but is not about popularity; it is about making sure that families in New Zealand are better off. This is not a random number that we picked out in terms of 26 weeks. Anyone that has been part of the process to date in the House, anyone that’s read on this issue, knows that the World Health Organization recommends that women breastfeed exclusively for that first six months, and anyone that has breastfed and tried to work—and I know there are people in this House that are in this position—knows how difficult it is to express and try and get the level of milk required to be able to continue breastfeeding while you’re absent from that child. So actually providing women—even though it doesn’t just have to be the mother—with the opportunity to be able to have that six months to exclusively breastfeed, and supporting them financially to be able to do that, has to be seen as a good thing, surely. So it is good that everyone—apart from David Seymour and the ACT Party—is supporting this in the House.

Hon Tracey Martin: David Seymour is the whole of the ACT Party. Let’s get fair.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Yes, David Seymour is the ACT Party; that’s right. It would be nice if there was some genuine positivity from the Opposition when they stood up in support of this bill. I actually think there are a few members that are probably genuinely happy about this. I think there were members in the last Government who really struggled with having to vote against it and who really struggled with the fact that their Prime Minister made the decision to veto the bill. I think that was the first time that was ever used. So I think there are probably some relieved members in the Opposition, but for those that are standing up to speak on the Bill, just a reminder to the Opposition: you are supporting it. It is a good bill, it’s going to do good things, and New Zealanders support it, so please stand up and speak positively about this legislation. And it would be nice if the Opposition could stop feigning indignation over it. Thank you very much.

Hon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and congratulations on your new role. I know you will be a wonderful Deputy Speaker. Congratulations also to the new Government of the day and to other officers of Parliament. I will make a positive contribution, and if I might indulge in a few memories of my own time with young children, I remember very well my sister and I sitting together on a couch on about a Wednesday afternoon, a babe in arms each, a toddler on the floor each, with a mountain of cloth nappies surrounding us in various stages of disarray. I will never forget those happy memories. Sometimes I feel it was almost a relief to go back to work.

But we do support paid parental leave; we do support this bill. I do have concerns, however, about the process that this new Government has embarked upon. The issues have been well traversed. I just want to say what a missed opportunity we have had in not having a select committee process. I’m mindful of the contribution and press release put out by Kirk Hope within the last couple of days on behalf of Retail NZ, where he expresses his reservations around the impacts of this bill, of this piece of law to be, on small business.

Now, small business comprises 29 percent of the workforce of New Zealand, so there are a significant number of New Zealanders who will be impacted—positively, yes; we all agree on that—but there will be an impact for those businesses that I don’t believe has been well enough traversed in this Parliament, and I simply don’t know whether Kirk Hope or small-business interests were represented at the select committee occasions previously. But the very fact that Kirk Hope has chosen to put out a release voicing his concerns shows that New Zealand has not gone along with this legislation completely, and there should have been an opportunity for them to say so. That is how legislation is crafted well in New Zealand.

So I just want to make a brief, final point on this. The Minister, the Hon Iain Lees-Galloway, made an offer to Sarah Dowie to bring an amendment to the committee of the whole House; he indicated that it would be considered. Well, why couldn’t it have gone to a select committee hearing? I know select committees very well. There could have been a targeted consultation, and I would venture to say that Sarah Dowie’s excellent amendment she is going to bring forward around keeping in touch would have meant we would have had an even better outcome—not for the Government but for the people of New Zealand, and that is what good legislation, good government process, is all about.

Hon TRACEY MARTIN (NZ First): Kia ora. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I just rise to take a short contribution on this bill on behalf of New Zealand First.

Can I acknowledge the last speaker, Jacqui Dean, and her contribution with regard to Business New Zealand, I believe, and Kirk Hope and a press release that was put out today. I would suggest—I know that the National Party is new to Opposition, but there is actually a portal that you can go through where you can have a look at all the submissions that were placed on the record the last two times that this bill went to select committee. So I encourage the members, and I particularly encourage the new members—because, obviously, some of the Ministers perhaps need to go back and have a look there. Now that they don’t have staff to go and find things for them, perhaps they would like to, and have a look at some of the thousands upon thousands of submissions that were actually put through, as they bemoan the fact that this Government will take action and that this Government refuses to waste taxpayers’ money by, for a third time, going back through to a select committee process on a bill that had 99.6 percent support from the submitters that had the time and had made the effort to actually submit on it. But if the members would like to go and find those submissions, I’m sure they’ll be able to find whether Business New Zealand—I don’t think it was under the leadership of Mr Hope—put in a submission.

The other thing too that I would make a comment on is that it’s lovely that the Opposition has offered to help the Government improve legislation by providing information for a possible Supplementary Order Paper at the committee of the whole House. Can I ask—it would be very interesting if the Opposition would like the next member that stands to explain, if Ms Dowie’s contribution is going to be so brilliant and improve this legislation so much—why did they not include it in June 2016 when they put through their parental leave legislation? Was Ms Dowie not able to contribute at that time? Was there some sort of barrier to Ms Dowie actually putting through those opportunities, because that is the last time those Opposition members stood up—[Interruption] Whoa, whoa! That got a nerve—that got a nerve. There we go.

And if that upset them, let’s start with this—but I was told to be quick, so I’ll go for just one more. We’ve heard a lot from the Opposition members that they have no idea what this costs, that there is no concept of finances, etc., etc. It has been through select committee twice and had other people—had finances laid out in front of them. Perhaps they weren’t looking, perhaps they weren’t reading, perhaps they weren’t listening—it wouldn’t be the first time. But Mr Hudson, Mr Brett Hudson—I went and did my homework. This is everything the National Party ever said on this, the last two times it came through the House—right? So Mr Hudson said, “I would encourage them, and New Zealanders, to go to the Parliament website and read the advice that committee members received from the ministry,” with regard to the finances. So please, please, can we put some sort of sense into this debate? If one’s going to be a strong Opposition, then you really need to do the research before you stand up, and not have to get the Government to explain how this works.

I commend the bill to the House. New Zealand First will support the bill.

SARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill): Well, that speaker, Tracey Martin, needs to go and do some more research, because if she had read the material that she has in her hot little hand, then she would understand that every time that I’ve stood up I have been supportive of paid parental leave, and that I was a member of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, which heard the National Government’s amendment on paid parental leave, and of the Government Administration Committee, which heard Sue Moroney’s bills.

I am supportive of this bill, but I do have concerns with the process. I accept the Hon Iain Lees-Galloway’s invitation to work with him, because I am genuinely concerned about keeping-in-touch hours. It is a genuine concern that if we are going to extend paid parental leave, the men and women who take that up should not feel isolated. They shouldn’t just be sitting at home. They should be able to re-engage with their workplace to keep in touch with their employment, with their workmates, and enjoy that camaraderie while they have their children.

There are other aspects of having children that are not so pleasurable—obviously, things like post-natal depression. Obviously, things can go wrong in the household when you’re under stress, so that connection with community is extremely important, and that is the nuance that this Government brought in under paid parental leave, referred to as keeping-in-touch hours. That needs to be explored, and it would have been explored—I am sorry to say—if this had gone to a select committee process, but we do not have that opportunity. We have been denied that opportunity, so we will need to change tack and look at a Supplementary Order Paper.

We accept that challenge because we, as the new Opposition on this side of the House, will take our duties seriously, and we will make sure that legislation that is passed is the best that it can possibly be for the people of New Zealand. Paid parental leave is an extremely important part of our democracy and entitlements here in New Zealand because we want our children to have the best start in life and we want our parents to be supported. Keeping-in-touch hours combat isolation. Keeping-in-touch hours are a really important, nuanced part of paid parental leave, and so we will take up that challenge. We support the spirit of the bill, but we need to nuance it further.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Minister for Women): Tēnā koe, Madam Deputy Speaker, and congratulations on your election. It is wonderful to be able to say “Madam Deputy Speaker” for the first time during my time in Parliament.

As this is the second reading, I am just going to take a very short call. I’m not going to re-traverse the issues that have been well traversed throughout the first reading of the bill and, indeed, in the second reading around the use of urgency, but I will say that I’m very touched by the Opposition’s concerns about the Green Party’s principles. You know, it’s wonderful—it’s wonderful—and I invite the Opposition to embrace the principles and protection of democracy, not only when the National Party is in Opposition but when they are in Government. That would have been wonderful, given that urgency was used literally dozens and dozens of times, including the last time there was an extension to paid parental leave by the National Government. But the Green Party has explained why we’re not concerned about the use of urgency this time, because this bill has already been through select committee and has had thousands and thousands of submissions.

But what’s really important, and what I want to emphasise here, is that what this signals is the priorities of this progressive Labour - Green - New Zealand First Government. Most people in New Zealand share the values of compassion and generosity, and that is indeed what our society should be based on. When we invest in our people, that is how we become a successful and flourishing society, and we cannot have a successful and flourishing economy if we aren’t investing in our people, because that is all the economy is. It is people and natural resources—people using their time and effort.

So, although the ACT Party is not supporting this bill, I thought it might be worth mentioning that this should not be seen as a cost, and I think that’s where that side of the House gets it wrong. It’s not a cost to invest in the first months of a baby’s life. It is not a cost to support families to be able to participate in that, because those children grow up to become healthy, happy, constructive members of our society who are contributing in many ways. So the value to all of us is perceived many times over when we have policies that support families. I think we’re going to see many, many more great policies from this progressive Government that support families, and I look forward to hearing the constructive contribution from the new National Party Opposition.

MELISSA LEE (National): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a great opportunity for me to take a call. I’d like to congratulate you on your election and that of your fellow presiding officers.

This is the first time that I am actually getting up to speak on the bill, and I’d like to say what a fantastic thing it was for me to speak in my own mother tongue yesterday when I was being sworn in, and to notice that there were so many other languages that were actually present in this House. I think it goes to show what a diverse place this has become, and I’d like to welcome all of the new members who were elected in the 2017 election. Obviously, I’ve managed to learn all of my side’s new members’ names, and over the next couple of weeks I will get to learn all of your names as well.

I’d like to say as the mother of a teenager—as my learned colleague to my right, Jacqui Dean, has actually sort of reflected on her own experience as a mother—that it was rather different back then. You know, my son is now 19, and back 19 years ago when I gave birth I was running a television production company and I did not actually have a lot of paid parental leave. I remember going home from the hospital a couple of hours after giving birth and trying to figure out what to do with this bundle and not actually knowing how to deal with a baby, as a brand new mother. As one of my friends who had experience with a few more babies said, “If you manage to get up in the morning and do one thing in your day that is not baby-related, you’re doing really well.”

So to the mothers and the new fathers who are on our side—Tim van de Molen and Chris Penk; I have met their babies this week as well—and to the two mothers on the other side who have brought their babies in, congratulations. I know what a fantastic job it is, and what a great thing you are doing: being responsible and working, as well as being a mother and in this House, changing history, being able to bring the child into this House and able to be breastfeeding as well. I think it’s actually a great move.

I’d like to just point out a study that was done by the Asia New Zealand Foundation—this piece of paper—that talks about 18 percent of under-fives in New Zealand being of Asian heritage, and it affects New Zealanders. This bill actually affects New Zealanders of Asian heritage as well. National has increased paid parental leave from 14 weeks to 18 weeks, and to 22 weeks, which we actually supported, and for that we are now supporting 26 weeks in this House. I commend the bill to the House.

MICHAEL WOOD (Labour—Mt Roskill): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a pleasure to rise and to move—[Member moves seat]—with some dynamism into this debate. I rise again, very happily, to speak for the second time this evening in favour of the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill. I think this is going to be a very happy night because by the end of this evening’s proceedings we’re going to substantially advance towards the biggest improvement in paid parental leave provisions for the working families of New Zealand since the introduction of paid parental leave by the fifth Labour Government back in 2002, with strong support in the House.

In my reasonably brief call I just want to touch on a couple of matters that have come up in the course of the debate. The first one relates to the information to hand around the fiscal cost of this policy. This is really important, actually, because, of course, we would have had paid parental leave of 26 weeks in place for working families in New Zealand, were it not for the financial veto that was issued last year. That financial veto was issued on the basis of a claim that Labour’s policy would cost $280 million per year to implement. That was a claim that has been repeated in debate by members of the Opposition tonight. That, of course, was an entirely incorrect claim—an entirely incorrect claim—that none other than the Rt Hon Bill English had to recant on several months ago.

He claimed it would cost $280 million. When inquiries were put in around this by Sue Moroney and by the media, he replied, and I quote from a Radio New Zealand press piece at the time, that he did so because he “confused the $280 million over four years, with $280 million a year.” So he issued that veto, which meant that we didn’t get paid parental leave of 26 weeks in place, on the basis of overestimating the cost by 400 percent. Now, it’s no particular surprise because, of course, he sits next to Mr Joyce, and we know that he’s had problems with the numbers this year, so possibly that’s the source of the confusion there. But I just want to correct that and put that on the record—that the policy does not cost $280 million a year, as was erroneously claimed by Bill English when he issued the veto.

The other thing I just wanted to touch on, in the course of my brief comments, was to refer back to some of the submissions that we received in the previous two submission processes. You know, this has become a bit of a theme over the course of the debate that we have had tonight. I do just want to reiterate that there has been a wide-ranging and high-quality submission process twice—twice—in respect of exactly the content of this bill and what it will seek to achieve. Submissions were received from thousands of ordinary New Zealanders, working mums and dads, and families who supported this policy. And 99.4 percent of them supported it, which, by my maths, will also have 99.4 percent of MPs in the House tonight voting in favour of this bill, so it’s perfectly proportional in that sense.

We received submissions from groups like the New Zealand Breastfeeding Alliance. They noted that, at the moment, there is a huge drop-off in breastfeeding rates after three months—coincidentally about the same level at which we currently have a paid parental leave provision. And it’s very clear to anyone who looks at this that if we provide those people, those families, those mothers with a bit more time, it is going to give them greater facility to be able to continue breastfeeding their babies.

I want to make a really important point in this regard. There is an inequity at the moment that this bill addresses. There is an inequity in which we do have some workplaces in which it is possible for mums to have their bubs with them to be able to breastfeed them and care for them. Many mothers have that in enlightened workplaces, and it’s wonderful to see that Parliament is opening up to that reality. This bill means it doesn’t matter which workplace you’re in. Any mum will have that ability to be able to bond, to be able to connect with their newborn baby.

There is strong support for this bill from across the House. I commend it to members and look forward to the vote. Thank you very much.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: That was a split call between Labour and National, and National have indicated they don’t wish to take their call, so I call the Hon Clare Curran.

Hon CLARE CURRAN (Minister of Broadcasting, Communications and Digital Media): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Very quickly, congratulations—huge congratulations—

Barbara Kuriger: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The split call was the last one. That was Jo Hayes’. We actually do have call number 11.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: We are actually on call number nine at the moment.

Hon CLARE CURRAN: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Firstly, a huge congratulations to you as “Madam Deputy Speaker”—an enormous step forward in New Zealand—for that appointment. Sue Moroney, if you are listening, huge congratulations to you and also to Iain Lees-Galloway on the conclusion of this sorry saga in this House. Every argument that this Opposition, the former Government, has used against this bill tonight has been comprehensively shot down by this new Government. I am enormously proud to support this bill. Its time has come. Women, work, parents, and children are what this Government is supporting. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and, look, having had a decent old rant only an hour ago, I don’t intend to take the House’s time too long, except to thank the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety for his generous offer—I think he extended it to Sarah Dowie—on an amendment in the committee of the whole House, and I think the Minister and the Government can expect that the Opposition will take up that offer in the spirit in which it was offered, and I appreciate that.

It will also, I expect, offer some other suggestions that were based around the flexibility provisions that we campaigned on—in particular, that both parents could take paid parental leave at the same time, particularly now that we are going out to 26 weeks—and I look forward to that being carefully considered in the committee of the whole House.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): This is actually a fantastic way to end the first proper sitting day of the House, by getting such widespread agreement and support on the extension of paid parental leave. So the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill is going to get as much support through this House as it did through the two submission processes that Sue Moroney led it through. I think that’s a really excellent thing for parents, it’s an excellent thing for babies, and it’s an excellent thing for this Parliament to be doing.

I want to repeat the congratulations I made earlier to the Minister Iain Lees-Galloway—great start to your ministerial career, and don’t slow down. There’s lots to do, and you should keep doing it.

And, also, I want to give a tribute to my former colleague Sue Moroney, who introduced this legislation twice before in the Parliament. On the first attempt, despite being overwhelmingly supported by submissions, the National Party voted against it and it was defeated. The second time, with the support of the majority of members of Parliament, the National Party issued a financial veto. I’m glad they’ve come to their senses and will support it tonight. I look forward to its third reading soon.

Bill read a second time.

Business of the House

Business of the House

JAMI-LEE ROSS (Senior Whip—National): In light of a decision taken by the House under Government notice of motion—

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sorry, is this a point of order?

JAMI-LEE ROSS: Yes, it is. In light of the decision taken under Government notice of motion No. 4 today to reinstate business, I move that the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary Bill be now read a second time.

This is a good opportunity for the House to be debating, while we still have time left, a motion that is able to be debated, because there is time left and nothing left on the Order Paper. This is a good opportunity for the House to debate a bill that is important for the environment—

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member will sit, please. Is this a point of order? Points of order should be short, sharp, and to the point. They are not opportunities to speak. I think the member has forgotten that we are actually in urgency. The motion has not been lifted, and, therefore, we cannot debate anything other than what was contained in the urgency motion.

JAMI-LEE ROSS (Senior Whip): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The business under urgency has been completed. There is time left on the clock until 10 o’clock. The business has been reinstated. I have the ability to move this motion, and I have so moved it. So, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will continue my call—

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: No. No, I’ll speak to your point of order. The business has not been completed, and the only business that can be debated under the urgency motion is the business before the House, which does not include any other bill. I have ruled. Do you have a further point of order?

Jami-Lee Ross: Yes, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I hope it’s a different point of order.

JAMI-LEE ROSS (Senior Whip—National): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker, my point of order is to seek clarification, because the business has been completed because the Clerk read out the second reading; therefore, the business under urgency has been completed.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Unfortunately for you, the urgency has not been lifted. We are still in urgency, all right? I will just take some advice. I’m new to this. [Pause in proceedings] Having taken advice, the member can seek leave, because the urgency was for the second reading; the second reading has been completed. So the member can seek leave—and I’m happy to put the leave—but the member cannot launch forth into the debate. So are you seeking leave to move that that bill be debated?

JAMI-LEE ROSS (Senior Whip—National): Madam Deputy Speaker, there is time on the clock—

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: No. Answer my question, please. Are you seeking leave? If you are, then do so. Otherwise, sit down, and the business of the House will continue.

JAMI-LEE ROSS (Senior Whip—National): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. My submission to you is that there is time on the clock. There was nothing—

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have actually ruled that you are free to seek leave, because there is no other business on the table for this House at the conclusion of the urgency. So if you wish, you may seek leave to debate the bill that you are proposing. I am offering you the opportunity to do that. I’ll put the leave, and it’s in the House’s hands.

JAMI-LEE ROSS (Senior Whip—National): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Are you refusing to seek leave?

JAMI-LEE ROSS (Senior Whip—National): No, I’m seeking your clarification. My submission to you is that I do not have to seek leave, because there was time on the clock and no business available. I was, therefore, able to move a motion, and I have moved that motion. I now wish to speak—

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am now ruling that you do have to seek leave. There is no business on the Table, and you may seek leave for that bill to be debated.

JAMI-LEE ROSS (Senior Whip—National): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: If this is the same point of order—

Jami-Lee Ross: I’ll seek leave—I’ll seek leave.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: You will seek leave?

JAMI-LEE ROSS (Senior Whip—National): I seek leave for the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary Bill to be now debated. I wish to move the second reading.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I’ll put that leave to debate that bill. All those in favour say aye—[Interruption] There is objection. Is there objection? The Government has indicated it does not wish to continue with urgency, and, therefore, the debate is set down for resumption next sitting day.

The House adjourned at 9.57 p.m.